 |
|
|
|
Friday, July 20, 2012 - 01:36 pm  First, this latest madness in Aurora, Denver is unbelievable and assaults all my sensibilities. Grief, I feel sorry for any involved. The point of my post here is to see what you people, Americans in particular, are thinking about the right to bear arms. Colorado is still reeling in the aftershocks of Columbine and now this. It seems this right to defend yourselves has turned against you. Where one person, just one, can kill so many because s/he has the hardware has got to be wrong. If he was limited to knives or a baseball bat then he would have been lucky to get just one victim. I understand the conflicting arguement of defending your family and home, where its you against the attacker, and people say the baddies will always get guns so a free American should be able to fight back, but, these mass slayings outweigh this in my mind. Your police have guns and they aren't slow to use them, I know. Crime with guns is severely punished by the courts, its like the difference of 5 years and life. There must be some whose opinions are being swayed toward greater gun control by each and every of these all too frequent events. How many more need happen before the balance of opinion changes as you must realise it eventually will. Why wait, lets rein it in now.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 02:29 pm Good luck on that one Crafty. I see what your saying, but then I'm from where your at where fear will not get the better of us to the point where the risks not to, out way the consequences to do. Hence why we don't carry guns, knives or baseball bats. Do you think it is fear that motivates someone to carry a gun? Or do you think its the feeling of power? Maybe both? Either way......once its apart of you, finding a reason to get rid of it can be near on impossible to come across. That is until you are directly effected by it (Which will ultimately happen as thats part of the consequence with which is sacrificed to carry the gun in the first place) but by then it will be too late. Power disguised as Fear is a difficult thing to defeat.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 02:44 pm Sorry Crafty I don't agree. Had I been there trying to watch a movie he'd have either gotten one more, or maybe a lot less. Either way, I don't believe you will stop people from constructing weapons designed to "take out" large numbers of people if that is their intent. Besides, IMHO someone who knows how to use a knife, in a crowd like that, could have killed a lot more although there wouldn't have been many wounded. I will have to admit everyone that was there must feel the same as you since Colorado does have a concealed carry law. Simple fact is the Police can not get there in time to stop something like this. If nobody on site is prepared to do it then it's simply going to escalate.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 03:08 pm You left out one reason nix, a feeling of responsibility for my own protection, those I love and many around me. 99.9% of the time I am never farther than arms reach from a firearm. In fact the only time that is not the case is when I work in areas where carrying a firearm is not allowed by law (courthouses, schools etc.). As a civilian have I ever "needed" it?. No not yet however, on many occasions although they didn't know why, I did have the option of staying around to call the police and may have prevented something serious. I already know the answer to the biggest question, and that is given the chance can I, and will I if necessary use it. The only time "fear" enters the equation is the thought that one day I just might have to actually use it.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 03:47 pm the right to bear arms isn't entirely based on self-defense, is it? we may not have an emediate need for the second amendment that way, but perhaps that concept its self keeps it that way? i mean the right to bear arms, and voting are pretty much the same thought, we have the right to change our government, and in over 200 hundred years we haven't had the need to use force, because voting has, over all, worked. but root strength of the people must not be infringed...
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 04:04 pm Nix, carrying guns here as you know is generally limited to a youth culture of gang members who are pressured to be 'one of the lads' and this I feel sure causes a lot of fear among them. They deal with this with a large helping of bravado. I'm sort of talking about a different scenario here, where most anyone can get their hands on fearsome weapons (not modified WWII replicas) and just 'flip', for the want of a better word. And yankee, this distinction applies to what you understand of Nixs post and mine too. If you were to be a person trained or experienced to deal with a situation like this then I would be so glad you were there, and I would be backing you up immediately, unfortunatly if you were a have-a-go-hero the chances are you would now be lying in chalk. This cinema was full of regular Joes going to see a film, not a briefing of special forces. You dont need guns to protect yourselves at home when guns arent generally available. Of course this is a generalisation, but it is the way it is here and seems to work for us. I'm wondering if people are beginning to think that maybe it is time to stop this now. Mass murder - coming soon to a shopping mall near you.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 04:41 pm If it is a crime to own a gun, then only criminals own guns.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:10 pm It really doesn't matter who you are or what your training may be although I highly recommend anyone that chooses to carry a firearm to get more than the mandatory training. Simple fact is one on one if you are unaware of your surroundings you'll probably be laying in "chalk". Someone that knows how to use a knife and is prepared to use it can move 25 feet and have you bleeding to death in just under 4 seconds. Personally I want the ability to use what time I may have left to try and prevent it from happening to someone else. Protecting yourself is a mindset and a firearm is only one tool and in many cases not even necessary one. In fact in a situation like I mentioned above, if you don't kill your attacker then not only are you dead but they've got your firearm to use next time. It's not about being a "hero" it's about protecting yourself and those you care about. And quite frankly without options the circle of people you care enough about and are willing to try and protect becomes very limited. If you think the police can protect you from all the evil in this world 100% of the time then you are sadly mistaken. Most of the time it's going to be a "regular Joe" in a situation like that if anything is done about it. While many are "capable", many for various reasons will not be. Carrying a firearm and especially using it, puts you directly responsible for your actions. If you don't want the responsibility of carrying one don't. However don't ever abdicate the defense of yourself or loved ones to someone else it's not going to work.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:10 pm Im sure you all heard of the 17 people in Tuscaloosa Alabama earlier this week at the Coppertop bar. This is my hometown, and i been in that bar. No one was killed but it just happened then this happens. Last year a ef5 hit and killed many people right here in my city. Alot of things have been happening here. The right to bear arms is tricky. For one, i agree with Crafty but i believe in our rights to bear arms. I come from a place where crime is high. Everyone has guns. And they use them. Just a month ago a friend of mine was killed by a stray bullet that was meant for a 19 year old Crip in the apartment next to him. The shooter got the apartments mixed up. Sometimes you need a gun to defend yourself. I carry a gun with me everytime i leave the house. The thing is i would never kill anyone unless im defending myself. Not that i havent thought about it, with all the child rapist out here that also populates my city but i guess the point im tryna make is, its not the guns that kill people but people that kill people. If now with a gun, then something else. With the internet anyone crazy enough could easily make bombs and other weapons. I agree that if there were no guns then there may be less of these kinda crimes but if someones crazy enough to kill people like that, then they would be crazy enough to built nail bombs and other things. We have guns so another country who may want to invade us may think twice when they realize that every citizen behind every door may be waiting locked and loaded.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:12 pm And honestly, if the goveremnt ever tried taking away our guns....well lets just say here in the south there would probally be another civil war. People love their guns down here.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:47 pm Letting people own guns is absolutely ridiculous! America is a backward country!
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:51 pm Letting people own guns is absolutely ridiculous! America is an uncivilized empire!
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:54 pm Certain people need shooting... Stop messing up my thread with inanities. Do you have anything constructive to say?
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 06:55 pm I have many weapons.....hehehe
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 07:12 pm Pity you wouldnt have a clue how to use them. Just like most American gun owners who have a gun in the drawer that hasnt been fired for 10 years.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 07:27 pm I enjoy shooting at the ranges and outside city limits. Its a release of tension. If the country never gave us the rights i would agree to not give us the rights. but now that theres guns everywhere. its too easy for criminals and killers to get them so therefore i beleive regular sane people need them for protection agaisnt them. but if i was king of a real country, i would only give guns to the military. Taking away the rights to own them now would just take guns from the people who legally own them, leaving us no protection from the ones who carry and use them for evil. I mean its just like this Geaorge Zimmerman thing thats sweeping the country. Rather he was attacked or not, he could had just got his ass beat, and the boy would be alive now. but since he had a gun he took a young mans life. If there were no guns, that wouldnt had happened. And that was by someone who legally owned a gun, and almost got away with it
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 07:51 pm I don't doubt you are right about that Crafty however it's probably a regional thing and has to do with opportunity and a place to shoot. I don't personally know anyone that owns a firearm that doesn't shoot it at least once a year. I am however sure they are out there. I don't shoot everyone I own often (I own many) I do however shoot every firearm I carry every 30 days as I cycle through old ammunition and buy new. The big reason for that is I've yet to find ammunition that can stand up to the "stress" of being carried around much longer than that without some form of malfunction. It does you no good if it won't go "BANG". I do however have multiple places to shoot including a membership at an indoor range about a mile from the house. A tool of any kind is next to worthless if you do not know how to use it. Which now that I mentioned that, very few patrol officers (police) are proficient in the use of their firearms. There are exceptions to that rule of course but I've shot against many in local law enforcement that are not what I would call even a "decent" marksman with a pistol. That's on a target range with no stress. Not the type I would want to rely on. Big reason is they don't fire their weapons anymore than necessary. Ammunition costs and anything past what is necessary to "qualify" comes out of their own pockets. Face it most jobs in law enforcement do not pay that much.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:23 pm Both of you make very good points, and I can see the enjoyment, and yes the neccessity, to practice on shooting ranges or out of city limit places where its cool. There's a recentish case here in the UK of Tony Martin, a farmer who was burgled several times, finally had enough and shot the intruder with his licensed shot gun. He got life, later reduced to 5 years though another very similar case involving an unlicensed shotgun saw the farmer walking free. This kind of gun ownership is another ballgame, pest control, people who insist in getting pleasure in shooting great creatures (including our monarchy  )etc. Guns are just so undefendable from in my small experience. I mean, some bullets went right through the walls of this theatre into the next door theater. Look, I'm not some anti-gun fanaticist, nor am I a fully paid up member of the Gun Lobby, I am just trying to guage the sway of opinion in the aftermath of Aurora.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:28 pm There is a simple saying that 'Guns dont kill people, People kill people'. So just as you couldnt blame the airplanes, car bombs, antique land mines etc... that kill thousands of people every year, neither can you blame the gun. The 'problem' here is in reality only a symptom of a much larger issue. Not the least of which is the total disrespect for human life. In fact, the movie that was being previewed is a perfect example of that. I do agree 100% that SOMETHING needs to be done! Things have most certainly 'gotten out of hand'! But the problem must be tackled at the source, not simply trying to fix a symptom of a greater problem.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:31 pm Well you defintly have a point. Theres should be a big time increase in gun control laws but thats so expensive. I mean putting metal detecters everywhere from convient stores, theatures, and schools ( Schools needing them most ) then placing an officer or someone else there would run into billions of dollars and be more insulting than what the TSA is doing in airports. Other than things like that, theres already strict gun laws but they cant prepare for something like this. And even if they did put metal detecotrs up everywhere...it wouldnt do much. The guy here in my city, sprayed the bar from outside of it. He must had been a terrible shot cus no one was killed thank God. But the point being, i dont guess theres anything we can do to prepare when sumone goes crazy like that. But i defintly think schools should do the metal detecter thing and have very strict rules as to who can get in and out. Columbine was a tragedy, our children should be protected the most.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 08:33 pm Yes Serpent, like with Columbine, the people bullying those kids sending them off the deep end should had been fixed before it got to that. Children can be cruel....i used to be. Now that im older and more mature i feel bad for alot of the things that i did. i've also been on the other end of it. And i can relate to the people being bulleyed that enough is enough. But thing is, a real man fights with his hands.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 09:19 pm Well Kasper saying that a real man fights with his hands is easy. I say a man shouldn't have to fight. The only "name" you could call me that would hurt my feelings would have to have some basis in truth. In that case I already know it and if I don't like it, I need to effect a change. If I go someplace where I don't like someone. I'll leave. If I go into a place where someone doesn't like me, once that's known, again I'll leave. I will walk away from just about anything if given the chance. I won't impose the threat of physical violence on anyone however, I won't take it from anyone either. I shouldn't have to, neither should anyone else.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 09:30 pm If it is a crime to own a gun, then only criminals own guns. Scarlet But if it is a crime to own a gun, than only the government and the criminals will own guns, so than how do people protect themselves from both the criminals and the government.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 09:33 pm guns are kinda complicated in my view, because if one person has a gun he can go kill a bunch of people like what happened this morning. some peoples solution to this is that everybody should have a gun because if somebody else in the theater had a gun they would have shot the guy before he shot more people. but the problem with that is that if more people have guns then the occurrence of incidents like this will increase. some other people say more gun control would reduce this, which it probably would but its hard to stop one crazy person from getting a gun and going crazy. and when that one person does go crazy since nobody else close by has a gun that person would be able to kill more people before cops arrive. so i think the only way to solve things like this is if we severely limit who can have a gun but then the NRA would go crazy. the other option is if we ban civilian gun ownership but that would be unconstitutional.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 09:44 pm I'm sitting here contemplating the possibility of severly restricting gun licensing for personal protection and instead encouraging use of the far less fatal but very effective 'Taser'. I agree whole heartedly with Serp but this aint going to happen for a long long time, meanwhile the murder continues. Flying planes into buildings, car bombs and land mines are all illegal, any reason why weaponry shouldn't be then?
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:12 pm The people in my city actually tried to ban the police from having Tazers. Cited cases of abuse. Luck would have it, that silly idea was quashed. And what are more laws going to do? It's already against the law to use a firearm during the commission of a crime. It's already against the law to modify a firearm from semi to automatic. It's already against the law to own a firearm if you have been diagnosed as mentally ill. In almost every situation where a firearm is used like in Colorado, someone didn't care what law was on the books. Since there is a precedence in violent crime dropping in areas of the U.S. with concealed carry legislation.... I'd say everyone having a firearm makes more sense than taking it away from law abiding citizens that wish to own them. One of the big con campaigns against the concealed carry law in my state was people thinking everyone would go nuts and start shooting each other. Heck when talking with the Sheriff of my County violent crime has gone down. State wide it's gone down with a few exceptions like KC or ST Louis where murder has only stabilized but guess what .. firearms aren't the weapons of choice. The only case in my county where a legally owned firearm was used to kill someone happened when a guy called another one up and told him he was coming over to kill him. When he hung up he immediately called the sheriff and settled down to wait. When the man kicked in his front door and entered the house he was blown right back out. He called the Sheriff back and told him what happened and an hour or so later they showed up with the Coroner and the State Highway Patrol and did the inquest right there and no charges where filed. It was a deputy sheriff telling me that story, I'd heard about the shooting but didn't ever get the story until then. I can think of one in St Louis where a guy beat his wife to death for bringing him the wrong type of beer. Since he used the bottle maybe we should outlaw that ... oh wait that didn't work either  You and only you are responsible for your safety, government cannot do it. There is no law in WORLD that will save you when someone decides you are the target. There is nothing to indicate you could even save yourself, but personally if I'm going I'll be attempting to take them with me. It's the herd mentality talking and guess what sheep are sheep and one wolf can easily kill hundred in one night. Been that way since the dawn of time. Carrying a firearm is much like any tool, it gives you possible options in different situations. Options can allow you to exit a situation without harm to either yourself or anyone else. Going into a Theater and randomly killing people is also illegal what further laws could have prevented that? Weaponry how do you define weaponry? Okay, I disarm myself when going into areas where firearms are not allowed like the schools and courthouses I do a lot of work in. I've never had my Parker Ball Point pen taken away and I can drive that thing through a piece of 1/4" plywood (much thicker than the skull or other spots on a human) and still fill out my work order. I would rather live in total anarchy than live in a society with a government so strong it had a snowball's chance in hell of protecting me from all the crazies out there. You can't control the crazies by taking away someone's legal right to firearms. It hasn't worked in Australia, Great Britain, or any other country I could name.
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:19 pm lol the criminals will always have guns THATS WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS if everyone was armed in America and was trained howto use it how many bank robberys or shootings would there be exactly very few and the insane people that tried it would quickly be neutralized we probably would not even need a police force look at all the examples Australia China Washington DC in Australia they spent billions to get rid of weapons only to have crime rocket something like 400% in China an oppressive government took over and killed millions same in the Soviet union in Washington DC handgun ban was enacted and crime with guns went up you cant argue with the facts.....crafty the taser is a pretty pragmatic idea but I wouldn't want to be the guy fighting another guy with a gun armed with a taser they have their limits what is it 1 or 2 shots pheonix king plus 1 and also the problem with mass shootings isn't exactly the gun but rather a deep problem in our society which I find quite sad
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:30 pm I'm glad to see so many people understand the necessity of owning guns I truly cant understand people who say there should be more gun control why place limits on yourself and other law abiding people owning a gun is truly a victimless crime
| |
| Friday, July 20, 2012 - 11:36 pm Source: Suspect in shooting at screening of Batman movie had colored his hair red and told police he was "the Joker." LOL If he was the joker than we should leave him hanging from a tall building for the rest of his life how short that may be just like batman did in the movie. I do not understand how anyone would shoot a little girl at the movies, let alone 12 people. Based on the source that CNN is saying said this, this will cause many people to start questioning if we should ban movies like batman. Never sacrifice your freedom for a little more security.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 01:20 am for those who said that if they were their that they would have shot the guy, firstly according to reports the guy had on bullet proof vest and body armor, so yeah you might have shoot him but it wouldn't have done anything before he sees you and then shoots you. so unless we want everybody in america to wear bullet proof vests and body armor every where they go, because they are scared to be shot we need extremely strict gun control. because an america were everybody is in constant fear of being shot doesn't seam like a free society to me. so yeah never sacrifice your freedom for a little more security, but when your dead your not that free, are you?
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 01:51 am mmmm guns....
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 03:43 am This is just anougher ploy by ur government to disarm the public take away ur rights and pull the wool over ur eyes, even if your guns were registered its never the registered users whom commit these crimes if you where to commit a crime with a gun u use a black market weapon and no matter what the government does there will allways be blackmarket weapons.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 04:29 am As much as I do not like guns, I do not think more gun control would be the answer. It's been said many times in this thread...criminals and crazies are going to find a way to have guns. As an American, ordinary citizens should be able to own and carry guns in my opinion. Kasper Quinn made a good point also; if the government in the US tried to take peoples guns away in parts of the country like here in the South, there certainly would be another Civil War.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 05:09 am i agree with that statement but again if one guy goes into a crowded area and starts throwing tear gas or some type of chemical that can slow can slow reaction and on top of that, that person is heavily protected its going to be hard to stop him even if you also have a gun. but then is everybody going to start going out in the public heavily armored, with guns, and gas masks? that doesn't seem like a free society. and you can't ban all guns because that unconstitutional and extremely hard to enforce. so sadly things like this are just part of life now.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 05:46 am As the daughter of a police officer, I have always stood on the side that people should have the right to carry a firearm for self defense purposes. My dad always carried his gun, on duty and off duty. My thoughts have always been that if you make carrying guns illegal, your good, law-abiding people will be the ones adhering to the law and left defenseless, while your criminals will still manage to have them or get them. So I don't know what the answer is. I just know that people should be able to live life, go to movies without the fear of being massacred. I think we need to look at warning signs of people who may be mentally disturbed and get involved. There had to be some indication to the parents, friends, someone that this young man was not quite right in his thinking. I am stunned this happened. These types of senseless mass shootings seem to be becoming more and more popular over here in the states (in schools, public gatherings). My fear are the idiot copycats....
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 06:15 am So the guy had on a bullet proof vest what difference does that make? Okay so the first two only hurt like hell, don't think for an instant it won't still bruise the heck out of you or in some cases even stop your heart. Oh yes there are ceramic plates you can put in some to deal with that but I doubt he was wearing one. So you realize the guy has on a vest, there is always the head, groin, legs, and other areas that are rarely attempted because of the smaller target they present. Still they are high probability areas for someone that does remain familiar with their tools. In some cases it might be reliant upon which firearm someone happens to be carrying at the time. Face it in the summer when clothing is lighter I carry a pistol which is not accurate past 9 yards. In the winter it's much easier to conceal something larger and I generally carry two, both the smaller one mentioned above and one of several which are accurate for me out to much longer ranges than 35 yards. Not sniping equipment however more than adequate for attempting a shot on one of the areas mentioned above. So a lot depends on what the circumstances are however, the basic goals in a situation like that for me would always be the same: 1. Make sure those who are with me are as safe as possible. 2. Make sure I'm as safe as possible. 3. See what can be done for anyone else. You never know, I've only one real experience with that type of situation and it's been more than 3 decades. I'm older, my reaction time is slower and I'm much more realistic about my chances of coming out in one piece, if at all. That's why when I practice, I do so simulating as well as possible (obviously I can't simulate the effect massive trauma has on the body), the loss of either arm, and either eye. I've taken classes from people considered experts in the field, I'm serious and don't look at it as a game. Would it do me any good? There is only one way to find out and that, is something I hope never happens. Even if you've been able to perform once, while the chances are greater esp. if you train, you do not know for sure you will perform twice. However, if I am able to accomplish the first two goals .. or even the first then I've done what I always intended to do. If you don't like firearms or don't want to be held responsible for your actions while carrying one, DON'T. If you want to learn to protect yourself, there are other methods and classes you can receive training in. On the flip side of that coin, if you wish to delegate your safety to unarmed or non-lethal methods, the government, or really anyone or anything else by all means do so. However, don't expect everyone to be like minded. Every life is precious, especially mine, particularly to me, and I have no intention of simply letting someone take it, or damage it's quality through a beating.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 06:54 am well the first two bullets wouldn't go in, and with tear gas or some type of irritant in the air its going to be pretty hard to aim.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 08:44 am So if I really have to say it, screw everyone else, in that case I keep him away from me and mine. Even with a vest containing ceramic plates, something almost 1/2" in diameter bouncing off his chest would encourage him to seek something easier. At that point my ultimate goal would have been met. This started out as how all firearms should be illegal started by someone living in a country where they are illegal and it's not made any difference in violent crime. I know your opinion, you know mine. This is one subject where we will always disagree
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 09:09 am It doesnt matter cause the law will never be changed and if it does there will be serious consequences. The world is only gonna get worse. Im afraid of snipers. Like that guy in D.C, hell if more people took up that hobby you'll see complete terror. Cus the people doing the sniping can get away with it if there careful enough. Planes are too protected for anyone to take over again. When the Snipers increase ( Like crazy people playing video games sniping nazi's when they get older and snap )that'll be true terror, think about it.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 10:52 am wow thanks Quinn now I cant live in the city..... and Quinn the law can always be changed we have the second ammendment but idk is it even possible to have a gun in NYC a place of pretty high crime id say the second ammendment is being infringed right there and I like your point Yankee especially the last paragraph I'm gonna use that simetime
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 10:55 am Guns equal power. For those who use guns comes with consequences, i hope you realize that. It's not the gun you need to be fear off, it's the soul behind the person body is what you need to be feared from, not the flesh. Anthony.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 12:21 pm It doesn't take rocket science to work it out! Made it illegal to own firearms! What do Americans expect by making fire arms so easily available. Of course there going to be lots of shootings.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 12:25 pm Yankee,
I do hope that wasnt aimed at me. First off I have specifically said that I am not advocating either view. At least twice. Secondly, I lived and worked in some pretty violent parts of Los Angeles for lots of years, and owned illegal firearms and have been shot at. I have a reasonable understanding of the issues here. @Steve Ryan, you are talking nonsense Sir, this man had completely legal firearms and ammunition. Kiss said it right that someone must have realised his state of mind, hell, he just jacked in his college, lived in a condo so had close neighbours, and had time to build a what is reported as complex booby trap system in his apartment. Someone must have wondered... but we tend to not get involved, isolated in our own little circle of existance. Lastly, I would argue that in the UK the cases of murder or even attempted murder are far less, proportionally, than the US, with our laws outlawing guns. Of course its not non-existant, but I was wondering if maybe Americans were thinking that its getting out of hand now and some serious effort needs to be made to kerb it.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 02:37 pm more people are killed in the USA every year by drunk drivers than by guns but no one wants to take away our right to drink.
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 04:13 pm or our right to drive cars. It's the cars that kill people, you know, especially SUV's, as the media is so fond of reporting. (sarcasm alert).
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 05:02 pm Some observations: (no sarcasm): I myself own many firearms, from ancient to modern. I enjoy shooting, collecting, and hunting. I deplore what yet another brainless psychopathic bastard has done; but remember, 99.99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens and have never comitted a violent crime in their life. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment; it is the one amendment that safeguards all the other liberties and rights we have. Every tyranny and police state has been immediately precede by a disarming of the citizenry. The fact that the average citizen can protect himself from the evil intent of others (be it criminals or would-be tyrants) is something vital to individual liberty and the ultimate freedom of society as a whole. A couple of towns here in the U.S. passed ordinances requiring that every household have a firearm for defense. Crime in these towns dropped to near zero overnight. It would seem that the solution is more guns, not fewer. If everyone was really fed up with crime, then burglars, rapists, would-be murderers, child abusers, etc., would soon cease their ways or else die out, once enough of them were shot to doll rags by mothers and fathers protecting their home, hearth, and family. If people had been armed at that theater, this lunatic would never have got off more than one or two rounds, I guarantee you. As has been stated, the vast majority of crimes involving guns are not perpetrated by law-abiding citizens. One example of this is the Class 3 license, which allows one to own a fully automatic weapon. In all the years that this restriction has existed, thousands of ordinary people have legally owned full-auto weapons, and only ONE legally owned weapon was used in a crime, and that person was a police officer who went rogue. The right to keep and bear arms was specifically put in the Bill of Rights to avoid tyranny foreign or domestic, plain and simple, and to defend the other rights, as I mentioned before. Hunting, etc., was important, but ancillary to the main issue.It keeps the radicals (on both sides of the aisle) in check; no one will be able to stage a coup a la Nazi Germany, for instance. It also furthers the standard of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; by being able to protect yourself and your family, one is less at the mercy of the criminal element. For myself, I am a "righteous citizen" love my country, and I echo the words of the late, great Charlston Heston: "they will take my gun when they pry it out of my cold, dead fingers". As far as I am concerned, this was an incident of terrorism, the scum-sucker was a %$#&&^*@ terrorist, and should be treated as such. If the government uses this tragedy and act of terrorism to further restrict the citizenry, and they will certainly try,then it is a victory for the terrorists. What kind of message will it send if terrorists of any stripe can see that all they have to do is commit more terrorism and the government will react in such a way as to make it SAFER for the terrorists?
| |
| Saturday, July 21, 2012 - 11:20 pm Crafty,
Exactly and a large part of concealed training both the basics, which in all but one state you must receive to legally concealed carry, and advanced is paying attention to your surroundings so you don't get into a situation where you have to use a firearm. Let me give you just two prime examples of situations I've seen in the years I've been carrying a firearm. I was walking into a local grocery store in broad daylight when a older lady was coming out pushing her cart full of groceries. A guy was following her and as I walked past I hear him tell her "give me some money bitch". I immediately got on the cellphone to the cops and walked over and escorted her to her car and saw her drive away. Now in this case I would have had no need for a firearm as there was no question in my mind I could take him without one whether he had a weapon or not. But the point is, I always pay closer attention to my surroundings these days, and I'm much more willing to become involved. And guess what .. 30 mins later the cops called me back and asked if they needed to send a patrol hell I was in a completely different town by then. Another time I'm coming home from a trip to St Louis and about 3 AM pulled into a gas station to get some coffee and use the restroom. As I come out of the bathroom there are 4 neo-nazi skin heads screaming at the store clerk who was of middle eastern descent. Now these guys would have been a threat and while they did not have them out could see at least two had knives. I walked to the back of the store to put several isles between me and them yet, where I could still see everything and once again got on the phone to the cops. As one grabbed the clerk by the front of his shirt I suppose he turned enough to finally see me there talking on the phone. He screamed "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING". I just calmly told him I was talking to the police. In this case they hauled ass out of there about 3 min. before the cops showed up. Guess what they stabbed and killed another store clerk in Kansas City (123 miles down the road) the next night. The video cameras from the two stores was used in court, I was summoned but didn't have to testify. I can go on and on about different situations where being trained to carry allowed me first even notice and being armed allowed me luxury of becoming involved. I have no idea if me or my cellphone had any bearing on the outcome of any of the situations I've seen. I only know they didn't turn out bad for anyone at that time. I also have "a reasonable understanding of the issues". The biggest one I see is armed law abiding citizens have got to have a positive effect on crime. I stay armed to protect myself and my loved ones, that doesn't mean me being armed has no benefit to others.
| |
| Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 12:22 am i have spent a few of my youth summers in aurora, and probably have been to that theater too. aurora is a nice community back then in the 80s, people are nice there too. regarding the subject of this thread, america is a society that seems to be stuck not knowing which direction to go. it was a nation founded on the principles of freedom, which were firearms that got them away from the mighty british empire. in any society that those who are given the right to bear arms to protect others do not carry out that duty so well, then of course the general people will start to not have faith in them. simply that the a large part of the law enforcement in certain parts of the country have fail to do their duties. the population do not trust their government or those put in charge of firearms....so there we have it that ordinary people need to protect themselves. it's difficult to give advantages to one segment of the society, such as the criminals while expect the other segment to do nothing (law bidding citizens). americans are used to trying to bring solutions to the effects, rather than fix the root of the problem. and in america, money talks and everything else follow....that's why so difficult to get to the root of the problem. a great society would either be that every citizen has guns or no citizen has gun. to be in between, it's impossible to have a peaceful society. as human beings, aren't we not evolutionary creatures and "survival of the fittest" the rule of the existence? IMO, it's either all have guns or none has gun !!! also i'm king/queen of the country, none of my citizens will have guns. all my law enforcement will be highly prestige and carry out their duties, and any stray will be execution of such peron.
| |
| Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 12:55 am Yankee, all you say makes good sense to me. Its just a shame that most dont have your training or skills or awareness. Please dont assume that every armed citizen could react to a situation as level headed as you have/do. I fear that most would accidently shoot the clerk rather than his attackers. Just watch the movies, as you will know, it is near impossible to aim/shoot with this Mr.cool gangster style of holding the piece sideways, and a nervous finger on a trigger...nah, if more had your training...but I started this topic about Americans in general, not people with your particular skill set. Respectfully, Crafty.
| |
| Sunday, July 22, 2012 - 10:58 pm most of the people I know who own guns are very confident knowledgable and serious about there firearms I'm sure not everyone is but hopefully they aren't the ones carrying them around with them all day
| |
| Monday, July 23, 2012 - 12:10 pm I'm beginning to see that most of you think its ok that this person in Aurora could walk into a local shop and buy these firearms over the counter and get 6000 rounds on the internet. As easy as that, well apart from the check on him to license him having the weapons. I dont know, but I would have thought some kind of far more stringent check is needed. Maybe psychological profiling, compulsory training, risk awareness or such. Tightening the net for rogue owners would be a step in the right direction. Does this make sense, any arguements for or against?
| |
| Monday, July 23, 2012 - 06:34 pm I don't know what types of firearms he was using but pretty much this was a tragic event but a pretty rare one more people die from hospital misconduct (pretty messed up) car accidents (drunk driving) ect ect the deaths incurred from driving are large prices to pay for the freedom of transport he deaths incurred from crazy people killing other people are a large one but a necessary one to guarantee our freedoms you have to look at the big picture crafty its so easy to say oh someone went and shot up a ton of people lets ban guns but its not that simple as shown in the various arguments given up above
| |
| Monday, July 23, 2012 - 07:23 pm DUI deaths are down 7% from 2007 to 2008. (source : www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-07-drunk-driving_N.htm ) Largely attributed to inceased social stigma and stronger policing. I'm unsure about medical mal-practice but I do know more people are living longer and getting fixed. Down mainly to improved technology and skills, including diagnostic. The same is happening with smoking, and many killer issues such as bad diet, exercise etc. So these 'liberties' are not being taken away per se, just quietly shown to be destructive. So it occurs to me that the same sort of philosophy should be applied to guns. Make people more aware they cant just buy guns and do what they like, just as we have done with DUI. Each of these topics is going to need its own methods sure. Anywho, keeping rocking in the free world.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 12:20 am People don't need weapons unless it is from hunting. Incidental comic: The Beneficence of Others
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 01:04 am Okay .. and just how many Attack drones do YOU have for hunting?
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 01:47 am Bazillions. I need them all. I hunt humans.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 02:58 am Thought the following info might be interesting in this thread. Bill of Rights..the right to bear arms. Adopted in 1791. The rate of fire of muskets used by the infantry at that time. 3 to 5 rounds per minute. The number of guns per every 100 people in countries around the world. No. 1 USA, 88.8 per hundred people. No. 2 Serbia, 58.2/100 No. 3 Yemen, 54.8/100 Iraq 34.2, Canada 30.8, Germany 30.3, Australia 15, Mexico 15, Russia 8.9, Portugal 8.5, Russia 8.9, China 4.9, Afghanistan 4.6, Vietnam 1.7 Infantry rifle, WW1. Enfield or Springfield, 5 round internal magazine, bolt action. Infantry rifle, WW11. M1 Garand, 8 round clip, semi auto. Infantry rifle, Vietnam. M-14, M-16, 20 round magazine, semi or full automatic. Rate of fire for M-16. 45 aimed rounds/minute, 120 rounds/minute-as fast as you can pull the trigger. WW1, WW11 - No body armor. Vietnam - The flak jacket.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 03:45 am My opinion..you knew it was coming! The USA will always be a country of citizens that bear arms. Firearms are not discarded like an old 8 track or cassette tape. They are handed down to relatives and friends. I've seen figures that estimate the number of guns in the country as high or higher than one for every man, women and child. It's reported he had a 100 round, drum magazine, body armor, tear gas canisters, gas mask etc. He was better armed than your Great Grandfathers, Grandfathers, Fathers and yourselves in previous wars. This shooter was better armed and protected than the standard infantryman from the beginning of time until now. And, he bought it all legally, right here in the good ole USA and there is a lot more out there, legally, that he could have bought. So I wonder, when, in the past two hundred twenty years did we loose our common sense. The right to bear arms is one thing. Assult rifles, 100round magazines, body armor etc. We don't need it. That, is to much fire power. Give law enforcement and the rest of the citizens a break.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 04:17 am Screw the law enforcement, seeing them let dogs loose on citizens in cali and firing bags at em after ANOTHER cop case of killing an unarmed man and the case just being dismissed is starting a damn war. I respect cops that do their jobs. But i've dealt with the egotistic, dirty, perverted, disrepectful cops before also and say they need whats coming to them. I like alot of cops, one around here named Saxton, hes a good officer. He helps people, not harass them. I for one think if more people started beating their u kno whats instead of running from the bean bags then maybe a revolution will sweep the world and teach them....that a man with power ( badge ) should be more respectful and outstnading than the criminals. Not just as bad as them.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 05:29 am I have resisted posting to this thread so far because I know I am biased. I have always been distrustful of people whose idea of a dream job involves wearing a uniform and telling other people what to do. On which note ... Kasper, you didn't mention Officer Pike - who attacked peaceful sedentary students by spraying pepper spray directly into their faces at point blank range without 'provocation'. I have to say to Crafty - you have my respect. As a Brit with experience of what it's like living in a country which regulates gun ownership, you're doing a good job of maintaining a non-partisan line. But the bottom line on gun laws has to be extrapolated from the figures. Every so often, in the US, there is a mass shooting by someone ... civilians, police, it doesn't really matter who. The question is ... how often does it happen in countries which have stricter regulations on the ownership of guns? And the answer is ... not nearly as often. More regulation = fewer deaths of innocent people. End of. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 06:00 am mass shootings maybe but not common crime and as for your post rick its all relative our founding fathers made the second ammendment to give the people the ability to defend themselves from the government....what good is a musket going to do against the government today (there's some common sense)...our founding fathers probably knew that there were.going to be advances in technology that allow for more powerful weapons...yet they did not implement a possible sunset clause in the second ammendment...are you saying our founding fathers lacked common sense
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 07:02 am Guns are banned in the UK so we do not have gun crime... In fact the figures for gun crime have gone up since the ban (although over the last year the figures have dropped slightly) It once was the time that a crook would not carry a weapon if they were "Breaking and entering" because, if they were carrying, they could be shot and killed by the home owner (that has not changed) but crooks now carry guns because they know no one will be shooting back... and it is "gangsta" Banning guns will not make them go away, it just means you can not shoot back. Before the ban there was only one reason for a civilian to carry a hand gun in the UK and that was "For defence of Country and Crown". Strange that a Government that was trying to remove the Crown banned firearms. I know... all a bit "conspiracy theory" to think banning guns is a downward spiral, after all, the UK has an effective body to oversee the government to ensure they do not make any stupid laws. It is called the house of lords. You know, that body the government keeps trying to get rid of..... But the UK is good at equality, we fill in those forms listing who we employ that are black, gipsy, disabled, Jewish, gay, etc. There can't be anything wrong, we learnt our lesson in the 40's with the Third Reich, er... 50's... no... 60's with civil rights... It's not about whether we should have guns, it's about responsibility. I've just got back from Norway, they are not running around shouting about banning guns because of one man, they are not changing anything.... and because of that they are saying "We Win!" Hugs
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 07:24 am Gunther, you make an argument against things I did not say, or suggest. I didn't say our arms should be limited to muskets. I didn't suggest our founding fathers lacked common sense. I rather think lawmakers lack common sense. And I think the shooter with his legally bought equipment defies common sense. Which brings us right back to the lawmakers.
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 12:02 pm on the stats above, vietnam has the lowest gun ownership of 1.7 per 100? does that means the viet military would be heavily armed? gun is a tool that empower certain mentalities of people. for over 200 years, there have been gun ownership by ordinary american people, because they do not trust those with guns (such as police officers, security officers, military, etc). unless a nation is a dictatorship or kingdom, i highly doubt any other form of government-ship will be able to get rid of gun. that means america probably will never be able to dis-allow gun ownership by its people....because america is too democratic and no one leader is respected. the bottomline is that guns don't use themselves to kill people, it's people that use guns to kill people. which one do you get rid of?
| |
| Tuesday, July 24, 2012 - 04:40 pm and would you rather live in Vietnam or America..... rick those things were obviously implied if you cannot see that then I wonder our founding fathers knew that advances In technology would be made (such as better weapons) yet they did not implement a sunset clause in the second ammendment.....they intended the second ammendment to continue regardless of any advances in gun technology this renders your argument about how because of better weapons we should make more gun control ineffective bunk and wrong....UNLESS your saying our founding fathers were lacking in common sense our founding fathers were law makers except their laws persist to this very day and have a profound impact on this subject (the second ammendment) in the 18th century as far as I know a citizen could own a cannon to help protect himself I think the second ammendment should stand regardless of any technological advances its all relative power of the government to power of the people the people need technologically advanced weapons to stand up to a government
| |
| Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 04:56 am Gunther, I wrote the post. I know what I intended to say or imply, I told you twice, you missed on both counts. So no need to wonder. If you believe the second amendment was intended to keep US citizens on a par with US government forces, you should write your state representatives and tell them we need quite a bit more weaponry to become available to the public. As it stands today we are not even remotely comparable. If that is not what you believe, maybe we just disagree on where the bar should be set. I think assault rifles, magazines larger than those originally issued with the weapon, body armor and a few other items should not be available to the public. Just my opinion, simple as that. Where do you think the bar should be set?
| |
| Wednesday, July 25, 2012 - 10:26 pm I am not a military specialist but if the government became blatantly evil and disregarded our constitution that allows the majority to change it through voting then 300 million people or so with various small arms could easily topple the army marines national guard FEMA whatever other government agency was used to subjugate us and it doesn't have to be 300 million 50 million idk I think on the contrary the government is not even remotely comparable I personally would not get all up in a rage if the government decided to implement limited gun control rather I think it should be more universal I know where I live many of the things you suggested are illegal idk about other places but maybe 300 miles away I could get all of those things and simply transport them back to where I live it kind of defeats the purpose in my ideal society guns are freely available to everyone capable and people are trained to respect and utilize these weapons in a reasonable manner I think it would be good for America as a society if all people became responsible for their constitution instead of having a lumbering yet elitist military that allows for bitches to toss their haughty asses around central park without any idea on how to defend that right
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 02:13 am Australia banned guns after the Port Arthur Massacre. Since then, violent crime rates and shootings have declined remarkably. Guns are the reason America has the highest homicide rate of any developed nation. Lots of Americans seem to deny it, but strict gun control (especially on rifles) decreases crime significantly. FACT. As for the age-old rebuttal on self defence, it's illogical. If someone has a gun to your head, good luck defending yourselves. The same goes for massacres. Who would bring a gun into a theatre?
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 03:36 am Port Arthur was a scam for gun control everyone forgets the people are the masters not the government.
| |
Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:54 am
Wrong, your argument is the same one that has missed the point for decades. Gun control laws are not and never have been a deterrent to violent criminals. Now what base cause for violent crime just happens to be could be argued for hours. In many areas it's probably simple economics, nobody seems to factor in that many areas with high crime are economically depressed, have the lowest number of high school graduates which tends to feed that particular cycle, Drug use, etc. In just my area alone about the only time firearms are used illegally are when the Mexican, Russian, or local home grown gangs are pushing against each other. These people do NOT care if firearms are illegal or not. Most have little to lose either way. Having said that, all forms of crime from simple B and E to murder have dropped in the last 10 years. Why? can't be the economic situation getting any better. It could be that's when concealed carry became legal and now one out of every 20 people in my state from the age of 27 up have at least taken a course which if they completed the process would allow them to carry. I doubt many have as I know a lot of people that took the course but never completed the process. Most claim not to do so for reasons of privacy. They think the government already knows too much about them, and see it as a way to mark them as firearm owners should the government ever outlaw personal ownership of firearms. Even the Police do not as a general rule have a problem with people having firearms they are legally entitled to carry. For those of you that do not know this, except for one state in the US where everyone legally able own a firearm is allowed to conceal carry, it is expensive and you must meet certain requirements. 1. You take and pass a basic course. 2. You register yourself. This means fingerprinting which goes not only to the State data base but also the FBI. 3. You have to be approved by the Sheriff of the county in which you reside. Mandatory in Missouri and most states unless the Sheriff has cause. 4. You have to notify the Sheriff and the State of any change of residence. Which means of course register with the Next Sheriff of any county you change residence to. You cannot have a criminal history. You cannot use or be in possession of illegal drugs. You cannot have a complaint against you for threat of physical violence. You cannot have a history of mental illness. You have to be of legal age. All of which other than the registering and finger printing are nothing more than the requirements to legally own any type of fire arm in the first place. Does any of the above mean anything to someone that is already committing a crime by simply owning a fire arm? Of course not. If I am stopped and the police run my license, they will immediately know I am licensed to conceal carry. Since I am already bound by law (along with everyone else) to answer as to whether or not I am armed if asked, they don't even need to run my license. As long of course, as I'm a law abiding citizen. So who the hell do you have to worry about? Certainly not someone obeying the laws of this country.
If someone is able to get close enough to stick a firearm INSIDE your ear, then there is probably not much you can do other than decide how you want to die if it is their intention to kill you. Up to that point there are a lot of variables depending on who you are and the situation in general. Anyone that wants to carry a firearm had better think long an hard about options long before something happens. The use of deadly force is always a last ditch option. For someone using deadly force there are several conditions that better stand up in court you they themselves are going to be the ones going "up river". There needs to be a threat against someone's physical well being. An attacker must show intent. An attacker must have the ability. An attacker must have the opportunity. I am male, 6'7" and weigh 210 lbs. Chances are I'd be going to jail for blowing away a 160 lb crack head even with a knife for threatening me, or anyone else on the street. As far as asking "who would bring a gun into a theatre"? If you scroll back to the top of this thread you'll find where I stated: I'm never more than arms reach away from a firearm unless I've disarmed myself before going into an area where they are banned (or something similar to that anyway). I won't go to any commercial place of business where the owner bans firearms and spend my money. I go see movies all the time. Government Facilities, (Police stations, Prisons, Courthouses, Schools, etc) Post Offices, or Airports where due to the course of business I have no choice but to go, are the only places you'll find me without a firearm. Any commercial venue where the owner posts a ban, I won't be anyway. You want to hit the town and party? Hell I'm the perfect designated driver. It's a Misdemeanor to to be in possession of an unloaded firearm while under the influence, a felony if it's loaded after which being convicted, I could no longer legally own a firearm. Mine are always loaded so consequently I won't be drinking. Drugs, alcohol, or firearms you can't make them go away by making them illegal history has proven that. Enforce the laws already on the books .. but then who's going to do that?, the criminals don't care in the first place.
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 07:02 am u still around yankee
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 08:39 am No! Don't be fooled! That is a Yankee Clone! The real one is lurking in the dark, dank recesses of the forum.
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 08:56 am I like yankee
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 09:00 am i've lived in america,thailand,australia, vietnam, and few other countries. i feel australia is the safer place to be. i don't worry if the guy/gal next to me would pull out a gun at me. i have had bullets thru my cars, windows, fence post, etc in america. the debate of to have or not to have gun by ordinary citizens has been on forever. i don't think there will be a solution for all, so live where you're comfy. you just cannot have it both way. if you don't trust those you elected to governed you, such as in usa, then why elect them in the first place. in countries such as thailand, a kingdom, the king has the last say. either you follow or you're gone. you don't like it, then get your own kingdom. people such holmes should just be terminated right away, no need to waste tax dollars on him while in jails.
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 10:05 am "Port Arthur was a scam for gun control everyone forgets the people are the masters not the government." What? I take offense to that. Many people died that day, and the Howard Government didn't take away the rights of the citizens. The Gov reacted to a massive public push for the outright ban of automatic and semi-automatic weapons back in 1997/98. Of course, the push for such bans came primarily from city folk. Regional, rural and outback areas were marginally against it. Furthermore, the Administration that banned automatic firearms back then is one of Australia's most respected. Ever. Most people in Australia are glad that guns are gone, retrospectively.
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 01:44 pm Remember the American Govt. shooting down 4 students in Ohio? I didn't read about too many of you shooting back at Govt. forces to defend yourslves from them. The whole defending yourself from a rogue Govt. thing is a crock of horse manure. I'm not sure of the carry laws but I thought it was a requirement that the ammunition had to be seperated from the weapon and locked up if you weren't licensed to carry. Maybe it was just in a vehicle. But if this is/was so then the weapon isnt going to do you much good if attacked as the time to marry gun and bullet would leave you helpless. And surely, if you're carrying, you just make yourself more likely to be dropped by the police. There's documented cases of them killing children with toy guns when they couldn't be sure of the threat. In those cases I dont blame the police, but the mentality of a gun toting society. My grandchildren are not allowed toy guns. Period. There's a good Bob Dylan line :- "...I'm around too many children, and they should never know one...". Maybe this could be the way to go. An abrupt change in law is just going to anger too many, even if it could get past congress in the first place. A gradual change in the perception of gun use by education and social stigma would eventually reduce gun crime. This worked for smoking and binge drinking, my beliefs would say this should be the way forward. We are civilised people now and need to grow more so. We tolerate less and less injustice. Maybe gun law should be included in this agenda?
| |
Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 04:22 pm
And just why would that be? The idea behind concealed carry is the fact you have a firearm is not openly evident. If you know what to look for, and pay attention you might suspect, but you would never know. There is only one reason for anyone to ever see your firearm. That's when you are threatened to the point deadly force becomes an option. In that case you use it and simply put your firearm back in it's place of concealment, make the call and wait for the police to ask for it. But then again, if you are dealing with cops like they have in Great Britain who like to kill people in the subway for wearing a coat in the summer, you could have a problem no matter what you do. Prohibition did not stop people that wanted to drink from obtaining something to drink, the fact that certain drugs are illegal does not prevent prevent people from manufacturing or using them, making something illegal does nothing but give the criminal elements something else to barter in. I know it's an old saying but it's true. If you criminalize firearms only criminals will own them. A criminal does not care about any efforts at education or the effect of any "social stigma" on themselves personally. And just exactly what gun law would you suggest to enact? There are already multiple laws that are already ignored when it comes to the use of firearms during the commission of a crime, in many cases the first simply being the ownership of a firearm by a person with a background of crime, violence or mental illness.
I find it interesting you quote a man who through his use of illegal drugs was supporting a criminal element and therefore something he was supposedly against. If you are uncomfortable around firearms and don't want to raise your children around firearms then I would be the first to say don't. If you really want to change things THAT is the way to effect it. I grew up around firearms, my parents grew up around firearms, I learned as soon as I could walk to begin respecting them even though I may not have understood completely at that point. My father received his first firearm from the Sheriff of Boone County Missouri at the age of 8 years old. I received my first firearm from my father at the age of 11 years old. I'm not talking something I was given and could only look at. I was hunting alone at that age. My kids, due to the fact I was divorced when they where young never gained what I considered a basic knowledge of firearms. Even though they are now adults, my firearms are already in my will to be given to various other people depending on who lives the longest. I would of course hope to have enough warning to distribute them myself. The best chance due to age is currently the son of a friend, a 15 year old who did grow up around firearms and learned to respect and use them in a responsible manner. Even that chain could be broken as there are others with a "first shot" at them if still around. They may choose differently when it's their time. That is the only way you will ever get firearms away from people in the United States. It won't be by any government regulation. At that point then the responsible citizens won't have firearms. Only the Police, Military and criminals will own them.
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 04:49 pm And yes Steven, I am back at least for awhile.
| |
Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 05:44 pm
Come over here Laguna .. I'll show you why I lurk in dark places
| |
Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 09:08 pm
Another poor victim of Yankee's mind manipulation.
Help me! He's coming for me next, and bury the truth with me!
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 09:26 pm Well Yankee, you seem determined to be narrow minded and totally dismissive of my observations. Even to the extent of making a feeble slur against the country I currently live in. If a police officer were to see someone acting suspiciously and thought they had some sort of firearm in their hand then the chances are greater that that perp would be shot. Thats the point I was making, not about concealed carriers. I have no doubt the police are trained to be cool headed about it and act in the best way possible but the offenders chances are reduced, as my comment about kids getting shot for toy guns. You never actually say but I am beginning to think you are some form of law enforcement yourself. Of course there are perfectly reasonable people who respect and, dare I say it, love their firearms. I have never advocated total prohibition of guns. Peer pressure and social stigma DO work, very much so. Now before you bite my head off again, I'm refering to what you might call the unruly youth, the gang members, the teenagers in such poor areas of cities that they are driven to crime by despair and need, and your common garden hoodlum. This isnt going to eliminate crazies but it would bring down senselessness, which is what the world needs now, less senselessness. PS. Bob Dylan said that of Ruben Carters opinion of guns. Google him to find out if he had a valid opinion...
| |
| Thursday, July 26, 2012 - 11:53 pm Crafty, just because those people in Ohio didnt shoot back doesnt mean no one would. As a matter of fact, we here in America are starting to do just that. Some people dont have the balls to shoot even tho they brag and say they will. All over the country people are starting to stand up to the law enforcement and the goverment. All its gonna take is a certain event and you'll see mass retaliation. You may not hear about it much but cops are being murked all the time. Yes the reason we have guns is because the founding fathers wanted us to have protection agaisnt tyranical goverments, i guess they didnt foresee the goverment having weapons they have but nontheless if were strapped they'll tread a lil more lightly. Thats why they try to control us sublimentally, cus if the population stood up....we'll easily topple them. Im not saying all cops and goverment officials deserve to die....but if they ever try to take our guns...im sure it will be seen as an act of war and ALOT of people will stand up, while alot also lay down and say its not a big deal. One of the reasons i love this country is because of our rights to bear arms....not saying im backing Yankee, im just saying that the whole defending ourselves agaisnt a rouge goverment isnt "horse manure " Respectfully Kasper Quinn
| |
| Friday, July 27, 2012 - 02:43 am http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE CONSPIRACY
| |
| Friday, July 27, 2012 - 04:16 am When someone starts deleting my posts .. it's time to quit posting to this thread
| |
| Friday, July 27, 2012 - 05:23 pm That about sucks Yankee. This censorial post deleting is out of order. Well I enjoyed your input, mainly, made me think about some of the issues which can only be a good thing. Kasper, yes maybe it isnt as much bullshit as I flippantly put out. I got to thinking about regimes like Turkey, Libya and half the middle east where the citizens took back their countries from rogue dictators. And didn't I hear something about recent riots in LA? Hmm, I was there in Watts in the aftermath of that one, sheesh... Ok guys and girls, I'm going to back off some before I annoy some sensibilities big time. I know this a serious issue to Americans. I hope I got a few looking at themselves a bit though.
| |
| Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:20 pm Its not really a serious issue, i think u make a good point and i agree with u about 95%. i kno exactly where ur comin from, i would take away guns if i was in charge, be a hell of alot safer. believe me, theres shootings around here quite often and i would feel safer with the guns gone...but wishin is jus that, wishin. They'll never take these damn rednecks guns. Yea LA is jus the begining, all its gonna take is a certain event then the whole country will implode or explode, however u wanna put it. And Yankee its doing it to me too, but when i log back on the post is there again. i think theres a glitch somewhere, i dont think there doing it on purpose, they'd tell u why. If im not mistaken Crafty, u guys be throwin damn molotiv cocktails over there. I think i seen it not too long ago but not extremely recent either. Jus cus u dont have firearms doesnt mean you dont have power. What about those white guy terrorist over there, i think in Belfast. Who are they, the Irish Republic?
| |
| Friday, July 27, 2012 - 06:22 pm BUT, however i do still love the fact that we can bear arms and assemble as a militia. Really for the same reasons i love playing this very game. Its the power.
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 12:24 am We have had our fair share of rioting here in the past year. Damn I'm glad there wasn't a bunch of guns involved. But my opinion of it all was that it was mainly opportunistic rioters just out for a bit of anarchy, not a real 'issue'. But thats another long debate. And yes, the IRA, Irish Republican Army, that goes back many decades, basically about our good friend religion again. Catholic v Protestant. Or British rule of their land. Fortuneately the problems seemed to have been mainly worked out on that one. Now that was with plenty of guns on both sides, and bombs etc. And it did become very bloody. Why do people still do it huh? we're no better than freaking cavemen sometimes. Anyways, ask your cats Kasper, you'll probably get more sense out of them.
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 01:20 am It's all go to do with having a brain stem Crafty, all animals on this planet that have one are hunters. Mankind by nature is intermittently violent. It's no different than thrill seekers bungee jumping off a bridge, or crack heads looking to require that original high, as a species, violence is encoded in our genes. Nothing else really excites us, you never hear anyone raving on, and on, about the benefits of peace or security. Start a war, riot or shoot a couple dozen people and everyone gets excited and starts flipping the channels, cranking the radio, surfing the net, or grabbing a paper in an attempt to find out more.
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 04:11 am Lol, that was funny bout the ats part. I guess bottom line to all this, is if we didnt allow just any nut job to have a gun then we wouldnt have these kind of events. So i agree we should seriously phyco analyze someone before giving them power of the trigger, some people just dont need to have guns and this past week or so is a aperfect example of why
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 04:34 am "http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE CONSPIRACY" It's people like you who make me feel sick. I'm guessing that you also believe that 9/11 was done by Bush...
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 10:58 pm I just discovered that the Aurora shooter was apparently under the college psychiatrist... Guess someone missed something there then.
| |
| Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 11:28 pm Ban guns for the general public. It's that simple! The Bill of Rights was created in 1789. A completely different time to nowadays and civilization has moved forward. The right to bear arms has absolutely no relevance to society today! It's 2012 and America has a good police force and people are much more educated and also the the settlers aren't at war with the native people of America.
| |
Saturday, July 28, 2012 - 11:55 pm
And just exactly where do you live?
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 02:07 am thought i read somewhere that holmes a graduate students doing his phd? if he wanna to use weapons/ammos, he should join us on simcountry. people who wants to use guns will use guns, regardless. there are just too many chiefs and no indians, so there is really no authority in a nation such as america. it's still a mentality of "might is right"
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 02:19 am Yea Crafty i'd say she missed the smoking Gun. You cant ban guns, its NOT that simple. How is it simple at all? What, is the govemrent going to send every cop in the country to everyones house taking away their guns, and trampling all over there rights at the same time? Do you think anyones going to be willing to turn in the very things that keep them safe....then what happens when the criminals who have plenty of guns break into their house and their armed with nothing but a fork? People in this country are already preparing for the govemrent to do sumn just like that, thats why we have militia's and groups getting together just for that reason. This is a Christian country, and if anyones familair with the Bible, theres a scenario where its very possible guns will have to be taken away in order for certain atrocities to happen. I understnad not everyone is religious or a Christian, but millions are here. And when the goverment trys to take their guns, its an act of war that will cause more trouble than its worth. you cant take away the rights of everyone cus a few crazy nut jobs go crazy. Its tragic yes, but everyday passes and stuff like that doesnt happen. Guns save people, more people than they harm. I wouldnt want to live in a world where only cops have guns, then what the hell can we do if they go power crazy. There already many like that just because they have a badge, make them the only ones with guns and it'll send them even more into that state of mind. If guns are taken away, there'll be bigger problems to worry about. Gun Laws are not as strict as they can be. Felons cant have them but im sure with all the money the goverment has they can find better ways to physco analyze people now. Theres ways to prevent these things from happening, but taking away our guns isnt the way....it'll only make us sitting ducks. Think about how you would feel if someone broke into your house and raped your wife or girlfriend, or daughter....well if she had a little 38 special close by, that wouldnt happen. A woman cant overpower a man. There was a story not to long ago about 2 men tryna break into a house and the woman was on the phone with 911 while it was happening, she asked the dispatcher if she could shoot them and the man said you do whatever you have to do to protect that baby. And guess what, she murked his ass and the other little punk went off running. Guns are the great equalizer, people who mis use them need to be gotten rid of, not the guns. I for one, will make sure my entire family is strapped and i will also make sure they understnad how to use them. And first time i see my son showing off tryna be cool in front of his friends, i'll whoop his ass to make sure he knows how much i love him, and DONT want to loose him over some stupid ish
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 01:07 pm Lord Lee, I love you and all, but you are way off base here. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is just as relevant today as in 1776 or 1789. One of the only other countries to have such freedom is Switzerland, and it is no accident that Switzerland has never been invaded or suffered under despotic rule. Not even Hitler wanted to take on 5 million pissed off swiss with guns, and who knew how to use them. We are our own first line of defense when it comes to protecting our families and ourselves. The day that evil is eliminated from all human hearts forever is the day that such protection will no longer be needed, and we can shoot at targets in peace and safety. Fact: Guns are banned in Washington, D.C. Washington D.C. is the murder capitol of the world, per capita. Fact: Guns are banned in New York City. New York City is right behind Washington D.C. in terms of criminals using guns on a disarmed public. The solution seems to be more guns in the right hands, not just in the hands of criminals. @ Rick: Just a thot on rate of fire: The Brown Bess musket was the assault weapon of its day, and the 2nd amendment recognized that a citizen's weapon should be on a par with that, if he/she so desired. The debate over weapon control has been going on ever since Ogg and Ugg sat in their cave and implemented club control. You won't find their descendents anywhere, as they were clubbed by the guys in the next cave over, who fashioned illegal clubs, enslaved Ogg and Ugg, and their whole clan, and eventually destroyed them.
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 08:37 pm Maclean, leave my grandparents out of this...
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 09:15 pm The reason why Hitler did not want to take Switzerland, is that there was nothing interesting in Switzerland at that time. It was of no strategic value (just like Nieuw Amsterdam was in 1674, when the Dutch sold it to the English; Nieuw Amsterdam is the previous name of New York). On top of that, families with guns are just canon meat for a professional army. So, maclean, your first argument does not work.
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 09:35 pm To Yankee I live in London, UK and for your information Kasper Quinn I am not a she, I am a he LOL.
| |
Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 10:06 pm
Up until the point they themselves, begin to organize. How many world governments today exist simply because the people got fed up, organized, and threw out the "professional army" of an oppressive government? Possible but not real likely. I could however, see armed citizens allowing a country to survive more or less intact should a total economic collapse happen. How much use are the police and military going to be in a situation like that. None what so ever, no country in history has ever has had a standing army large enough, or strong enough to hold it's self together if the entire population went "ape shit". Whatever the situation the reasons are still the same. Are you willing to rely on someone else to protect you? Personally I'm not, nor have I ever been, that is a issue entirely separate from anything else no matter how you wish to twist it.
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 10:20 pm When do you think the economy is going to collapse?
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 10:46 pm I'll just drop this here and carry on my merry little way: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 11:12 pm Yankee, I'm not sure what you are saying in the above post. Is it you could the see people overthrowing the professional army of an oppressive government. However, that if there were an economic collapse the people might allow the country to survive intact, more or less. But to answer your question, Yes, I'm willing to rely on someone else to protect me. However, I also support the right to bear arms and personally have them in my home.
| |
| Sunday, July 29, 2012 - 11:59 pm Lod Lee i dont recall mentioning you in my post at all, nevertheless rather or not if your a he or she. if your reffering to "Yea Crafty i'd say she missed the smoking gun" I was reffering to the physco therapist who the shooter was under in Colordado. And YES, having guns of your own can persuade a country not to invade. NO it doesnt stand a chance agaisnt a proffesional army. My point is the story of the woman who defended herslef and her child agaisnt two men breaking into her house. Thats why citizens need guns. And also to protec tthemselves agaisnt goverment. I mean it may not be much but it'll put a hole in someone and thats all that matters now isnt it? Im not willing to rely on someone else to protect me. If china invaded the US, the war would probally last decades with two super powers of this caliber. Provided Nukes arent involved. And with that going on, theres gonna be looters and every thing u can think of in between murderers and rapist. If im living in the woods somewhere away from cities to try and survive as long as possible, i would want a rifle to help keep enimies at bay. Of course this is not likely to happen as i'd probally be the first to go. Bottom line, people fear anyone with a gun. Man or WOman. Like i said...its the great equalizer. I think the world would be better off without guns period, milatary and all. So when everyone else lays down, i'll lay down. Until then im taking care of my own.
| |
Monday, July 30, 2012 - 12:39 am
In the United States? When the U.S. dollar is no longer accepted as an international trade currency. Could be, not in my lifetime, could be Next week. I would predict most definitely however, within my children's lifetime.
| |
Monday, July 30, 2012 - 04:15 am
It's happened all over the world including here in what we now call the United States. Do I think everyone in the U.S. needs their firearms so they can overthrow the government? No I do not. If the population as a whole would simply vote, then that's all that's needed for any change as far as Government is concerned. It takes time and determination, but the people here do have a say.
What if the economy of the U.S. was destroyed? It's the people who've suddenly lost all their "toys" that would concern me rather than anything the U.S. Government would or could do. Most of the initial damage would be from people rioting for what they wanted rather than what was necessary to survive, and that's before anything got really serious overall. The simple fact is no government can provide everyone with everything they want. When it was all said and done would I want something other than the type of Constitutional form of Government we already have? No I would not, so if enough like me survive, so would our form of Government. I pay my taxes to support both the Police, Military, along with a multitude of additional agenda for this country. That doesn't mean I feel they can be relied on 24-7 to keep me or anyone else safe.
| |
| Monday, July 30, 2012 - 05:17 am lord lee I find you to be extremely myopic and distasteful in your posts
| |
| Monday, July 30, 2012 - 11:13 am Gunther I am not narrow minded! I happen to be very socially liberal and open minded. I believe drugs should be legalized for instance and taxed, gay marriage, women priests etc.
| |
| Monday, July 30, 2012 - 08:22 pm it can go both ways lord lee
| |
| Monday, July 30, 2012 - 11:14 pm Is anyone else curious how this happened at the time the UN Arms Treay concerning gun control is taking place, on July 27th. An unarmed America is defintly something a certain group of people would want. Look at James Holmes in court, he doesnt even look like he know what he did. And there was a video released last month by Lil Wayne, called My Homies Still. AND GUESS WHAT, there sitting in a theature with 12 SKELOTONS. And in the previews of the batman movie, there was a preview where gangsters were shooting up a movie theature. The mainstream media isnt talking much about where this unemployed 24 year old got the money to afford all these expensive things he had to pull this off. And the shooting takes place at a movie called the Dark knight Rises, im no atheist people. And theres someone else called The Dark Knight. In the UK, theres a commercial for a truck called COLOADO, and in that commercial theres a destroyed stadium. In the movie the Dark knight, theres also ma stadium blown up, is this a look at things to come in the UK London games? Im not conspiracy nut job but i have an open mind. And it seems with this happening, its got people even on Simcountry saying the goverment should take away our guns, be easier for them to control an unarmed population. Theres even hundreds of more "Things" i can point out. But do your own research with what the connection is between Auorro and a Dark Knight is. If your not religious, even you cant deny somethings. I mean do you really think the world is what it seems all the time?
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 12:43 am creepy VOTE RON PAUL
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 01:38 am Ron Paul's otu for the cat. And by the people...the Lil Wayne video was released 3 DAYS beofre this shooting took place. Watch it for yourself its called ( My hoMIES Still). Theres peoples heads on the walls like dear heads as if they were hunted and killed just like they were in the shooting. Theres a woman dressed as a bat in a cage, theres 12, COUNT THEM, 12 SKELOTONS in a THETURE, and then the rappers cover their ears as if they hear gun shots. The Dark knight has risen, but it aint no freaking batman. Last year a movie called The Immortals portrayed falling angels descending to earth. Now we see the Dark KnIGHT rising. Even if these Hollywood people are just doing htis as their own crazy stunts...it seems to be tying over to real life. Dont worry about voting. it will do nothing. Just dont let this shooting force you to beleive our guns should be taken. Remember in 1975 when Jaws was released....the beaches were empty, you can best believe the elite were paying attention to this kind of terror. Now they use it as a way to scare the public into doing what they want.
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 01:39 am forgive my spelling
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 03:28 am Well you can always find things like that if you look. On 9/11 everyone was talking how nobody could have foreseen someone flying an aircraft into a building like that. 10 years prior Tom Clancy wrote about just that, just a different target. Face it a lot of nuts out there already know in the back of their minds WHAT they want to do. They just need someone else to tell them how. And Kasper, if you believe voting won't do anything, just what do you think NOT voting will do? I'm sorry to say I know many who seem to feel the same way. I think the biggest thing that sticks in my "craw" is people who don't register to vote because they don't want to deal with jury duty. An then you have those that do everything they can to get out of jury duty when it's their time. Many are the same people that whine about the judicial system, and yet aren't willing to deal with a simple responsibility of our society.
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 03:44 am Many say Bush wasnt supposed to win presidency in 2000. Thats one vague example that cant really be confirmed. I dont believe voting will change anything because every poilitician put in office is a mere puppet. One guy said vote Ron Paul in...the freakin media got rid of his run before it even started because hes the one person who knew what was going on and probally couldnt have his mind changed. And they knew if he was put in office, then killed like Kenndy....it would spark massive outrage and investigation like never before. Im not saying i believe in ALL of the conspiracy theories but there are never so many coincidences regarding certain topics unless someone is making them happen, their just too far fetched. Its too late to vote, that America is long gone. And for anyone who says, oh thats a bunch of bull, thats crazy, thats just because they dont like being made fools out of when they blindly follow whatever road their told too. It pisses them off deep down because its attacking their beliefs and basically its like saying their too dumb to have realized it so instead of having an open mind and searching for knowledge instead of the next Iphone release date, they just dismiss it as bull like the mainstream media does. Im not calling anyone dumb, im saying learn. No one knows everything and im sure im wrong about alot of things. But the thing is im willing to search for knowledge eternally and ask for help when someone knows more about something than i do. We have the internet which is a gateway to more information than what the media feeds us so use it before they find a reason to take this away from us too. Im not a tinfoil hat wearing idiot who wants to be build a bomb shelter and hide. Im a grown man with a brain who will stand and fight and die for what i believe in. So before anyone even starts tryna attack me, ask yourself this: What is so bad about people like me, is it we choose to go agaisnt the grain and that makes you feel inferior because your not brave enough to do it, or is it you just dont want to beleive that your involved in a fight for your right and yes, your soul, and you rather ignore whats happening because you dont want to give up the life you have. Would you rather live in lies, or die for the truth?
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 05:10 am First I don't own an I phone and I rarely believe all of what I hear anywhere. And never from one or two sources. So much information over the internet is twisted to serve whatever purpose the sender has. Just gotta love what people really believe, just today I got an email forwarded from my wife talking about another new Muslim stamp Obama has ordered commissioned and how we should all boycott it. First only one stamp celebrating a Muslim Holiday has ever been commissioned. What's wrong with that?, I use Christmas stamps. I wouldn't buy a stamp celebrating a Muslim holiday simply because I am not Muslim, anymore than I would expect a Muslim to buy a stamp celebrating the birthday of Jesus. Anyway, the point is a lot of people were getting excited over something that has no basis in truth. I can't truly say I've "never blindly followed anyone in my life" as I have followed the orders of several officers during my time in the military without knowing exactly why I should. Different situation however, those men earned my respect and trust as leaders previously, and where not asking me to do anything I wasn't there for in the first place. I don't know of anyone since then that has been able to lead me anywhere I did not wish to go.
I have to wonder just how do you perceive that question as being an attack on you? I also have to wonder just why you'd question me about what I believe, or whether I'm willing to go the distance over something in which I believe. You know nothing about me, I know nothing about you, and simply typing something in a forum doesn't mean you know all there is to know about yourself. You seem to have a fixation with fighting and dying for your beliefs. I remember my wife asking me a question once after a show we'd watched on TV (don't even remember what it was). She jokingly asked if I would be willing to take a bullet for her. I answered her the only way I could. I would if I had time to realize what was going on, the instinct for survival in everyone is strong. I only know that if I didn't I would have a hard time living with myself afterwards. I have a history which would lead me to think I could die for certain things in which I believe, but until that time actually comes, that is something I cannot truthfully answer should there be a choice. A "brave" man/woman is not someone that is afraid of nothing. Bravery comes when a person is still able to function when terrified.
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 05:55 am Me saying before anyone attacks me wasnt meant for only you, it was meant for anyone reading like the guy earlier in this thread who said something about port arthur and a guy said people like you make me sick. I guess you believe 911 was an inside job. I know by me saying what i said, it will open the door for criticism, and i was putting that to rest before it even got started. As far as you Yankee, the only statements meant for you was the Bush in 2000 line, and that voting wont do anything. I just continued on my own statements meant for any and everyone reading. I dont know you and vice versa. And fixation for fighting and dying for beliefs has always and always will be a part of life. War will never be eradicated, voilence will never cease until Christ comes back ( At least in my opinion ). Others may believe it wont be stopped until the goverment steps in, which is dumb as hell. But of course me beleiving in God may seem dumb to others so i cant and dont judge. Then some beleive crime will never stop because evil exist in all men in some form or other. I dont beleive every conspiracy i hear. But from years of research an studying for hours and hours on in even loosing sleep, i have discovered something the masses miss alot. And if its not the so called "Illuminati", then its just regular people playing a joke and it has no real meaning at all other than something humans thought would be cool. If thats the case then cool, whatever. But when it ties into real life murders and mysteries, thats when shit gets real. And like i said, no one can deny a music video by a known rapper thats accused of being part of this "group", having 12 skelotons in a movie theature and putting their hands over their ears as if there are gun shots. Coincidence, could be, but doubtful. This is only the begining of the things, 911, princess Diana, its just way too much history. And hey, i may be wrong but what if im not. What if everything thats happening is spot on and real. Then well, pray to whatever God you worship or become religious because theres a storm coming ( Watch the Batman trailor and you will hear Anne Hathaway say those exact words. But this isnt fear mongering, and i defintly hope this is all just a game that some smart people do to get attention. Im a normal person who wants to get married, have children, live life and have fun. I dont want to think of a world like all that. I enjoy playing simcountry and watching tv, i enjoy loving my beautiful girlfriend and seeing her smile. I want peace and for everyone to be happy. But thats just not what the world is all about. In my opinion, God is real, the bible is True, and the Dark knight has indeed Risen. Others may have their own beleifs and i respect that. And i ask for the same respect from them, and not to be called crazy, stupid, or whatever. I dont care if you have an Iphone or not, once again i was speaking of the world at large, not specific people on an online game. I told you, only thing meant for you and you alone was that voting wont do much because anyone put in power is manipulated or killed who dont abide by their plans.
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 10:27 am Guns can be banned. Poof. Just like that. No biggie. It's only gun-loving NRA nuts who actually believe that the American Government will take your rights away without them.
| |
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 02:34 pm
Except of course for our right to firearms right? I wonder what the next right would be ... I'm sure it would involve privacy and mandatory chipping of humans, oh wait they already do that. Or maybe it would only deal with unlawful search and seizure, or detention ... damned I forgot the Patriot Act does that. Darn okay maybe just the unlawful seizure of property by the Government? Oh no ... Kasper is right it's already to late.
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 08:14 pm I don't vote because I don't want to be responsible for putting an asshole in office ITS ALL YOU VOTERS WHO HAVE RUINED THIS COUNTY
| |
| Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 08:15 pm plus 1 yankee
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 10:48 am @Yankee, by your logic, if you're allowed to legally own guns, you should have the right to kill whoever you please as well. Laws exist to protect people, not hurt them. Stricter gun controls are no exception.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 05:33 pm What a load of horseshit! I should have the right to do whatever I want as long, as it does not infringe on the rights of another. Killing someone just because I "wanted to" would definitely be infringing on the rights of someone else. Even in a situation where I felt I had to kill someone in defense, I'd immediately become involved in the judicial system. If not all the criteria for the use of lethal force where obvious, more than likely I'd be the one sitting in prison maybe even with a sentence of death. That is most certainly one of the more asinine statements I've ever seen for anyone advocating gun control.
| |
| Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 09:27 pm And there's the rub...
Every human has the right to life. Do you have the right to take away that right? Please dont use the excuse that a perp has lost his rights when he is certainly going to take away yours. That doesn't wash, reminds me of a bad cliche - two wrongs dont make a right. So is the death penalty taking away your right to life? Would you be justified in taking the lives of the executioners as they were about to take yours? (should such a scenario ever occour). I smell double standards there, the law is an ass. But I'm keeping out of this...
| |
Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - 11:15 pm
That type of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the world in general. Whether you wish to face it or not there are people in this world that are willing to take whatever it is you have your property, your health, or your life. If you think for an instant that one human should let another beat them senseless or take their life simply because it's wrong to fight back. I have no idea what type of society you grew up in but it wasn't on this particular planet. No if you think YOUR particular life is not important, then by all means let someone do what they will. What kind of man could let his wife, daughter or for that matter a complete stranger be raped or murdered? What kind of mother would allow that to her child? Where did you ever come across the idea that taking a life at an all situations was "wrong"? Religion? I was raised Protestant (Southern Baptist to be exact) and just how do you derive that from the Bible? How many times did God either kill, or command others to kill in the Old Testament? If it is always immoral to kill another human being then God himself must be immoral. Since those of us in the Christian Faith do not believe God is immoral, then there must be circumstances during which is is not immoral to kill another human being. So then you have to decide under what circumstances is it moral to kill another human being? If there are any circumstances at all it would have to be while protecting yourself or the people around you. While a Christian may voluntarily decide to lay down his life for the sake of another, God has given you a body and He intends you to take care of it (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Because God has given you your own body to protect, it is not a sin, but a virtue, to protect it. The religion card simply will not work so I have to wonder, just where did you come up with the idea that defending yourself or others was wrong?
| |
| Thursday, August 2, 2012 - 07:32 am WOW I am sitting here banging my head on my desk with all this liberal bullshit its liberals like that that give liberals like myself a bad name (I consider my self libertarian which I think.is a fancy way of saying I hates all the politicians from the idiotic backwards backwater neocons to the wine sipping illogical liberals) I am glad there are still people like Yankee and I would find it impossible in your situation to logically respond to his statements when I person intends to infringe on the rights of others then he loses his
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 02:56 am I hate it when right-wing conservatives who are glued to Faux News use the word "liberal" as if its a dirty word. You folks love to call people names rather than actually debate things like policy. Grow up. Fact: guns are bad. People will use them to do bad things. Solution: take them away, and leave only the police, military and those who have a specific reason (e.g. farmers who need it for vermin) and crime rates reduce significantly. Guns infringe on the rights of other people to feel secure, safe and well protected in public. Come here to Australia and you'll see how safe it is with guns off the street. @Alexandrov, you call yourself a liberal, yet you call what a majority of "liberals" preach "bullshit". No wonder America is backward politically.
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 03:16 am screw you morgan dont take my words out of context just go back and make us americans some ugs dammit try getting out of your on little world and look around your government spent half a billion dollars on implementing gun control but statistics show violent crime went up crime rates in america are higher then europe and australia because of our society not less gun control
| |
Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 04:44 am
Now you really are trolling. What it's only taken until 2011 to drop your murder rate from 1996 by the same percentage as in the US with no gun ban. And of course the number of other crimes has increased. Seems a woman is 3 times more likely to be raped in Australia than in the U.S. But I suppose all you Aussies think a woman that would kill to prevent rape is "selfish". http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp116.aspx Just cut and paste that in your browser to see how it's working for Australia. FACT: It's not.
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 02:42 pm Yankee, your post there about Christian values is completely nonsensical. I'm not a believer in any etheral power but I do believe the Bible to be a code of morals and a good construct of the way to behave to others. You realise "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible? Didn't Gods own son sacrifice his life to save the human race? And God allowed this. So sorry sir, but you sound more and more like some sort of fanatic or extremist. If I were psychoanalysing you for gun permits then you would be on the high risk register. Please accept the fact that the world is growing up, we are becoming more civilised, and just as Bones in Star Trek was scripted to say about smoking...'why would anyone inhale this poison into their lungs, crazy' then also the future will say, just how did they let people run around with weapons of death? It seems to me that the thinking of 'I need a gun to protect me and mine' is just propogating the violence. They WILL be phased out eventually, accept it, embrace it, and help it.
| |
| Saturday, August 4, 2012 - 09:39 pm The old testament is a load of rubbish. I can't believe any intelligent person would take it seriously LOL.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 01:03 am I am God
| |
Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 01:27 am
Do you really want to get into that discussion crafty? That's not the only verse quoted by pacifists however, none of them referred to life threatening situations. A "slap on the cheek" is an insult not worth taking a life for. And if you are Christian, Jesus sacrificed himself. Had he not been able to protect himself ("with twelve legions of angels") then rather than a "plan" which was death, he would have simply been one more person killed by a mob.
I happen to believe you are wrong. And you are using a circular argument much like "because I said so". Gun control has done nothing for Great Britain either.
| |
Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 01:31 am
Whether you believe in it or not, religion is the basis for most National morals and thus law.
If man really was created in God's own image, you could have a point.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 05:33 am Jesus is a Jew. Oh burn... "Whether you believe in it or not, religion is the basis for most National morals and thus law." And this is where it will get ugly. Many Christians keep thinking that because they are the majority in the Western world, they can dictate what the Government can do e.g. gay marriage. I'm opening a can of worms, but if the Church doesn't recognise gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the Government, which is supposedly secular, has to be ruthlessly lobbied by the Church into making sure gays can't marry. Marriage is two things: one is a religious ceremony, and one is a legal undertaking. They should remain seperate and independent, which is why I've got a long history of getting infuriated by Catholics (like my mother) who insist that the Church is always correct and has the right to oppose all things homosexual (except their priests), and therefore everyone else (atheists, muslims, and others) should follow their laws. Another sticking point is the Middle East, and America's determination to impose Western Laws in places which honestly do not want them and will never accept them. It's an excellent example of a civilisation believing that because they are #1, everyone else should bow down to them and adopt their ideals, regardless of race, creed or belief. Watch Team America - it's probably the most spot-on observation of America's foreign policy and big-headed interventionist ideals, when one stips away the humour. ----- Now, back to guns. Yankee, crime rates in Australia have been lower than the United States' for decades. America has the highest homicide rates per 100,000 in the developed world, and also has the most relaxed gun laws in the developed world. Coincidence? It also has the highest number of people in prison per 100,000 in the world (700 per 100,000 from memory). Comparing Australian crime rates to American crime rates is comparing apples and oranges, plus also ignores other factors such as poverty rates(America is worse), education quality (America is worse), wealth distribution and equality (American is worse, again), and healthcare (America is worse, thanks to its lack of (semi)Universal Healthcare). As for your point on rape, Yankee, just remember that Australia has a large Aboriginal population, which live in terrible living conditions which have cycled down through generations, despite numerous attempts to lift their standard of living both internally and externally. Over 50% of reported rape cases in Australia came from this 5% portion of the population. It's an ongoing problem, which the Government is struggling to control thanks to drug smuggling and alcohol. Your points fail to recognise this.
| |
Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 08:52 am
Wrong again, in the U.S. what is or is not, a marriage is a legal issue determined by the individual States. Some recognize Gay marriages, some (probably most) don't. Mine doesn't, and that was decided by the population of my State. If everyone's vote was influenced by their personal religious belief, so be it.
And what you choose to ignore is we would still have one of the highest rates even if all deaths inflicted by firearms was eliminated from the stats. On the other hand Switzerland with the highest number of firearms for it population has one of, if not the lowest. Another point is our homicide rate has dropped by the same percentage as Australia since 1996 and we still have our firearms. There is nothing in even your own governments stats that suggest gun controls are having an effect on major crime. Now you want to argue the Middle East, foreign or domestic policy start another thread. Religion only became a factor in this particular thread when I asked Crafty where the idea that defending yourself or others was wrong came from. As I pointed out the religion card does not play, and that doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim. And I still want to know where that odd concept came from, especially if it wasn't religion.
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 09:39 am Um I've had a question that has been left unanswered for a long time. When did god write the bible? Because the first marriage was in 1250CE. When did god write the bible? Because animals have been killing animals for like over 4 billion years. When did god write the bible? Because the letters needed to write the bible weren't around till the greek alphabet which didn't originate until 800BCE. Someone else must of wrote the bible, but who? Could someone else be tasked with writing a document that billions will follow like sheep without questioning the legimitacy of it? Hmmm... Well I guess no one would dare manipulate that many people and make them do just about anything you they want. Guns eh... I think I'll get into this one, as it is distracting so many of you. Guns shoot bullets, bullets kill people, dead people can't accomplish anything, a society that accomplishes nothing is good for no one. If guns weren't around they can no longer shoot people, and guess what everything is better. And the truth is most Americans don't give a damn about the constitution they care about the outcome. Repeal the second amendment, sure there will be riots but temporary, when that's done everyone will be happy! Yippie! Now to get serious guns kill people, don't blame it on people, without the assistance of guns violent crimes would be too risky as they would take much longer. Historically countries with stricter gun control have lower levels of violent crime, check your facts, if anything look at Chicago, then compare it to london or sydney. Freedom of speech is so overrated if you don't know know what you are talking about then shut up. Simple. As for the argument of stimulation, entertainment is void from real life, and we are the way we are because we are conditioned to be this way. If America would fix the education and decrease the military budget society would be more inclined to adopt healthier interests-Fact. How many Dr's have gun collections, compared to illiterate rednecks? But education can't be fixed as long as detrimental occupations are the only one's rewarded by society. If the argument becomes cops need guns then this whole mess is going to get crazy, as the people with the largest superiority complexes in the world are cops, and shouldn't be given that authority. Not sure of that solution but... It takes a special kind of person to choose a career lifestyle of pulling people over to impose fines, or ruin peoples lives over a little bit of dope. I don't feel cops actually takes risks, if a situation is too dangerous they let people go. Why empower the creeps? If anyone wants to refute that claim, don't bother I'm just gonna say I don't believe you and that's all. So where exactly do guns fit in society? Nowhere is where, simply to perpetuate the myth that citizens need protection, when they only really need protection from themselves. Oh yeah and libertarians are stupid. If I offended anyone good, that was the intent
| |
| Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 02:39 pm Heh, I can just envision a few hundred cinema goers standing up at once and unleashing a torrent of pistol and semi-automatic fire on one guy because they all have the right to defend themselves. Like all parables in the bible, the turning the other cheek thing is an illustration of the moral being preached. I know you dont think it literally means when someone slaps your face. Look, I dont think it is wrong to defend yourself or your family, of course not, its human nature, not even limited to human actually... I just think the gung-ho attitude of 'I's a goona whoop some redneck ass comes sniffing round my patch, put a 457 right in his ass...' is not healthy in our crowded societies. I can well imagine it in the pioneer days, or the few remote outbacks of the world, but not in cities, in civilisation. Like I say, it will, nay, it has to, change. And before I get shouted down, by no means do I mean the overnight banning of handguns.
| |
Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 11:15 pm
Such wonderful objectives.
| |
Sunday, August 5, 2012 - 11:28 pm
What a simplistic argument. Okay, bricks are hard, people throw bricks and kill people, Ban bricks. No wait, beer bottles can either be hard or sharp, and people beat or stab each other with beer bottles, ban beer bottles. Baseball bats kill people, don't blame it on the people blame it on baseball bat. The list goes on. None of those items are as Crafty says, "healthy in our crowded societies". Hell I may as well argue on your level.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 12:50 am Hey, look over there, it happened again! Makes this little "think tank" here seem pretty insignificant doesn't it?
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 05:10 am Yankee your rebuttal is off. I tried to find the annual deaths by baseball bats but couldn't find it unfornuately. Probably because its most likely in the double digits or less I'd entertain the possibly of 3 digits by definately isn't comparable to the 5 digit numbers of guns. But there is an easier way to look at this, what is the primary function of an object? A rifle is to hunt, a handgun is to kill people, an oozie is to kill a lot of people. A baseball bat is to hit a baseball. When a baseball bats primary function becomes to kill people we should get rid of baseball bats. When people aren't commonly killed by a hunting gun, and a hunter rarely uses a handgun for hunting why would you sell a handgun at all? It is easy as that the teneology of things, the telos (purpose) of a handgun is to kill peeople, or to threaten. So it is a very simplistic argument. And true, occums razor the simplest solution is most likely true
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 11:59 am Lol, I dont suppose there are many cases of 'murder by brick'. In fact glass containers ARE prohibited in most large gatherings, even in known troublesome pubs here in the UK. You have to suffer plastic. Beer in a plastic glass - uggg - a pet hate of mine. And baseball bats? They may well be used as a weapon of violence but I would doubt many would chose them as an instrument of murder. A bloke going bezerk in a movie theatre might well hurt some people, but kill a dozen? nah. Unless he's a ninja batter huh, like the theoretical knifeman who could murder several before you could react. Many many items are now classed as 'weapons' if you are carrying them without good cause (eg for your job). So I say my level is the right one to argue on. Its real, not some cops and robbers superhero world.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 01:25 pm Same in Australia. No glass allowed at large gatherings. Another Yankee rebuttal out the window.
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 09:08 pm I think I'm gonna hijack this thread and rename it to: WHO ALL THINKS DREW NEEDS A HAIR CUT - HAIR CONTROL. If you look back at all the psycho gun killers, they all have weird hair. I'm concerned about Drew's HAIR here and "da look" he puts forth in his pic. I'm a lil concerned about that middle finger in Tom's pic too, but I'll refrain from discussing this at this current time. Please place your comments here - YES for Drew to cut his hair, No to leave it as is. Thank you. Yours, Lorelei PS. To steal Drew's quote: If I offended [insert Drew's name here]good , that was the intent HA HA HA HA HA HA not really
| |
| Monday, August 6, 2012 - 09:46 pm Crafty, When Blueserpent took me to a pub over there over Christmas, I firmly recall my drink being in a glass container. I think. :S Oh I miss the Cheeky Vimtoes or however you spell them and my crumpets for breakfast. :-( All seems like a blur now. So, how is London with all the people from the Olympics there?
| |
| Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 03:43 am Interesting....... I was spiderman until I posted da weird hair thinggy and look at da avatar I have NOW.....OOMGGGGGG!!! Now who's da weirdo! ha ha ha ha LORELEI, GET A DAYAM HAIRCUT!!! lol AND Crafty........ my my what FINE MUSCLES you have! hubba hubba!!! lol Now I can't tease you about your pinkness and discolored leg any more. Poo!
| |
| Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 08:15 am sorry I haven't been on I know you've all been missing me id like to start off by saying reliigion is just an ancient backwards way to con troll people and only fools who cant think for themselves qoute the Bible (qouting the Bible is dumb because it contradicts itself) I figure if I spent the time to remember lots of common Bible versus I could argue with these people on their level (could be interesting) and tom Morgan in your second to most recent post you brought up some good points about Catholicism spot on my mother is the same way (thinks democracy is evil and the pope should make all the decisions) and then preaches to children about relativism or something another word for democracy being evil and how Hitler was the great relatavist (albiet a dictator) (for those of you who don't know relativism is a theory of thought that says something is morally correct ifthe majority agrees) (apparently this is bad and we should let the pope make all our moral decisions) what a load of trash (cant believe this is allowed to be taught to already degenerate teenagers who believe in anything that's cool and who are in fact the great relatavists) sorry bout that tangent also about team America I dont know what it is but it sounds like some idiotic reality TV show and you shouldn't use such things in your arguments honestly many Americans don't give a shit about anything so I doubt the majority really are interventionists (also id like to bring up the ancient history of WW2 in which our damn interventionism arguably saved Europe) and WW1 to a lesser extent also in your 3rd paragraph you bring up some good points Americas crime rates are higher because of poor education health income distribution etc our society not because of poor gun control thanks for seeing the light drew how are libertatians stupid they seem to me to be the only pragmatic bunch of politicians they aren't conservatives always talking about cathlocism like its a prerequisite to being president ans they aren't democrats who just want to subsidize all the farms and get rid of guns...of course there are the crazy libertatians who put me off abit you always seemed to me like one of those kinds and no glass allowed at public gatherings what a bunch of stuffy stodgy socialists....HOW do you even know that are all of your policemen lawyers who would think of that law let alone think to remember it...its not exactly obvious that glass wouldn't be allowed somewhere.....and what constitutes large what is a large gathering....just boggles my mind that politicians just go hmmmm lets make glass illegal in large gatherings don't they have anything better to do by the way id like to point out that criminals will always figure out a way to bring glass to a large gathering regardless of the ammount of police prescense weather aware of the law or not and if people didn't have access to guns I'm sure plenty would resort to baseball bats we wouldn't want to see that now would we abit gruesome id imagine
| |
| Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 10:27 am "and tom Morgan in your second to most recent post you brought up some good points about Catholicism spot on my mother is the same way (thinks democracy is evil and the pope should make all the decisions) and then preaches to children about relativism or something another word for democracy being evil and how Hitler was the great relatavist (albiet a dictator) (for those of you who don't know relativism is a theory of thought that says something is morally correct ifthe majority agrees) (apparently this is bad and we should let the pope make all our moral decisions) what a load of trash (cant believe this is allowed to be taught to already degenerate teenagers who believe in anything that's cool and who are in fact the great relatavists) " Thanks. Sounds like your mum is saying some pretty bizarre things (no offense). I just hate how the Catholic Church tries so hard to influence people and Governments that gay marriage is bad and abortion (in incidents of rape) is STILL unethical. "by the way id like to point out that criminals will always figure out a way to bring glass to a large gathering regardless of the ammount of police prescense weather aware of the law or not " The laws are to prevent drunken fights getting out of hand (e.g. glassings). People who are drunk tend to do these things regardless of their normal state. Nothing to do with criminals or mentally unstable people.
| |
| Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 12:33 am yah I know the purpose but common who cares? Karl Marx actually had it right when he said religion was simply an opiud for the masses I wanted to punch santorum so bad when he said he thought obama was a cathlolic like he was paying him a compliment by telling him his time in office was actually sanctioned by the church I think America has actually become more extreme in religion the past decade or so except a more deluded scary kind of way not the same as our forefathers who were mostly diests not evangelists he Gdp really has lost its way idk if any of you people have been to anything like life teen or stuebenville or some goofy retreat but those places are fucked up bad its like a cult people who get touched by the holy spirit somehow cant stop laughing or crying in a maniacal fashion ohhh shiver me timbers I fear the worst for America when my generation takes over
| |
| Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 01:25 am Fiscally conservative are what makes libertarians stupid. Not empowering the masses is what leads to devastation to the masses. A weaker federal government keeps people from being empowered, it keeps them stupid, and so the libertarian party is stupid. Not quite as bad as the repugnant party, but eh... still caters to the problem class of the United States/world. If people were more educated they would take on better interests than guns. People simply aren't challenged and don't realize that happiness comes from the amazing feats we accomplish. Criminals have the seen the rewards of their efforts and what they see is the quickest best way to make a buck, those habits move into the other faucets of their lives. We need to breed and nurture productive members of society than guns won't even matter. But as of now of it does, and you can't take a baseball bat into a theator and kill dozens before they get taken down. And for those of you say criminals will find a way to get a gun; we are playing an economic simulation game, if you lower supply what happens to price, what happens to access? If you increase the power the fed you can limit the supply from outside the country. Thus limiting access further, and to reiterate what I said earlier handguns are the problem moreso, you can make large strides limiting which guns are allowed to be sold.
| |
| Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 04:03 am Cars kill most people and govenments
| |
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 06:19 pm
Lovely quote Drew, I just couldn't resist repeating that, sorry... When's the last time that hair went near a faucet? lol.
| |
| Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 06:22 pm Lorelei, can you see a different avatar for me? You mentioned it above. There should be one but I still see the pink poodle.
| |
| Wednesday, August 8, 2012 - 07:46 pm how does having a small federal government make people stupid i do not understand just because a government is small doesnt mean it cant provide good education....and btw i know many people who are educated and productive members of society and STILL like guns so im wondering what world you live in btw shooting up a theatre doesnt get you any money it gets you put in jail...it is simply a result of our sad society and people
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 02:20 am Crafty..Pink poodle is now bulldog on steroids. Drew...Put the bong away for a few days.
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 02:52 am The chances of being killed in a mass shooting is as likely as being killed by a falling piano. I find it odd that all these shootings start at one time. First my hometown in Tuscaloosa, then Colorado, now this temple shooting. Your a hundred time more likely to die in a car accident but we still have cars, and bars who serve idiots that plan to drive home. This is typical scare a thon. Something happens then omg lets run to the goverment and have them protect us. Yea sure, let the cops and milatary only have guns....see where that leads too. People only talk about whats going on at the moment. Why arent more people smart enough to see what will come in the future. Only the goverment has guns, only the goverment has power. Only the goverment has the ability to kill, at least so easily anyway. Well when that happens the same people will be on forums complaining about that, and how we need our guns back. What happened after 9/11. Because of one event its now much harder to even board an airplane. We got TSA agents fondling people. Scans that give people cancer. Rude agents that search three year olds, that spill a mans fathers cremation remains. Wow thanks for keeping us safe Mr. Goverment. Whos gonna protect us from the goverment when the guns are taken away? Were all fucked anyway you look at it. And only temp rioting? Try to take away these guns and see how temparary that shit stays. Keep the guns out of hands of Crazy folks. No one should be able to buy a gun without going thru certain evaulations. But here you can buy one with only a background check as long as you have no felonies. You can carry it in your car or in your home. When two big men break into a home of a young girl ( possibly your wife or daughter ), she should not only be able to defend herself but also know how. If she does nothing but call the police and they take on average 20 minutes to get there, sometimes longer depending on certain situations, the men breaking in will have plenty of time to do what they want. I have guns, my girl was agaisnt it but i changed her mind. Now she knows how to use the guns i have and even enjoys it to blow off steam sometimes. Bottom line this argument can go on forever, at the end of the day were going to have people for guns and agaisnt guns. But anyone who says only police and military should have guns obviously hasnt seen how these corrupt ass cops and soldiers can loose it and cause more harm than a regular citizen. Cops and Soldiers have personal lives too. A soldier in Iraq gets a letter from his girl saying shes leaving him, he looses it and takes his guns to all those around him then to his self. And cops? Please half of those bitches deserve to be shot. Anyone who doesnt know what i mean should get out the suburbs for a few days
| |
Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 03:56 pm
The first thing alcohol effects is judgement, I've never seen a "mean drunk" that didn't carry that trait in the first place. They just don't hide it as well. Sounds to me like Australia should consider banning alcohol at public gatherings.
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 10:06 pm That's selective listening, small government by definition limits investment in public civil institutions. How doesn't small government limit education? That is what it means, don't have the government intervene spend less yaddi yadda. If we invest less (smaller gov) we give a lower quality. Very simple. Philosophy really should be taught to everyone, about the people wanting guns thing, people give into simple pleasures because they are addicted to it, if people understood (or were educated correctly) they would move away from simple pleasures like gun, and enjoy their lives being in the service of others or the community they live in. Don't downplay gun violence, cars are a big difference. Gun violence is intentional, cars are accidents. Don't forget it
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 11:08 pm Don't over rate gun violence, firearms are no where near the tool of choice when committing murder in the U.S. Now if you educated correctly in history, you would more likely than not, have different views.
| |
| Thursday, August 9, 2012 - 11:47 pm ■Murders total – 13636 ■Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%) ■Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%) ■Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%) ■Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%) ■Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%) ■Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%) ■Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%) 2009 - US =)
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 12:10 am Take the guns away and those rates would rise in other areas. Guns are easier to murder, duh! It takes a real man to gut someone but a bitch could pull a trigger. And the main reason those stats are so high.....the murder rates come from slums and projects. Its not innocent people being killed even tho that happens sometimes. It over drug turf. Half of those statistics are people who probally deserve to die in the first place. You think banning guns will change that. People will just be taking weed eaters to peoples faces, setting people on fire, stabbing people. The murder rates are risen because the world is becoming godless and obcessed with gangbanging. I myself am a Gangster Disciple. Cousins and affiliates of the LA Crips. Theirs 100,000 of us all around the country. My set is 974 and my rank is Knight, soon to become Set Prince. My organization started over drug trade but its since become a brotherhood. The 6 Point Star stands for love, life, loyalty, understanding, knowledge, and wisdom. Nothing in there about murder. However the Bloods are not my friends we called a truce along time ago. I dont see myself as a gang banger i see myself as brother of the star. Were more polictical these days. The real voilence comes from the drug cartels which brings up another issue. The borders. The bottom line is guns will not end voilence or murder. And i doubt the rates would decrease. I mean even if they were illegal do you think that would wipe them all out the country. hell no. For God sakes you could possibly build your own gun. These argument is crazy. Cus no matter who likes it, guns are here to stay. They made be made illegal cus thats what the goverment really wants, then we'll watch all the anti gun activist wish they had guns to fight the oppression of tyranical goverments across the world. I agree with the original point that guns should be harder to get, and impossible for people who are not willing to undergo physcolgical anaylisis or however its spelled.....but i will NEVER agree that guns are bad. Once again...guns dont kill people...crazy ass people kill people. If someone wants someone dead, they'll find a way. People are only looking at what happened recently in Colorado and what not.....think outside the box for a minute. James Holmes could had just as easily threw a molotiv cocktail into a group and kill them easier then use a battery operated nail gun hit a few people. Then threw some gasoline on a few and sthrew a match. All this is crazy im just saying to stop thinking about what happened and think about what could had happened. A crazy person wanting blood could get in a car, go to a populated street and ran over 40 or 50 people going 70mph.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 12:27 am Your numbers are off Drew ... where did you get the information I'd like to see a link. 2009 murders in the U.S. was several thousand higher, but at any rate have been dropping since 1997 as crime in all categories has.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 01:08 am First, I resent the notion that drunk driving is an accident. Who chooses not to make arrangement to have someone else drive (or to drink in a situation where there is a need to drive)? Who chooses to drink in this situation? Who chooses to get behind the wheel? Drew, I think you need to reevaluate your notion of personal responsibility. Second, I resent the notion of philosophy leading to people "enjoy[ing] their lives being in the service of others or the community they live in." If there is one thing that philosophy leads to, it is questioning things. Why should I serve others? Why should I let society determine whether or not I own guns? Why should I allow the government to maintain compulsory education? Why should I consent to be governed? If I don't think I should do any of these, what happens? I think you'll find the answer down the barrel of a gun.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 09:07 am lol scarlet those answered questions are answered with John Stuart Mill, I know I use him a lot but with reason. Anyways I'll break it down real quick. Take your most awesomest day (you all seem to be pretty straight edge [no disrespect] but I'll use this argument anyways.) Take the most awesome day while completely off your rocker drunk/high/tripping no doubt an incredible experience. But when you look back what are you filled with? maybe not regret but it isn't anything positive. Some of you may argue that you look back at times of indugence with happiness however you are being tricked if you are not sharing that experience you aren't happy about it you are only remeniscent. I mean if you were given an invisible royles royce is that better then an invisible fast not million dollar car? Think about it, how much do we really do in the service of others? Is it the drunken escapade that fills us with happiness or is it the enjoyment of sharing it? Scarlet I think you'll find its the latter, but if you look back at your service to a soup kitchen you'll be filled with different emotions. It's all about TRUE happiness here. @Kasper the scary ghost, my post was in regards to "Don't over rate gun violence, firearms are no where near the tool of choice when committing murder in the U.S." Yankee in which I OWNED! @ Yankee I google searched murder by weapon and went to the sight that said FBI on it. So umm the FBI's statistics. However they could be off but they'd have to be pretty far off to justify your statement and in all liklihood it is probably pretty close to 70% for firearms. And the statistics also show that argument I said again and again its handguns, all practical non murdery uses of a gun are better without a handgun. FINALLY to defend the intention drunk driving comment. Drunk driving isn't an act of murder, it's stupid true. I never said it was a good idea I merely implied that driving while drunk is not an act of homicide. People make stupid decisions all the time, drunk driving while stupid isn't an act of intentionally killing somebody. So scarlets idiots drink and drive, you want to outlaw idiocy, because if that's true I'm all for it, no more repugnants, no more NRA, no more homophobes, rednecks, many others gone.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 03:44 pm (Post deleted bu author as being probably inflammatory, and redundant)
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 03:51 pm Many people have guns and they have not commited murder. That should be the argument we all use. If your not going to take alcohol away, or other things away then dont tell me you want guns taken away just because you dont own one or care to own one. Other people just like hunting and shooting. Most people have them to defend themselves and their family. Its the Great equalizer, if alot of theives break into your house, well one man cant fight them all and he has a right to defend them. Or if a woman is home alone, she must defend herself. Theres many cases where guns have saved lives and protect innocent people. My advice is just know and understand the worlds changing and theres crazy shit going on. All you can do is be careful and protect your own. I for one, feel alot safer with guns in my home. Because i know i have a fighting chance agaisnt anything that may happen. Im not a sitting duck. Im getting out of this conversation, its gone on long enough and we can agree to disagree before a mass war gets started. One more thing, i believe if guns never existed and the knowledge was well hidden then i beleive only then should we never produce them in the first place. Just fortify homes better but that ship has long sailed. There here and will be here tommorow. If you ban them, it will only take them away from law abiding citizens, however criminals will still own them and im sure they'll be happy as hell to know the house they break into has no weapons, but plenty of goodies and young woman.
| |
Friday, August 10, 2012 - 04:54 pm
Funny since I also go to the FBI for stats. I still have to wonder where those came from. Since like I said, your total numbers are low once again I think you picked just what you wanted. Anyway you cut it, crime in the U.S. in all categories has been dropping since 1997. So take your pick, either the economy, poverty levels, education, drug related crime is being interdicted better by the police, or concealed carry combined with the "castle laws" are having an effect.
Then why is it drunk drivers, at least around here when fatalities are involved are first charged with 2nd degree Murder? Granted they are usually plead down to 1st degree and sometimes 2nd degree Manslaughter, but not always. Getting behind the wheel after having even one drink is a choice. It's an easy one too, been making it for decades. If I've had one drink, I don't drive until well past the one hour per drink it takes to clear out my system, if I can't avoid driving, I don't drink. Anyone operating a motor vehicle under the influence is making a decision that the lives of those they may injure or kill are not important. Since judgement is the first thing effected by alcohol all you need to do is make your choice before you start.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 10:45 pm Oh god, a utilitarian. A top-down philosophy if there ever was one. First, I'd like to issue a three pronged challenge: 1. How is it that we share experiences? I do not see what you see. I do not feel what you feel. I do not hear what you hear. I do not taste what you taste. In fact, we each have independent subjective experiences because we are not part of a shared consciousness. Experience is tied solely to a conscious entity... and we are each independent conscious entities. (Note: the point here is best decribed by number of experiences... two separate experiences or one shared experience... not saying we taste the same thing different.) Perhaps you meant that we experience events in the world with each other? If so: 2. If we do not share experiences, how can the value of an action be determined outside an individual subjective judgement? You're arguing that actions can possibly have intrinsic value. I'd like to propose this series of questions: How can we determine whether or not some object is good? In other words, something that is good must be good for something. It's fairly easy to determine whether a hammer is good. If it's good for hammering, then it is a good hammer. However, here we're measuring the object (hammer) to the task (hammering). In such a situation, it is indeed true that there is an objective means of determining whether the object is good, but let's take a step up. Nobody is foolish enough to deny the objectivity of instrumental value (your invisible car), but here my ultimate goal is to deny intrinsic value. So let's take a step up. How can we determine the value of a task beyond relating it toward some other task? In other words, consistently applying instrumental value undoubtedly does not reach some end. A hammer is has value if hammering has value, hammering has value if (for example) building a house is necessary, building a house is has value if having shelter has value, having shelter has value if meeting needs of self preservation has value, (here going into serving other as the higher goal) meeting needs of self preservation has value if serving others has value, serving others has value if... well, that's the end of the road for you isn't it. My question is: what gives this task of serving others value? More abstractly, what gives something enough value to live for... let's include every task we do. What standard of value is worth choosing over any other standard? Here, one cannot rely on instrumental value to give the answer... you have two choices: First, claim that goals can only be evaluated according to an intrinsic standard of value. Second, claim that goals can only be evaluated according to a subjective standard of value. These are mutually exclusive... claiming one rules out the other. To be clear, we've ruled out attempting to judge objectively under either standard according to instrumental value. It leads to circular reason as every end is also a means. Here we concern ourselves ONLY with the ends. So, the big question is... is there any difference between the two claims? There is no notion of intrinsic value that can be demonstrated without resorting to self-evidence or axioms. To claim an intrinsic standard of value is valuable without resorting to an endless reduction via arguing through instrumental value is to make the essentially subjective evaluation that such a standard has value. There is no essential difference! 3. This bring me to the third point. Ultimately, the highest value judgments - the ones answer the question, what is the good life? - as argued previously are essentially arbitrary. Of course, I'd like to call attention to a few things: First, marginal point: I'm not about to let emotions like happiness determine (used technically; determine is being opposed to influence) how I live my life. If it was unsuitable in one situation, it is unsuitable in another. There is no good reason to consider any emotion as the final word in deciding how to live one's life. To be ruled by "true happiness" is no different than to be ruled by euphoria, but the real problem is that emotions are biological responses to the current situation only. They don't tell you a great deal of things about the future. I'm happy when I get drunk, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy the next morning. Let's say I'm happy serving others, that doesn't mean I'll enjoy the fact that I sacrificed my time for them later. Second, you ask, "Is it the drunken escapade that fills us with happiness or is it the enjoyment of sharing it?" Point 1 of this post reflect the conflation here, I enjoy it... We do not enjoy it. Maybe You and I enjoy it which is merely two subjective appraisals as opposed to one. In other words, you merely contrasted quantity of the same essential thing in your question, then moved to an entirely different type of thing. To curtail a possible counter, it is entirely logical coming from a stance of being concerned about my enjoyment to assign instrumental value to your enjoyment. You know, mutual benefit doesn't correspond to service to others. I'm still primarily concerned about my values and what promotes my values in a mutually beneficial situation. Third, while I'm sure you may be tempted... the proposition that moral value is subjective and arbitrary does not imply the absence of rights or responsibility (although it does rule out moral obligations). This is due to the recognition of each agent as capable of individually determining the value of an object/task/goal. In other words, the structure of the entire position dictates the sovereignty of the individual... so negative rights still exist. Fourth, the drunk driving thing is actually a big deal. Just because the law says that you aren't responsible for something doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for something. Let me put it like this: Banning guns is placing all gun owners as responsible for the actions of one man. Charging a drunk driver with murder is placing one man as responsible for the actions of himself. The essential issue is who is responsible... the gun/vehicle or the man. I'm not saying we go banning cars or alcohol, I'm saying we don't ban guns. Drunk driving is essentially synonymous to taking a loaded gun and firing blindly a few times at an apartment building. It's logically consistent to deny the responsibility of the drunk driver and blame the gun for someone being shot, but my position is pretty clear... the man is responsible for his actions: the alcohol, the car, and the gun are not. Anyway, this all is intended to demonstrate that educating people in philosophy will not cause them to agree with you as though questions of value, morals, responsibility, etc. have all been settled beyond question. I'm modestly educated in philosophy, and I'm not sure how I could disagree with you more.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 10:46 pm sorry to get off topic drew but I do t see the logic in your small government argument the way I see it is small government is simply prioritizing what the spend money on better potential government revenue 100 dollars big government 30 on military 30 on social security 5 on welfate 10 on education 25 on subsidys small government 10 on military/ police 20 on social security 10 on welfare (hopefully better utilized) 20 on education 5 on subsidys 25 back into the pockets of consumers to drive the economy in a free market fashion that's economics small government also doesn't make decisions that should be made by the individual marijuana use abortion weather to drink a large soda or not consumption of alchohol.....also all of these things transfer into more savings for the government I would rather have a small government that faery's out its duties well and in a stable fashion then a big government that is barely standing about to be overrun by a deficit the thing that gets me about the gdp is they advocate small government yet they want to make you pray in school they want to tell you what drugs you can.use they want a huge military they want to stick their far reaching hand into a women's uterus yet they don't really give a damn what happens to that child once its born I find it all to be abit hypocritical democrats on the other hand are weak
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 11:16 pm @Alexandrov ok I like your list I do. If it was accurate that would be a great but there are many big government (most democrats) that would also like to have that 20% you stole from military, and also you can't lower social security that is many owed to peoople who invested in it, it isn't government money. To think that additional money would be put into welfare or education is twisted also. Libertarians seem to have moved to the third most prominant party but you are ignoring the idea that there is a difference between what parties would want to see those numbers at and what they are actually capable of changing them to. And there is also a big difference between a democrat and a republican. I'm neither or a socialist or a libertarian, despite being called a utilitarian. If you limit the power of the fed you see a divide, you see inequality among different regions, states, and even though the fed is incompotent that's nothing compared to the states. Democrats are weak, why? because they are less agressive and more collaborative the oppisition won't compromise but as they are americans also they can't allow them to be ignored their values to be ignored. So I kind of trailed off, Libertarians as the republicans want money back in the free market, that's fine but you can't do that the way either party wants to. If you spread money back to the public with the current intent, rich people will just invest more money in already saturated companies and it won't help anyone. The way you "back into the pockets of the consumers" is by raising minimum wage to 15-18$ and make it far to expensive to sell to Americans. Of course not all at once but that's the process. When labor becomes too expensive companies will invest in robotics again moving society forward with positive technology. It's the only way to empower the consumer class, you can't give money to those you spend none tangibly and expect people will sell more. Libs and reps think that tax breaks help, tell that to the interest accumulating debt we have.
| |
| Friday, August 10, 2012 - 11:53 pm @ Scarlett now you made things complicated. You are mixing metaphysics with epistemology, makes things really confusing but I’ll bite. Alas no we are not of a single consciousness and everything we do is subjective. But there are universal truths to all of it, when you accomplish something, and accomplish something else they are similar feelings. When you consume something and then consume something else you are filled with a similar feeling. And I liked your argument but it was founded on a misconception. Humans are social beings, and share things with each other, I was referring to this more in regards to stories not both being present, because both entities are sure to interpret things differently, but that has no relevance here. I’m saying you may have a blast flying down a road at 135 miles per hour and not get caught. You may be happy telling the story and sharing it, but when you are in the isolation of your own mind you will not have the same emotion. Because people need to feel progression in their lives if they are not becoming better then they are regressing or they’re stagnant, those things lead to despair. As people grow and accomplish something meaningful, like convincing a single person that the purpose of handguns has 2 predominate traits of killing someone or being part of police justice. That is something that will build you up bring you closer to enlightenment and makes you happy. Though sharing experiences with someone can have the same effect, as you can feel that you built a relationship stronger. So to respond to your challenge, and the concept of the utility of things, subjectivity is just that subjective. What many view as right or moral are different for other people. I’m not one to question morality on controversial issues (it may seem that way) I will however question morality on the obvious. And there are principles of utilitarianism that I agree with and some that I don’t. It isn’t our job to only seek out positive outcomes, it is our job to not make any intentional decisions that cause negative outcomes. So to answer your first 2 questions the individual has make their subjective decisions without regard to the outside world, but if they are making self-servicing decisions with a negative impact on the rest of society then they are violating the rules, and should be removed. After you touched on instrumental value is when your challenge got very interesting and you even asked me the meaning of life, regretfully I don’t have the answers as no one does, and I know you issue this challenge to weaken my arguments. Anyways a good hammer will perform hammering good, teleology, the actions we do with those hammers have to be evaluated subjectively, do we perform hammering for good or evil? And when considering instrumental value even there are no intrinsic value, an MRI machine has little to no value to me, despite it’s capabilities I don’t know how to work it. When you move into actions this value is exasperated, and all we are left with is good or bad intentions. This is why I’m an advocate of stronger education so the outcomes of actions are known. However there is only situational value, the outcome is important, but that will generally come with good intentions. So to take the easy way out of this I never believed anyone should utilize the bentham scale (which ended up being the basis of your argument), I just believe people should have good intentions, leading to good experiences, that make their life worth living. And being ruled by “true happiness†is much different then being ruled by “euphoria.†Euphoria is an addiction, the thirst will never be quenched, just ask drug addicts. What felt better crushing the addiction or taking a hit? So this is long enough for now I can clarify later if need be. But to have this knowledge you have, and not take out pieces that can be valueable to you is so wasteful, squandering resources has 0 value to anyone. I NEVER said drunk driving was ok, it isn’t the intent to kill. People are responsible for their actions, they just answer to them. Just like those who sell guns illegally, just like those who manufacture weapons, just like those who advocate the use of conceal and carry. And it’s ridiculous to use the argument criminals will still find a way to get guns, if guns get increasingly harder to find.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 12:34 am I find your argument weak and muddled the way I see it is Republicans and democrats just want to control people Republicans socially and morally and democrats economically both make outrageous claims about helping the middle or lower class and fixing the economy (which is not the job of the government how can an entity even attempt to control something as large and complex as the economy) hey they don't really do anything except drive America closer to doom we have a huge military yet people feel more threatened then ever an ever changing foriegn policy a growing debt a growing discontent huge dispartys in access to education and other social programs huge ammounts of crime and a population of mostly bigwigs all as. a result of straying from historical American values libertarians are the true carriers of what America was meant to be and the idea that having a small government will hurt education or other social programs is silly the government just needs to prioritize what's important most likely less expedidentures will ensue but it shouldn't skimp on such important things
| |
Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 12:42 am
As anyone with a desire to obtain a firearm when none is available will tell you: You get them from the Police, or you get them from the Military. National Guard Armory's are one of the easiest places to case and rob if you know which one's keep the weapons at. If you have a need for large amounts that's where you go. If you just need one or two .. take them from a cop. Either one can get you shot or the law after you if they know where to look, but then criminals generally run that risk anyway. And as far as drunk driving and intent, we all know the risks and they are pretty straight forward. I suppose the "banger" spraying down the local Chucky Cheese could always claim he didn't intend to hit anyone.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:11 am Yes but giving equal weight but prioritizing differently isn't small governement its equal sized government! I'm all for fixing what is broken but changing it something without changing contribution level is bi-tri-quadro-partisan it isn't a libertarian endeavor. Libertarians are wrong simply because the less power the fed imposes on business the more control business imposes on it's workers and clients. Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests? and yankee I'm not even going to touch that one, pure crazy
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 03:58 am the point is drew our government is going to continue on this path of big government and it will fall and America will be weak I prefer a small government that Carrys out its duty's well then a big one like we have now about to go bankrupt etc etc tell me drew do you support even bigger government then the one now I shudder to imagine how that would fare the federal government can barely stand as it is now
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 04:01 am and you fail to revognize that most big governments subjugate their people much more then some bussiness I can unionize to get better conditions in a bussiness what do I foo if my government imposes itself on my person
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 04:46 am alright you are brainwashed its cool though. I'll try to fix you. The governement is ass-backwards. What you have is our officials in big government trying to obtain small government. Think about it breathe and continue reading. 1. When you have people who want small government attacking unions where does that fight for individual rights come in? 2. Your assessment that big government subjugates people to much more strenous rules your to businesses your right on the right on the surface, but wrong big picture. Rules and regulations that are imposed on people and businesses are in place to give the general masses the ability to be more free. If it doesn't it doesn't belong, and I don't support it. So regulating clean air principles, outlawing sex for individuals with fatal STD's, etc take away freedoms for some, but do they give freedom to others? Are those freedoms larger? 3. Saying that big government will fail and weak is short sighted and just words you say with absolutely no meaning. Are these accusations neccessary? 4. Too stop from going bankrupt can't you simply raise taxes? I think that makes enough sense But let me answer your question. Democracy is wrong, people can't make decisions. Democracy is wrong people vote without an understanding of anything, case and point (you). So do I believe the government should be bigger? yes! How big? 1. Well they should compete commercially to ensure safe wages, control employment, ensure fair prices to control inflation. 2. The fed should dismantle state borders and unite us all as 1 single country. Lowering overhead and have the ability to impose fair rules and regualations to the entire country as a whole, instead of interstate competition. Governing the whole at once. 3. They should have the ability to set all standards of working conditions, not limited to wages, safety, environmental standards, and work grade wages, hours of employment, mandotary benefits to employees, etc. 4. They should control and dictate foriegn trade. 5. They should be able to make large investments into research and development. 6. They should be allowed to continue to make laws that continue to ensure people are not discriminated against There's probably more but I wasted a lot time posting here today. The obvious remark most conservatives like yourself would say is how are businesses going to function with such bad conditions. But it's simple, this would eradicate the social responsibility factor going back to scarlet's post. A business that makes money is a good business. When all they have to do is follow the law and make money, they can focus on just making money all else would be gone. Governement should be big enough that everyone only has to worry about what it is they are supposed to be doing with their lives. oh yeah and no welfare. And no guns
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 05:00 am raise taxes why so we can buy a huge military and fight a losing war on drugs so we can provide people with ineffective welfare systems so we can subsidize farms so farmers in Africa don't go out of bussiness so we can pay the salarys of an endless bureaucracy that is my problem with our big government id like to see a return to pre WW2 America wouldn't you I don't really have a problem with regulating busssiness don't know how you got that
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 05:26 am "...no welfare. And no guns" Regulating business is also big government
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 09:04 am "Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests?" There's a lot wrong with this way of looking at things.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 09:19 am no there isn't. How so? Blah blah about businesses making money is good for the people? Because it only is sometimes, and with the stregnth of top-down economics it is rarely the case
| |
Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 09:39 am
Of course Drew thinks the U.S. should ban firearms. You left out the Constitution, you need to dismantle that first.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 10:51 am @ alex: I agree on getting back to a pre-WW2 or immediate post-WW2 America. @ Yankee: I'm with you on the gun issues. @ most of the rest of you, (you know who you are), proponents of an overshadowing central government: (sarcasm alert: ) Yes, we need a large, controlling central government watching over us from cradle to grave! How else do we survive except under Big Brother's benevolent gaze and attention? Everyone knows we can't make it on our own, Only a central government in control of every aspect of our lives even makes it possible to get from day to day. we should all just give all our income to Big Brother and believe that he will dole out to us what is deemed necessary. After all, surely a controlling central authority knows better than we do what to do with our money.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:02 am (sarcasm continues): anyone found trying to better his own life or make a better life for his family shall be arrested and prosecuted. After all, he must be taking more than his share, even if he works harder to get it. Prosecute him for robbery of the populace! And gun control works! There has not been one murder in Washington, D.C. or New York City in 35 years, ever since they banned guns there. The criminals just gave up in chagrin and commented that they guessed they were out of business, because the Law said no guns. There has not even been a mugging in living memory. It was made illegal, you see. And the drug war? Big Brother won that one long ago. There has not been an overdose recorded anywhere in history for at least 75 years. There can't have been; abuse of drugs is illegal, therefore it does not exist.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:23 am (sarcasm continues): How about we just let Big Brother care for us completely, and make our life blissful and care-free by letting the central government make everything illegal that offends SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE. This would indeed be a wonderful state of affairs; imagine, prosecution and imprisonment for such offensive behavior as talking too loudly, whispering (they might be conspiring, doncha know), dressing too stylishly, thus causing envy in the other subjects (no longer citizens, you see), dressing too casually, eating meat, eating peanuts, smoking anything, drinking any alcohol, drinking milk (which Big Brother knows is obtained by exploiting cows), being too fat, being too anorexic, or just plain ugly. Listening to any music or reading any material not approved by the Big Brother Federal Board of Education, Political Correctness, and Tolerance. Also enslaving any animal of the genus Canis or Felis, or hell, any pet at all. Wearing leather should be good for a 20-year sentence at least. Ditto silk. Ditto wool, from the poor exploited sheep. With about 75% of the population being criminals by fiat (the other 25% constitute Big Brother), one wonders where Big Brother, in his benevolence, will put them? How about we just turn Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and the Dakotas into one giant concentration camp? There, Big Brother could keep a watchful and benevolent eye on the 200 million criminals inhabiting the erstwhile United States, and "re-educate" as many as he felt were worthy.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:47 am (sarcasm continues): Some of course will be deemed oincapable of rehabilitation, and Big Brother will protect us all from them. These felons would include entrepreneurs, patriots, recidivist defenders of the Constitution, and Christians. Especially those goody types which sacrifice time and money to bring comfort to the dying, food to the starving, shelter to the homeless, and other help to those who need it. No, no, there will be no need under Big Brother. In the re-education camps we will learn that (A) Nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak. (B) A crust of bread is better than nothing. Thus, (C) A crust of bread is better than a thick, juicy steak. When they have fully learned Big Brother's wisdom, they MAY be allowed to perform certain menial tasks. Of course, we must do our part to help Big Brother. All subjects will be encouraged, nay, REQUIRED, to inform on family, friends, neighbors, and total strangers. If the informant quota is not reached, the subject will be denied the next ration card (did I mention that such bland food as is deemed not offensive or dangerous by the Central Government will be rationed? Oh, yes,) Oyher things controlled by Big brother would include, but are not limited to (for there is no limit to Big Brother's encompassing benevolence): Any radio program not sanctioned by The Central Committee for Inoffensiveness and Non-Controversy; any television program conaining any sex, violence, offensive language (any word offensive to ANYONE); programs with too much educational value, any television program not sanctioned by the Central Comittee as being totally bland, inoffensive, and without any interresting qualities whatsoever, as interest is just another word for controversy. I suppose that the motto of such a totalitarian benevolence might be that uttered by one who tried something similar in the past: " Eine Volk, Eine Fuhrer, Eine Reich!" ("One People, One Leader, One Nation!")
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:55 am (sarcasm ends): If this giant central all-controlling entity comes to pass, it will only be after thousands of freedom-loving Americans of all ethnicities and backgrounds have given our lives in an attempt to stop it. Life in such a "Paradise" wouldn't be worth living anyway. Start thinking before you advocate Big Brotherism, people. Any government that has the power to outlaw things you don't approve of, and re-distribute wealth as you deem fit, also has the power to deprive YOU of your favorite things, re-distibute all of YOUR wealth, and outlaw YOU.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 06:27 pm All of that was just nonsense, even after the sarcasm ends. Just because the government has and currently has the power to tax uncontrobably doesn't mean it will happen. Just because it can ban your favorite things doesn't mean it will. And it already has outlawed everyone. -<reference, I don't get due process if they just call me a terrorist first. And everyone seems to be terrorist so... @Alex- Yup dismantle the constitution. Fine not really, but I along with 80% of the country don't care at all about the constitution if the constitution holds back progress then change it so it doesn't. And yes state get rid of state borders, things shouldn't be illegal in parts of the country and not in other parts. Some states shouldn't be in a situation that there ecomonic situation is so broken they can't recover while other states can waste resources. This segregation will divide the country and states like alaska and texas has already tried to succeed. Probably would have been good, but... we are the UNITED states of America yet the more power those states have the more divided we are
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 07:30 pm I see your point about States but they have a purpose they are all different the ones that are different in a good way people will live in enhancing the States power therefore enhancing the power of a good America while the bad States will grow weak and wont have so much affect and to tell you the truth I dont give a shit about terrorists rights I don't give a shit about anyones rights if they go around and kill people indiscriminately weather they are American Canadian Chinese or arabic I think its a non issue we need good old fashioned justice I guarantee this Holmes fellow is just going to sit around for 20 years causing everyone problems and draining tax dollars before we lethally inject him when we really should have just shot him right there....
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 08:09 pm Drew: Would you rather have an institution that cares ONLY about profit margins making your decisions or one's that are supposed to look out for your best interests? Jojo: There's a lot wrong with this way of looking at things. Drew: no there isn't. How so? Jojo: You're giving the choice about which type of institutions should be making your decisions, business or government, but leaving out the one that's most important for most people: yourself. So you're posing a false choice. Second, you imply that businesses only ("ONLY") care about profits. That's not true. Most businesses care about the quality of their product, and the satisfaction of their customers. Many also care about the welfare of their employees and of the community in which they do business. Third, you compare the motivations of business and government institutions asymmetrically. You compare what you think the motivation of business actually is, profit, to what you think the motivation of government institutions should be, our best interests. It's unrealistic to believe that people and institutions behave the way you think they are supposed to behave. Your skepticism of business is spot on, but you should apply the same skepticism to government or risk being naive.It's worth giving considerable thought to what the motivations of the people in government bureaucracies actually are, from the lower level workers through the middle management and up to the higher levels of management and control and also the elected officials who create and fund them.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 08:19 pm You should give a damn about terrorists rights bud. The emerging trend is to call people like Holmes domestic terrorists. Guess what? classified as a terrorist you lose a lot of rights, and if needed, to be sure not to infringe your constitution and law, you can just be sent to Cuba lol. And you know the law doesnt need much on you to label you a terrorist, joking about a bomb in an airport, because you had one too many beers, should do it nicely. You'll see. The need for national security will remove your guns from you eventually where every citizen could be a potential home grown terrorist. If you're going to defend yourselves from a tyrannical government you had better start now... No? Thought so...just a load of rhetoric all this defending stuff isnt it.
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 08:30 pm *sigh why cant things be like they used to be simple logical justice now everyone is using to much precedent and not enough sense
| |
| Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 08:57 pm And who decides what is logical and what isnt? There are always 2 sides to an arguement. I guess precedent is good, liking learning from experience. Aren't we trying to make justice fairer for all? Thats why trials get so convoluted and long winded, although it seems like common sense has gone out of the window. So roll on precedence, it's avoiding repetition. And can still be challenged if there is a good arguement to be made. Jo, I'm not so sure about your reasoning there. I would guess most corporate strategy that looks like caring for workforce, quality etc is profit orientated because it improves the brand marque, people pay more for quality, happy workers produce more and so on. And in the UK many commercial developments HAVE to provide benefits to the community to get permission to operate within that area. And as for making your own decisions within this context, well I feel like that is next to impossible. What can I do about bank rates, utility costs, govt. spending etc etc. Thirdly, hmmmm, yes, I certainly would be very suspicious of what politicians, bureaucrats and the like tell me (except Boris Johnson of course, my main man!). Not surprising seeing as how they have been caught lying so many times...
| |
Saturday, August 11, 2012 - 11:47 pm
Trying to set up your own National Socialist American Workers Party aren't you Drew. And you are flat wrong in your statement that 80% of the people don't care about the Constitution. That's one of the reasons the Patriot Act will not be renewed at some point now that everyone finally opening their eyes. The Federal Government doesn't have the authority to dissolve State Borders and it never will.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 12:52 am IDK how to quote yet but..... "If you're going to defend yourselves from a tyrannical government you had better start now..." Be careful with those words. The 99% marches were just the begining. Its being geared up. This aint illuminati shit im talking. This is shit i see with my own eyes and am in some cases involved in and proudly say it to any goverment official. All its going to take is a little push or for someone to get pissed off....and it begins slowly but picks up over time. Cops dying, Citizen snipers, soldiers dropping from the military. People are waking up to alot. And this is what i make of it. The goverment recognises this. And they wish to do exactly what you say do. Theres been more shootings in this country in the last month then i can count. In my hometown, then colorado, the temple, and i seen on the news a man shooting at ongoing vehicles on a highway. Now i cant say for sure these shootings are goverment sponsered, so dont think im promoting fully what im about to say. This is a THEORY. The goverment set this things up to happen to bring up the conversation og gun control and even possibly complete banning of guns. They do this and say there protecting freedom, just like they use 9/11 to justify wars for oil. They even used Lil Waynes video to once again do whatever the hell it is they do when they put it out there in the public like that. Also there was a preview of a movie called gangsters before the batman movie and the guys shot up a theature. Weird. No more guns. No more threats from the people. Complete domination. But thats just a theory. Another is they were not goverment sponsered and once again just a weird coincedence. My original point, the ones waking up and getting pissed off just might start doing the fighting agaisnt this tyranical goverment Crafty. But i dont think it will be on a grand scale. Too late for that. But try taking away guns and i dont know....might be big enough to make national headlines
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 12:53 am Oh...and a hell of alot more than 20% of the citizens of this country care about the constitution.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:16 am So could two states theoretically decide to merge, eliminate their borders and become one? And don't underestimate the intelligence of the people in power. If subdueing the population was their aim, then they would surely achieve it, or maybe they already are. You would have to ask Murdoch and his cronies.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:32 am They will acheive it. Im saying not without a fight. No matter how fruitless and small it may be. Of course we will be made to look like terrorist. Which if we kill innocent people we will be. Theres no stoppin it really. They have won. We have lost. Im just not ready to give up the only protection i have. Even tho i'll end being caught and killed in the end. At least i can take one or two with me.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:35 am Lol, love u dude, good night.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:38 am WHAT TYRANICAL GOVErNMENT? geez some of you keep talking with absoluetly no concept of truth. Anyways that constitution argument I pushed was taken wrong, my fault but eh, I'll defend it. People would be willing to change the constitution if it was for the sake of national prosperity without destroying individuals rights. That's all. Why fight for the second amendment, if it is broken? Why fight for the 10th amendment when everyone interprets it differently? Those are rhetorical I'd rather you pay attention to the question how is our government so tyranical. and Jojo is right I didn't mention personal choices. But its because it is irrevelant. A good example is "The Affordable Care Act" (Obamacare), it supports your point. A federal insurance mandate?! Right that is a bad example. I do like the terms of it, but having cheaper healthcare still dependant on money grubbing insurance companies still isn't the way to go. This takes away personal decision, but what else does? What government policies takes away your ability to do something? Now if you do have an answer does that activity hinder the rights of another individual? Mostly government policy doesn't negatively impact your choices, unless their completely immoral like slavery, or discrimination. Argh anyways don't know where I was going with that but... I say it how it is. I'm not sure if it is possible to dismantle state borders, but it doesn't change the fact I think they should. I don't know how long it should take to ban guns, but I think they should. I'm against property taxes it won't change the fact that I have to pay them. Despite the 4th amendment I'd still lose my property if I don't. I'm not a socialist, I'm very independent and most things I have a very different opinion on then other people
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 03:18 am I'd say that if a state can be created/divided, two could possibly be merged, although the economic and strategic costs would be impractical.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 03:54 am Anythings possible
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 07:11 am i tried to stay away from this topic but what the hell. i'm drunk and pissed off so here goes. you want to talk about gun control and what have you. get rid of the drugs and crap from the streets then i'll listen. you have the distinct honor to hear this from someone who has fought to defend your freedoms. i killed, bleed, and saw others die so you can have your precious freedoms. but sadly, you're like most non combatants. you always gotta gripe about something. wait till your ass is in harms way. you'll be glad that person used his/her gun to save you. i've seen this before. you're no different. hardest part is you have to admit you're just afraid.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 07:32 am I;m drunk too! YAH 26, what a minute that sux. You served your country? When did you defend my freedoms? Why did you kill? Why did others have to die? Because they told you? They tolf you you were doing something great. When did anyone declare war on us?
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 01:41 pm When extremists flew aircraft into the World Trade Center. Remember that Drew? If anything is a declaration of war, that was.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 01:52 pm Crafty, who made them angry enough to fly planes into buildings? America and Israel, who single-handedly have pissed off the entire Arab world. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If anything, America declared war first. (And I'm not being insensitive. Just looking at it from a lateral point of view)
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 02:14 pm Dont equate Al Queda to Israel. Or to Afghanistan, or Pakistan or anywhere in fact. It was a declaration of war from an extremist wing of a religious quasi political clan who took it upon their shoulders to do such without democratic or, if you prefer, popular, opinion. Or was it.....? (the truth is out there...)
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 07:17 pm I'm with crafty and krash definitely
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 09:33 pm These terrorist groups ( barring the conspiracy stuff ) have been waging war agasint us for a long time. I read the history of all of it, and it goes back really far. I know where Krash is coming from. People go and fight wars while we sit on the couch and complain about Gas prices and our tea getting hot. Or getting cold if you live in the UK. We have it made now, but one day war will find its way here to our backyards.
| |
| Sunday, August 12, 2012 - 11:42 pm @Tom Morgan "And I'm not being insensitive." Why??..because you say your not. "Just looking at it from a lateral point of view" Really, what's your lateral point of view? "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." In physics that's a true story. The "entire Arab world" was not involved in the attack, Al Queda was. And finally, the guy who "made them angry enough to fly planes into buildings", has left the planet. Over three thousand people died that day Tom. Those people had very little to do with middle eastern politics. I think your post is not only insensitive, it's offensive to normal sensibilities. "America and Israel, who single-handedly have pissed off the entire Arab world." Go back to the creation of Israel, you can practically reach back and touch it. Consider the history of armed conflict between Israel and it's Arab neighbors. Now give me an honest opinion, what do you think would be different today if America had withdrawn it's support of Israel at any given time?
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:19 am the US made some poor foriegn policy decisions in the middle east (probably nothing to deserve such brutal idiotic mad attacks on civillians) but o well now we are at war and we have to defend ourselves and those extremists aren't exactly reasonable people most of them are ethier morons just believing tons of extremist propoganda or they are power hunger sadists who maintain power by blaming all their problems on the west....I awkniwledge Americas mistakes and I'm angry about them but I still don't understand people who seem to side with essentially evil or confused TERRORISTS who blow up people indiscriminately and cause huge ammounts of destruction and pain I guess its just another mark of our sad society
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:39 am Regardless of my feelings of Americas policies, your right. Were there now and have to defend ourselves and support our brothers and sisters. I dont support any religion that says killing innocent people will make you a maryter in heaven. And i dont appreciate at all seeing my friends blown up by suicide bombers and idiots. The middle east is just as guilty of propoganda as our own goverment here in the good ole U S of A
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:56 am If America never had any ties with Isreal, there wouldn't have been 9/11. I said it, you disagree move on. Now what business did England have fighting with Saladin for Juresulum? I will give you the fact that the Muslim world is aggressive at times, and if you view the Indian religious wars between Muslum and Hindi they too are unnecessary. They have equal rights conflicts that i don't support as well with Shiriah Law. But tell me when Muslim's did anything worse then Judio-Christians? In fact they are better in many regards, they never had slaves for example. Willingness to kill over religion is equally bad on both sides. Europe and America also didn't value women as important as a man. The 2 biggest differences are that the Muslim world does a better job not throwing away their believes with social changes, and that the Muslim world has never forced their believes on anyone else. With that said Europe and America savagely attacks the muslim believers with direct aggression, (the crusades), or through a proxy (giving Israel everyone militaristic demand they ever asked for for the destruction of the Muslim world). Who is worse America is worse, our country deserved to get attacked, but yes once again it isn't the people themselves, it is merely the select individuals that made things the way they are. But we live in a democracy we the people had the ability to change it, and we didn't so every America has blood on their hands. I for one would like to correct it.
| |
Monday, August 13, 2012 - 03:14 am
They are simply no worse, where did you ever get the idea people of the Muslim religion never had slaves? Both the Qur'an and the Hadith have multiple references to slavery. You are reaching farther and farther Drew, you have your beliefs we have ours, and your powers of persuasion are not up to the task at hand. I for one would rather not live to see many of the changes you prescribe. I would imagine there are many such as I (however I don't know, don't care about that), so when you get your "strong central government" up you'd best take care of us first thing.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 04:39 am I'm up for the task. I issued an unanswered challenge, you try to quell that challenge, give into the facts I propose, or simply ignore my unpatriotic arse, the choice is yours
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 07:12 am Nay Drew, your not up to the task. Who cares about your unanswered challenge, what ever it was? Who cares about quelling it? Who cares about the facts you proposed. "If America never had any ties with Israel, there wouldn't have been 9/11. I said it, you disagree move on." That could be a true statement, I couldn't say for sure. I can say for sure that it is a completely irrelevant statement and makes as much sense as saying if America was on another planet there wouldn't have been 9/11. "you disagree move on." Your unpolished arrogance is showing. "Europe and America also didn't value women as important as a man. The 2 biggest differences are that the Muslim world does a better job not throwing away their believes with social changes, and that the Muslim world has never forced their believes on anyone else." Another irrelevant statement. You can march a brass band through that type of reasoning. Take a poll, of the women sentenced to death by stoning in the upcoming months. Tell us what they did to deserve that and what they have to say about holding on to beliefs. There is a primitive tribe in New Guinea that is still practicing cannibalism. Does that mean this tribe does the best job of not throwing away their beliefs, Muslims come in second and the western world a distant third? If that be true, is that something the world should admire? Read something by Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University. He is controversial, but if you can get past your belief that you have all the answers, he may give you something new to think about. "our country deserved to get attacked", your quote. What can I say, No Drew, your definitely not up to the task. And get a spell checker, my spell checker is tired of having to correct your quotes.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 07:56 am If this was facebook i'd like ricks post just cus i can.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 08:38 am sorry i don't feel like correcting my spelling it might be frustrating, sheer lazinesss. Anyways yes, holding on to your believes is an admirable trait, I wouldn't put it above progress, and personal respect. In regards to religion however if it is the word of the creator and your job as a human is to serve him, it doesn't matter what you think. I say that with a bit of skepticism against myself as I've been religious. But how is it that one can partake in a religious fued if you defend a religion that has been altered, well not altered but the values have been weighted against social acceptance. This is a very confusing topic. I am up to the task though, if you just argue that my logic is flawed but don't explain certain parts, those parts are still unchallenged "You can march a brass band through that type of reasoning" I will say this, we weren't attacked because they enjoy civil rights violations. We luckily have made strides but we didn't enter the middle east to ensure civil rights to them, and they didn't drive the conflict to us simply because they think we're satin. There is reasoning, there is reasoning on both sides. I will not say that we entered there simply for oil, because I don't know. I can't say with convinction we entered because of a terrorist action. I can say that we brought it on ourselves. The persecution they face based upon turmoil brought on by religion should not be understated. It's like many of my opposers on this topic believe the pain and torture they endured indirectly from us was minor. But that's far from the truth. ""If America never had any ties with Israel, there wouldn't have been 9/11. I said it, you disagree move on." That could be a true statement, I couldn't say for sure. I can say for sure that it is a completely irrelevant statement and makes as much sense as saying if America was on another planet there wouldn't have been 9/11. " That was a response to your question: "Now give me an honest opinion, what do you think would be different today if America had withdrawn it's support of Israel at any given time? " So not irrevelant ""you disagree move on." Your unpolished arrogance is showing. " This was merely to keep the conversation somewhat productive. It wasn't an order but a suggestion. And I think I started with the third quote, so that makes me done with direct referencing. This doesn't have to be complicated. America picked a side in the war and now many view the enemy of this war as immoral and wrong. However they are desperate, and seeking self-defense. I sympathize with them, I don't however respect them any moreso than i would've if nothing happened. if canada nuked us, and we said we won't sleep until we eradicate Canada, would that be justified? Why isn't it for those who are having American Weapons attack their land, people, and faith indirectly from Israel? Don't take me the wrong way, I don't believe thousands should die in a tower attack, I know if you look at this objectively or subjectively from the other side, a grand attack against the entity responsible is justified. If the US foriegn policy was a person he deserves to be assassinated. Individuals not responsible for it don't deserve to die, and I never intended for it to come out that way. I will blame soldiers for fighting a war that they are unwilling to understand. I will blame government officials that allow these actions to continue. And Kasper don't let our rivalry there make you instantly disagree with my ideas. You have made it very clear that you feel we wrecked a country (kind of busted already) for government oil. Don't backtrack simply because you have a distaste for me
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 08:49 am Rivalary? Is this a contest now to see who uses bigger words or keeps typing the longest. I just plain dont like you. I thought i could had being i thought you may smoke green but now i just want to see down. Immature maybe, but i dont give a damn. But yes, i still agree with my original feelings towrds that subject.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 08:54 am i'm stubborn and hate to lose, what can i tell ya. All i wanted was you to apoligize to the gays for deciding how they're brain worked. Since you won't do that I think your a horrible excuse for a person. I wouldn't worry about that at all, in regards to the board as i'll never let personal opinion deter me from opinion on a subject.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 09:07 am You just pretty much admitted what i was accusing you of in the other post. Your childish and hate to be prooven wrong. In other words, hate to loose. Your a little spoiled brat. Instead of dropping it like i insisted on doing you wanted to keep going. My advice to you, grow the hell up. Simple as that.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 09:44 am I wont apolojize just to make you feel like you won you little baby. How old are you anyway? You must be spoiled as hell to think you get your way in life always. Life dont work like that lil boy.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 10:55 am @ krash: Thank you for your service; some of us really appreciate it. As a kid, i saw our guys coming home from the Nam ( i had a few uncles over there too), and how they were treated in many cases, and I knew even then that it wasn't right, what people were doing. Lo, how soon some forget. Thanks again. @ Drew: What I wrote was not nonsense, but satire and hyperbole, to illustrate a point. I'm not surprised you didn't get it. Keep trying. kudos to rick and kasper. And crafty, you seem pretty reasonable, for a lobster Now for the other barrel: All you America-bashers can smooch my nether regions. We may have problems, and in fact we do, but I refuse to lie down and take it when others are claiming that the U.S. , and the US military in particular, is the source of all evil. We as a nation are spending ourselves into oblivion giving aid to so many countries on this planet, I can't even count them all. For once, I would like to see what happens when a tsunami or hurricane or earthquake hits some other nation, and the U.S. just sits back and watches. Who 's going to help them then? French? the Chinese?? WE are not the source of evil in the world; extremist religious fanatics, along with rogue nations such as North Korea, and Iran (which has publicly advocated vaporizing Israel) are. And while I am at it, anyone who equates Israel with fanatical muslim states or terrorist groups is blind to the real-world situation--no surprise, since you are the same group that blames America for suffering its own terrorist attacks, so-called "imperialist aggression", fostering worldwide hatred, etc. The State of Israel (1): is honored and supported by millions American Christians and Jews as a special land, culturally and/or religiously; (2): is an island of constitutional representative government in a sea of essentially dictatorial police states and theocracies (an idea that should bring down the wrath of the freedom-bashers and the seperation-of-church-and-state crowd, but alas, does not, since the theo in this ology is not the Christian God, and therefore blandly tolerated); and (3) Israel has a right to exist, irrespective of any cultural or religious views or beliefs of anyone. How would it go over if we suddenly called for turing Egypt, Jordan. Syria, etc., into a self-lighting glass parking lot, the way many of the other Middle Eastern nations do for Israel? I shall stop now before I get agitated.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 11:35 am my final post. hey Drew, you're the kinda guy who gets his teeth knocked out by someone like me for that mouth of yours and you don't understand why. wish i had all that money back payed in fines for those good times. nah, second thought, it was worth every cent. something not understood is me and those like me never fought anything for people like you Drew. we fought for loved ones. to keep them safe at all cost was the biggest reason. i'm proud to say i have 4 sons who followed that path as well and all saw iraq. still have one in afganistan for that matter. something you wouldn't know about but it's something special to swap war stories with a son who almost came home in a box. it gives you a better appeciation for life and your loved ones as well. if you never had a near death expierience from combat you can not even begin to understand where i'm comeing from. my family along with friends celebrate independence day for what it is. but we also mourne for those who payed the price so we could have our freedom. many don't understand nor even care for that fact. i'm all that's left of an elite unit formed back in the late 70's. a search and destroy/search and rescue team. maybe they wouldn't have had to die if those terrorists hadn't tried to blow up an airport on foreign soil. but we got the call and responded. a story i've only shared with my wife but i saw them all fall as i was pinned down under heavy fire. nothing i could do which still tears at my heart. long story short, i lost it, went insane. i remember thinking that this was it. had my whole life flash in front of my eyes and decided to go down hard. i jumped up fireing and yelling and had out of body expierience if you can believe that. i was looking down on that person. wish i could tell more but that's all i remember. 3 months later i wake up in hospital. i was always known and still am known for getting the job done. i got the job done that day as well. even if i don't have any memory as to how. my point being, you won't find this in any history book. many things happen simular to this only blocks away from crowded areas but in most cases they are in and out before anyone knows what happened. no need for you to be made aware as well. why have you panic over something that's already gone down. many people wear rose colored glasses. the sooner you take them off the more you'll see. i could tell you all kinds of stories. but no good would come from it. i won't call any by name but i've worked for or with many orginizations and groups around the globe. many things go on behind the scenes that you'll never know about is my point. just be glad you have the freedom you have while you still can. many threaten that freedom each and every day and sometimes i agree with that old saying that ignorance truely is a bliss. i'm out. my best to you all.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 11:48 am Hey krash u dont have to worry about keeping anyone safe their in no danger its the countries that are invaded for money and oil there the ones fighting for thier lives.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 12:40 pm Ok. Too many posts to read, so I'll outline what I meant when I said that stuff about Al Qaeda. Amongst Al Qaeda's primary beliefs is that Israel should not be a recognised state, and that they are on Palestinian land. They see anyone who supports Israel as a target, thus 9/11. Crafty, saying that Israel and Sept. 11 aren't related is nieve. Rick is making me angry... "Take a poll, of the women sentenced to death by stoning in the upcoming months. Tell us what they did to deserve that and what they have to say about holding on to beliefs. There is a primitive tribe in New Guinea that is still practicing cannibalism." And should the West take it upon themselves to force their own views upon others with their own customs? No. How would you like it if Muslims invaded the USA and forced you to adopt their system of government, because I promise you it's the exact same in the Middle East. Furthermore, I lived in New Guinea for 14 years. Having seen many of the local customs, I would prefer that many were left alone rather than degraded and spoilt by Western influence.
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 12:51 pm "@Tom Morgan "And I'm not being insensitive." Why??..because you say your not. "Just looking at it from a lateral point of view" Really, what's your lateral point of view? "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." In physics that's a true story. The "entire Arab world" was not involved in the attack, Al Queda was. And finally, the guy who "made them angry enough to fly planes into buildings", has left the planet. Over three thousand people died that day Tom. Those people had very little to do with middle eastern politics. I think your post is not only insensitive, it's offensive to normal sensibilities. "America and Israel, who single-handedly have pissed off the entire Arab world." Go back to the creation of Israel, you can practically reach back and touch it. Consider the history of armed conflict between Israel and it's Arab neighbors. Now give me an honest opinion, what do you think would be different today if America had withdrawn it's support of Israel at any given time?" What would have been different? A less-arrogant Israel for one, who would've made solid peace deals with her neighbours and would be treating West Bank/Gaza Strip residents as human beings rather than dogs. "Over three thousand people died that day Tom. Those people had very little to do with middle eastern politics." And how do the many thousands more Palestinian women and children, who are unfortunate enough to be born into a life of relentless persecution by Israel, have a say? They themselves have no control over politics, but they are the ones killed by the situation forced upon them. And they outnumber the amount of Americans killed on 9/11. By far. I know I felt horrible for the lives lost on 9/11, but I also feel for those who haven't been honoured and don't have ceremonies every year. Many people, just like you and I, are killed in the Palestinian region simply because its in the best interest of politicians in Washington to support Israel. Where's the fairness in that?
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 02:31 pm steve ryan, you know nothing about it. Nothing. (Remainder of post deleted by author as being probably inflammatory, and pointless) @ Tom morgan: so then did you respect the native customs and chow down on "long pig", or not? If not, Why not? Don't you feel you should honor the customs of other cultures? (If you did partake, how was it? Did they serve him grilled or boiled? just curious )
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 07:17 pm 26 as of today. Most people didn't undergo the lifestyle I lived at the time. why do you think I called them crazy and why i used different time continously. And when the conversation moves to socio-political grounds differences in income is the biggest issue holding us back. And as a well to do person, that wants taxes raised it was relevance. You call me spoiled yet if you search my beginnings you will see that my hometown has half the city as foreclosed homes, a graduation rate of under 50%, and tons of violent crime. You simply want me to look bad just because it makes you look dominate in the discussion thats stupid. Assuming I had no way of learning to defend myself is a simple baseless arguments. I worked hard to get the things I wanted for myself. And Krash it's unfornuate the things that have befalled you, and you have my condolecsenses however it doesn't change the truth. The things you and your family had done weren't to ensure our way of life. Too clarify it is possible the special things you have done may have been, but isn't neccessarily innocent by our government to begin with. The wars we were involved were not from any source that threatened to take our land, or our rights. No fight we have been in wasn't provoked by us first (Revolutionary war excluded). Even WW2 we were supplying weapons to the allied forces. WW2 I do support our interference, but the cold war, the gulf war, the recent middle eastern situations, the vietnam war, the cuba missile crisis. Were all born by us challenging the freedoms of other countries. I will never serve an army that has false objectives. Not because I don't love my country, not because I'm afraid or lazy, but because I myself can't be a part of something that destroys peoples lives for other people's gain. Like I said you have my condolecsenses, but not everyone who serves knows the intent of a war, not everyone who serves is a defender of justice, not everyone who serves is a good person. Anyone who would piss on the bodies of defeated soliders, or runs around killing civilians in the night is scum. If that what it takes to be a good American that I'd leave this country before adhering to that. But thanks for the good wishes Oh yeah and a terrorist organization should have no root in u attacking a country. @ Maclean, And I agree America should partake in humantarian efforts but only within reason, if Americans are struggling then other countries come secondary
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 10:12 pm I agree drew we need to be more isolationist. but don't blame the soldiers or the country because its actually the politicians and government tom I'm becoming angry you are defending evil backward parts of societys in the name of respecting culture....and its not the same in the middle east at all those people are being subjugated by sadistic narcissist men who were a bigger threat to their own Muslim culture then America ever was you think afgahnistan wanted to be ruled by the Taliban? no the Taliban forced upon the populace an extremist form of sharia law and they outlawed many practices that were once part of typikal afgahnistan culture what did we do force elections upon them?
| |
| Monday, August 13, 2012 - 10:13 pm and kasper your being a bigot
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:06 am Shut up T. You cant justify 9/11 by saying AQ didnt like US supported Israel. The Israel situation seems extremely complex. I do not fully understand it and what I do hear reported is going to biased, but so far I can see both sides of that fight. And the muslim world did aggressively take over a large chunk of the world. They finally ran out of steam in southern Europe. You know how close GB became to being Muslim? Sharia law is practiced here and the good old tolerant Brits turn a blind eye to a lot of it. Only recently are we clamping down on forced marriages and honour killings. But thats all irrelevant. You and drew are sounding the naive here. Yankee called drew out and I say the same to you, its a shame I have to be like that because I like the brief convos we normally have on lighter topics. Yous both use the same old high school debating group ideas. Get wise guys.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:15 am Whats GB?
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:16 am By the way, back to the original point of this thread, there was another shooting today thats making headlines
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:21 am GB - Great Britain, with an emphasis on 'Great'.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:27 am Ohhh. Do ya'll watch American College Football there? I've been wondering this, i know you can see the Superbowl.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:42 am Some games are shown but the time difference and the fact football (American style) is young here make it a bit obscure. Not big time, no, like I dont know anyone who could talk about it. Even NFL games. I was in San Francisco when the '49ers won the Superbowl. Wow, what a street party that night. I also managed to get the Raiders home games on satellite in a bar I worked security in, against all the NBC, ABC etc networks saying it couldn't be done. Their execs came to the bar to see it for themselves! Packed the place I did, then they jammed it
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 02:49 am My States won the last 3 National Titles. I love football. I need to find someone in this game i can talk ball with. Are you from here or did you just visit a while or do some work here?
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 03:02 am Spent 7 years there. SoCal. Sorry, cant talk much about football, no knowledge, but I know there are a lot of big fans on here.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 03:10 am Southern Cal? Holy crap, their voted to go to the BCS this year, of course that is if they run the gaunlet. My Bama is pretty much the reigning Kings of college ball right now. Had several players go in the first round of the NFL draft this year. Im hoping we can pull it off another year. Im loving it! Anyway i was just curious.
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 04:19 am Kasper, I would also direct you to Serpent for ball discussions. He and a player named Slade loved talkin' sports. Although I am not sure if Slade is still in the game. They growled when I tried to turn the convos to girlie topics. lol If you wish to ever discuss shoes, I'm always available. :P Another good Sim Deed today. A referral. :-)
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 04:30 am Hopefully they'll find their way to the conversation. If not, i'll defintly be posting a thread about Spetember 1st. Kick off day is amongst us
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 11:50 am Tom and Drew, I took a course in semantics a long while ago. The professor said this one day. "Consider everything you don't and can't know about everything." When you give that statement some thought I believe you have to acknowledge it is accurate. It is so accurate a person could think there wasn't very much at all that he was qualified to discuss in an intelligent manner. But that is hardly ever the case. We discuss, debate and argue about almost anything. The problem, as I see it, is that people start using absolute statements. Absolute statements rather preclude discussion and create an argument without end. So Tom, I don't know why I was making you angry. For the most part I was asking why you felt the way you do and a couple of statements I thought were just plane false. Your quote: "What would have been different? A less-arrogant Israel for one, who would've made solid peace deals with her neighbours and would be treating West Bank/Gaza Strip residents as human beings rather than dogs." Do you think there could be any chance Israel would have ceased to exist?
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 06:26 pm Rick, accordig to David Hume, we have no way of understanding anything we don't experience. Everything we think of our ideas, (that come from our experiences in some way or another) and they build several volitions (combinitions of ideas that form basically an opinion), and finally we make our judgements based on those volitions. When people don't gain new experience they will not grow a more concise volition to make better judgements. In other words sometimes you have to be involved in stuff you know absoletely nothing about. Sometimes to get a full understanding you still need to share complete nonsense that makes sense to you. But you are partially right (absolute statements) many people lock their volitions in place and are resistant to new ideas. To summarize there is nothing wrong speaking with absolution as long as you aren't closing off your mind to new ideas. Sorry it was kind of long mostly off target, it took a bit to get to the point i was trying to make, and I even had to condense it quite a bit "And get a spell checker, my spell checker is tired of having to correct your quotes." Plane=Plain =)
| |
| Tuesday, August 14, 2012 - 09:06 pm Drew, I agree with David Hume, and most of what you had to say. I would guess that that is pretty much how the thought process works, or should work. I still take exception to absolutes. I think the message there is "This is the way it is, no room for discussion." If a person has an open mind, why would they be speaking in absolutes in the first place? And use your spell checker. It's plane to see you'll only make as many mistakes as me.
|
