Pegasus Research Consortium

http://www.mirshalak.org/blog/my-stance-on-guns+.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I

Right on, Petrus!

I had a link once (can't find it now - scrubbed from the interweb?) to a study of American "wild west" towns, comparing them to eastern "gun ban" towns of roughly equivalent size and industry...

What They found was that in the towns where everyOne was presumed armed, crime rates were immensely lower than in towns where everyOne was presumed unarmed...

Food for thought.

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 20, 2012, 07:06:42 PM
I had a link once (can't find it now - scrubbed from the interweb?) to a study of American "wild west" towns, comparing them to eastern "gun ban" towns of roughly equivalent size and industry...

We live in 2012 now.  In the UK crime is lower that the USA where there is 20 times as many guns.  Do the math!

We also don't literally live in middle Earth or a role play game like Warcraft. ::)

Quote from: petrus4 on December 20, 2012, 02:18:49 PM
http://www.mirshalak.org/blog/my-stance-on-guns+.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I

LOL If Balrog had a gun he might have defended himself better!  ;D

Give me a few Whistle's along with Bits and Bob's located in a secluded Monestry and Guns Don't work  :P

Seeme China is demanding that the USA disarm, yea right, why would you want that China I wonder.

Quote from: Topend2 on December 20, 2012, 11:43:59 PM
Seeme China is demanding that the USA disarm, yea right, why would you want that China I wonder.

We aren't talking about the armed forces.  Doh!

Oooooh lovely arms dealers, you wouldn't want to sell less bullets and guns now would you.  Sound stupid don't I?  Yes?

Quote from: Pimander on December 20, 2012, 07:52:26 PM
We also don't literally live in middle Earth or a role play game like Warcraft. ::)

I know that was supposed to hurt, Pimander; but just so that you know, it didn't. ;)

Quote from: thorfourwinds on December 21, 2012, 02:51:15 PM

(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16%20December%20to%2031%20Dec%202012/Peace600.jpg)

Hey Thor that graphic aint hot bro!

But I do like it!  :D

Quote from: Pimander on December 20, 2012, 07:52:26 PM
We live in 2012 now.  In the UK crime is lower that the USA where there is 20 times as many guns.  Do the math!

We also don't literally live in middle Earth or a role play game like Warcraft. ::)

What has that to do with the fact that People are more polite and long-suffering if everyOne is presumed armed?  I might point out that the crime rate here is higher BECAUSE of (and particularly in places with very stringent) gun control "laws."

The gun crimes are MUCH higher per capita in NYC and Chicago than the areas where gun "laws" are lax.

Question is was this a  one off or a deliberate set up shooting  as described by Alex Jones to bring in more control tyranny !

NRA calls for armed police officer in every school..


WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's largest gun-rights lobby called Friday for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.

LaPierre said "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.

"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with wall-to-wall attention and a sense of identity that they crave, while provoking others to try to make their mark," LaPierre said. "A dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?"

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out. "In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes," LaPierre said.

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-armed-police-officer-every-school-162851713.html

Quote from: petrus4 on December 21, 2012, 11:21:37 AM
I know that was supposed to hurt, Pimander; but just so that you know, it didn't. ;)

On the contrary.  It was supposed to be flippant and slightly amusing. :)

I'm not sure what kind of person you think I am but you are probably very much mistaken.  There are very few people alive I would actually wish to hurt. ::)

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 21, 2012, 05:08:43 PM
The gun crimes are MUCH higher per capita in NYC and Chicago than the areas where gun "laws" are lax.

Crime rates are also linked to the levels of poverty in a place.

Quote from: astr0144 on December 21, 2012, 06:33:46 PM
Question is was this a  one off or a deliberate set up shooting  as described by Alex Jones to bring in more control tyranny !

No.  It may be used by any side of a political argument but that is as far as it goes.

Controlling guns is not tyranny.  It actually saves lives.  An awful lot of people are not fit to bear arms.

Quote"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.

Good point, and maybe the only acceptable one for everybody.
Yes, the media does this to our minds, & the minds of our kids.

I had a computer game where you scored 100 points for running down an old lady etc. At the time, i was a youngster & i thought it was great.
I still think it's great, but i recognise it's just a GAME & i would no way ever, in real life, even think of harming another person.

But in game-world you can kill to your heatrts consent ::)

I always preferred games like Alien Species on the Amiga, where you wiped out aliens & helped human survivors escape, it was US against THEM.

But i've come to realise that there are many people out there who can't tell FACT from FICTION.
I have even myself experienced the most vivid dreams, i know that i'm perfectly capable of killing someone, gun or not..
But i have no REASON or WILL to kill anyone, much less out of fear of my life.
If someone was out to kill me, then i will kill them to protect myself, & those around me, be they strangers, they are all HUMANS.

I think that people have entirely forgotten what it is to be realy human, this is all part of the 'confusion' program we are living in these days....

Don't fall for it, be yourself..

Quote

Quote"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference.

Good point, and maybe the only acceptable one for everybody.
Yes, the media does this to our minds, & the minds of our kids.

So why are there more shootings in the USA that UK then?  There are 20 times as many guns per capita in the USA -  yet those 20 times as many guns still seem to allow more shootings rather than stop them.  Your logic falls at the first hurdle.

Like I keep saying... Do the math.

More guns are NOT the solution to too many people being shot.  Can that be any more obvious?

Quote from: Pimander on December 21, 2012, 08:32:03 PM
Good point, and maybe the only acceptable one for everybody.
Yes, the media does this to our minds, & the minds of our kids.
So why are there more shootings in the USA that UK then?  There are 20 times as many guns per capita in the USA -  yet those 20 times as many guns still seem to allow more shootings rather than stop them.  Your logic falls at the first hurdle.

Like I keep saying... Do the math.

More guns are NOT the solution to too many people being shot.  Can that be any more obvious?

The problem is, Pimander; I know you've said that the American public did not employ said guns against the government after the illegitimate election of George W. Bush, and that it may not do so at any future point...but I think this is a question that needs to be asked.

If, even assuming only hypothetically, that a scenario involving concentration camps was to occur in America at some future time; then assuming that the public has been entirely (or at least partly) disarmed as a result of earlier laws, how would you propose that they prevent themselves from being forcibly dragged to these facilities for execution?

I ask because there is evidence that the construction of just such camps, has at least been on the backburner for quite some time now.  There was Operation Garden Plot in the mid 80s, which involved Executive Orders establishing the legal basis of this, and then during 2011 and 2012, we started seeing advertisements from contractors, seeking employees for the camps.

So if guns are either regulated or banned, either scenario meaning that there are ultimately less guns in people's hands, how do the people ultimately protect themselves from this situation, if it occurs?

Considering the sheer number of people on this planet ... even one shooter a WEEK is such a small percentage of people to not even make statistics.

Yet that small percentage gets all the control freaks screaming CONTROL

Imagine if just 1% of the people in the world were killers....

Do the math

Quote from: petrus4 on December 21, 2012, 08:57:50 PM
The problem is, Pimander; I know you've said that the American public did not employ said guns against the government after the illegitimate election of George W. Bush, and that it may not do so at any future point...but I think this is a question that needs to be asked.

Precisely.  They didn't use them to defend democracy?  Why?  Cos it is the right wing maroons - who would prefer to have a non-elected republican president than an elected democrat one - who own most of the guns.

We believe in our freedom.  We believe in democracy.  Unless it means having someone who isn't right wing in power. ::)


As for guns being a defence against the government, the whole argument is utter nonsense these days.

I agree that when the American Constitution and Bill or Rights were drawn up that guns were a very useful deterrent against tyrannical government.  But the government Army is not a bunch or rifleman, cavalry and a few artillery now.

Trying to fight the military with guns today would be like taking a pea shooter to a tank or a bow and arrow to an Apache Helicopter Gunship.  I would not recommend it.

Try removing the bastards from office using your democratic systems.  No waiting for abundance that they won't deliver.   No having a gun in the house so assuming you still have freedom.  If you don't trust them then kick them out with your votes.

(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16-harm-19990520f16miss.jpg)


(http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AH-64-UK-460x307.jpg)

(http://www.elystandard.co.uk/polopoly_fs/ely29pea4813_1_1448805!image/2557894966.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/2557894966.jpg)
"Shall I take out the F16 or the Apache, Dad?"  "I think you might have to wait until one of them are in range son!"  "But Daddy, Hellfire Missiles have a 5 mile range."  "Look son, while I have my gun, at least we are free.... I think."BOOM!


To defend yourself from tyranny takes one thing.  Political organisation.  Without it you are next to helpless.

Quote from: Pimander on December 21, 2012, 08:32:03 PM
Good point, and maybe the only acceptable one for everybody.
Yes, the media does this to our minds, & the minds of our kids.
So why are there more shootings in the USA that UK then?  There are 20 times as many guns per capita in the USA -  yet those 20 times as many guns still seem to allow more shootings rather than stop them.  Your logic falls at the first hurdle.

Like I keep saying... Do the math.

More guns are NOT the solution to too many people being shot.  Can that be any more obvious?

And like I said, more gun control=more gun crime.  In the "wild west" where everyone was presumed to be armed crime rates were significantly lower than in equivalent (population, industry, economics) eastern towns with gun laws.  SIGNIFICANTLY.

Quote from: zorgon on December 21, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Considering the sheer number of people on this planet ... even one shooter a WEEK is such a small percentage of people to not even make statistics.

Yet that small percentage gets all the control freaks screaming CONTROL

Imagine if just 1% of the people in the world were killers....

Do the math

Exactly, z!

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 21, 2012, 09:51:00 PM
And like I said, more gun control=more gun crime.

BS.  I simply will not allow that lie to go unchallenged.

There is a much higher rate of crime and especially murder in America than the UK and 20 times as many guns per capita.  If your theory were correct then there would be much less crime in the USA and there is not.  You are wrong.

Few guns=low gun crime.

No guns = NO GUN CRIME.

If you are collectively too slow to grasp that then I'm not surprised you had an unelected president with 20 times as many guns as us and thousands more homicides.

Quote from: zorgon on December 21, 2012, 09:02:37 PM
Yet that small percentage gets all the control freaks screaming CONTROL

Control freaks are the exact kind of people who love guns.  Should go without saying.

Quote
Imagine if just 1% of the people in the world were killers....

Do the math

I have.  Imagine if the entire 1% had guns. :P

I have to put my 2 cents worth on this post.

PIM
I dont know where you live but in the US there are so many guns.
If guns are outlawed only the Gov an criminals will have guns.

I would ask all of you here to look into what kind of perscription drugs that these young mass killers are on. I have. I think that I s part of the problem if not most.

After 20 years ago in the USMC I thought that I would not want to have anything to do with guns ever again.

Fast foreward
I now have a family
If some druged freek comes into my house with a gun they are going to be blowen out of my house.
Bless
Back

Quote from: petrus4 on December 21, 2012, 08:57:50 PM
If, even assuming only hypothetically, that a scenario involving concentration camps was to occur in America at some future time; then assuming that the public has been entirely (or at least partly) disarmed as a result of earlier laws, how would you propose that they prevent themselves from being forcibly dragged to these facilities for execution?

At that point being armed does NOT mean they will leave you alone. It means you are either going to give up your weapon or be killed. Thinking your gun can protect you from a tyrannical government only is logical if your in a cartoon. There definitely needs to be tighter regulation on who should be allowed to have a gun. My guess is that 75% of people are not disciplined enough or emotionally stable enough to be carrying a weapon around. Every single individual with a firearm is a potential psychopath that could snap anytime. 

Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 21, 2012, 11:13:26 PM
At that point being armed does NOT mean they will leave you alone. It means you are either going to give up your weapon or be killed. Thinking your gun can protect you from a tyrannical government only is logical if your in a cartoon. There definitely needs to be tighter regulation on who should be allowed to have a gun. My guess is that 75% of people are not disciplined enough or emotionally stable enough to be carrying a weapon around. Every single individual with a firearm is a potential psychopath that could snap anytime.

BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAA ROFLMA...

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on December 21, 2012, 11:18:21 PM
BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAA ROFLMA...

Quick take your meds!  :o  ;D

Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 21, 2012, 11:37:15 PM
Quick take your meds!  :o  ;D

BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAA ROFLMA... ::) ;D

Okay, I must stick in my two cents.  I have just retired from 20 years in Law Enforcement and corrections.  Yes, I made it through!  I retired as a Lt. and have had to deal with criminals the entire 20 years.  They have their way of getting guns and it's not through a gunshop.  A lot of times you can buy them from another criminals, or they are stolen from someone.  I have seen criminals use machetes, knives and the younger thugs say if they want something, they are going to take it.  Some of the reformed thugs, (yes it does happen) have told me that the young ones do not care...I have the training to use my firearms and those who have concealed weapons permits go through training to know when and how to use the.  Our local Sheriff's Department from which I retired offer citizen defensive firearms courses.  Our murder rate in my county has been lower until this year.  This year most of the gunmen went after unarmed people or were dometic situations.  Some have used knives, some used machetes and some used guns.  In a knife fight someone is going to get cut.  Machetes are the same issue.  I now work armed security where I live and we helped clean up an apartment complex that had fallen to drug dealers.  The local police department helped outfit our group with vests.  We helped reclaim this piece of property for the tenants that just wanted to live in peace.  This was a low income area.  The dealers didn't mess with us because a few of us are retired law enforcement and recognized.  The criminals wanted no part of us.  So if your antigun, you are entitled to your opinion and good luck with that.  Me, I am going to defend my family against all enemies foreign or domestic.  That was my oath for the Army, the Air Force and my law enforcement and corrections career.  I may be retired but I still adhere to that oath.  Besides, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.  Thanks for your attention.

"And like I said, more gun control=more gun crime".

Amy, I agree with you, and the others who favor guns here, 100% in that regard. If less guns were to mean less crime, then I guess all U.S. law enforcement should be disarmed, as is the case in much of the UK, and then we should have no crime at all in the U.S.!!!! Yeah right, just as the UK has no crime.  :o   :o

"'Wiki" -The United Kingdom is made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales (which make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in Great Britain is a perennial topic of debate.

I am going to post something here that I received in the mail yesterday. I believe the comments are relative to all of us in the United States, who are presently faced with a government who actually believes "we should not let a bad problem go to waste"! Our government RIGHT NOW is using a relatively small number of bad people experiences, using guns, to try and make significant changes for more government control of guns.

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Back on December 21, 2012, 11:13:09 PM
PIM
I dont know where you live but in the US there are so many guns.
If guns are outlawed only the Gov an criminals will have guns.

I don't think they should be outlawed.  They aren't in the UK.

I sympathise with your position and realise that it aint as simple as banning gun ownership.  In fact in outlying areas like Nevada, where you might be a long way from help, of course it makes sense to own a gun.  Farmers in the UK need them partly for that reason.

On the other hand, it is madness for a concentrated population like a big city, to have thousands of guns.  I won't explain myself, as anyone who does not understand why is beyond help.

But, in principle, guns kill, they DO NOT IN MODERN TIMES protect you from government tyranny, DO NOT protect you from terrorists AND DO KILL CHILDREN.

There are less homicides in the UK and there are no armed guards at schools, few cops are armed and most civilians would  hate to have a gun in the home.  Guns kill.

Peace x

 "Guns kill"

Pure and utter nonsense! There is no gun that I am aware of that by itself "kills". Pi, if you know of any guns that do, then please tells us!

Guns don't, by usual design, shoot, until "somebody" pulls a trigger mechanism, that releases a firing pin, that strikes a cartridge, that makes the gun go boom.

In the same thought as above, cars kill, trucks kill, passenger planes kill, electricity kills, tractors kill, motorcycles kill, baseball bats kill, tire tools kill, all pointed and sharp objects kill, fists kill. bow and arrows kills, doctors kill, and et al. 

And just for the record, there are 4x to 5x as many people killed annually in vehicle accidents, than are killed by gun shots. So, looks like we actually do need to get rid of all of the cars for sure, if we use the thinking of some here.

Quote from: Pimander on December 21, 2012, 09:37:19 PM
Try removing the bastards from office using your democratic systems.  No waiting for abundance that they won't deliver.   No having a gun in the house so assuming you still have freedom.  If you don't trust them then kick them out with your votes.

First of all, I will say that I agree that attempting to combat planes and tanks etc with conventional firearms is likely to be mostly futile.

The problem is, that if people have no means of physical deterrence, then it is ultimately the government which has the last resort.  So while you say that if we don't like the government, we can kick it out with our votes, if we have no other recourse but said votes, then I'm not sure what prevents the government from removing the ability to vote as well, and then just existing on the basis of direct force.

Quote from: rdunk on December 22, 2012, 04:54:10 AM
"Guns kill"

Pure and utter nonsense!

Sorry, bullets kill. ::)

Obviously you need people too, but guns and bullets don't buy themselves.

Anyway, if "the end is nigh," why do you care?  Or are we in Hell now?

Quote from: petrus4 on December 22, 2012, 12:07:00 PM
First of all, I will say that I agree that attempting to combat planes and tanks etc with conventional firearms is likely to be mostly futile.

The problem is, that if people have no means of physical deterrence, then it is ultimately the government which has the last resort.  So while you say that if we don't like the government, we can kick it out with our votes, if we have no other recourse but said votes, then I'm not sure what prevents the government from removing the ability to vote as well, and then just existing on the basis of direct force.

They control your "recourse" as well. In case you missed it, the US government was hijacked years ago there has not been a legitimate voting process since the inception of the voting machine. Paper ballots hand counted under total public transparency is the only way this process can be deemed fair. The US with all it's armed poulation HAS let it government go rogue and despite all their guns it STILL happened. Have a look at these statistics, they speak volumes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/guns-us/ (http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/guns-us/)

Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 22, 2012, 01:47:03 PM
The US with all it's armed poulation HAS let it government go rogue and despite all their guns it STILL happened. Have a look at these statistics, they speak volumes.

Well said.  The same point that I have tried to make repeatedly.  All the guns.  All the homicide that comes with them but still a rogue government.

Still suppression of anything resembling energy independence.

Still an unelected president allowed into and voted back into office.

Still perpetually at war.

Still poverty in the "richest country on the planet" while multi-nationals and bankers pay next to no tax.

Still ripped off by the federal reserve and world bank.

Still ripped off for health care while people die untreated.

Still allow yourselves to be governed by people who can side-step your constitution using executive orders.


So what you going to do about it?  Take a pea shooter to a helicopter gun-ship?  Or organise yourselves and remove the bastards from office?

Quote from: Ellirium113 on December 21, 2012, 11:13:26 PM
At that point being armed does NOT mean they will leave you alone. It means you are either going to give up your weapon or be killed. Thinking your gun can protect you from a tyrannical government only is logical if your in a cartoon. There definitely needs to be tighter regulation on who should be allowed to have a gun. My guess is that 75% of people are not disciplined enough or emotionally stable enough to be carrying a weapon around. Every single individual with a firearm is a potential psychopath that could snap anytime.

Thinking the pathetic guns They let Us keep in opposition to Their advanced weaponry is only logical if You're a cartoon.  I suspect We're sunk.

Quote from: Pimander on December 22, 2012, 04:07:27 PM
So what you going to do about it?  Take a pea shooter to a helicopter gun-ship?  Or organise yourselves and remove the bastards from office?

Again, if you organise, what is to stop them from using the helicopter gunship against you once you have?  The guns themselves might not; but what will?

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 21, 2012, 09:51:00 PM
And like I said, more gun control=more gun crime.  In the "wild west" where everyone was presumed to be armed crime rates were significantly lower than in equivalent (population, industry, economics) eastern towns with gun laws.  SIGNIFICANTLY.

I suppose you have some real data to back that up. :)

Quote from: Back on December 21, 2012, 11:13:09 PM
If guns are outlawed only the Gov an criminals will have guns.

I can only speak for myself, as usual, but I don't think anybody is talking about banning guns, just changing the rules to make it less easy to get a gun powerful enough to kill dozens in some minutes.

Quote from: rdunk on December 21, 2012, 11:57:29 PM
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson

Interesting thing to be said by someone that had slaves. I guess for those there was no Democracy...

Times have changed, things said 200 years ago, related to how society was then, are not really relevant in today's society.

Quote from: rdunk on December 22, 2012, 04:54:10 AM
And just for the record, there are 4x to 5x as many people killed annually in vehicle accidents, than are killed by gun shots. So, looks like we actually do need to get rid of all of the cars for sure, if we use the thinking of some here.

No, you need to get rid of the people that do not know how to drive or are not responsible enough to handle such a dangerous thing as a car.

Here is my second comment not only regarding guns but also deals with many other things and why America has arrived at the point of reckoning.  I care not who agrees because this is strictly an opinion I agree with and it was said better thatn I can.

http://joemiller.us/2012/11/russias-pravda-declares-communism-won-in-american-with-obama-us-suffering-has-only-begun/

In an extraordinary column last week, Russia's de facto government press arm declared that the era of "Miss American Pie" was over in the U.S. Citing Obama's reelection, Pravda stated that the "Communists have won in America..."

Why? Because the US is "an illiterate society" that continues to buy off on Obama's "lies of less taxes while he raises them." The US educational system is also held responsible, with Pravda stating that it was "conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents."

The above is a quote from an article.

As you might have gathered, Pravda's hit on Obama as a communist isn't a glancing blow. It seems to be the overriding theme of the article:

He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.

Pravda also criticizes the growing American attack on religious freedom, saying that "Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union."


The above is also a quote from the same article.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/

Once again this is the root of Americas problems in my humble opinion.

Quote from: spacemaverick on December 22, 2012, 05:42:10 PM
In an extraordinary column last week, Russia's de facto government press arm declared that the era of "Miss American Pie" was over in the U.S. Citing Obama's reelection, Pravda stated that the "Communists have won in America..."

"Pravda" is not the "de facto government press arm", and that specific "Pravda" is not even the Russian Communist Party "press arm", that would be Gazeta Pravda (http://www.gazeta-pravda.ru/).

That pravda.ru site is not directly related to Russia's Communist Party, the original Pravda newspaper or the the Russian government.

Thanks.  Anyway, I am mostly in agreement with what is said no matter who Pravda supports or is operated by whoever.  You taught me a small lesson here along withknowing more about the background of Pravda.  Thanks again.  I could be wrong in my opinions and I am certainly open to change my opinion but not right now.  The articles I presented best reflect my own opinion.  It seems everyone has quite a discussion going on here.  I appreciate seeing the difference of opinions from different people and cultures.

Spacemaverick has a point;

QuoteI retired as a Lt. and have had to deal with criminals the entire 20 years.  They have their way of getting guns and it's not through a gunshop.

That's why there are so many shootings in so-called gun-free countries like the UK
The english gubmint response is to have more armed police, which is sad, but true.

I understand you also, Pim (loved the pics btw) i think there are only 2 real choices we can make here, & that's no guns at all, or everybody must have the right to bear arms.

In the former case, we can eventually use robocops to deal with violent criminals, and almost every police force in the world already have non-lethal weapons like tasers, pepperspray etc.

In the latter case, it would be mayhem. First there will be all the nutcases who will easily get themselves a gun & go shoot up a school or shopping mall. The only real defense against that (assuming everyone IS armed) would be if one of our citizens has the courage to do his or her duty & put a bullet in him, preferably fatal, because it would save us a LOT of money in court costs, cops, guards, prisons etc.

Sure you can be all liberal & try to reform the guy, but if he's that far gone, what's the point. It's taking needless risks with peoples lives, to try & parole a killer, or change him.

What i DO NOT understand, is why such non-lethal weapons as tasers are illegal in the UK?
Cant they just issue you with a permit, after a quick backround check?
At least then, you could defend yourself & your loved ones, & still be incapable of killing someone.
Simple.

QuoteMe, I am going to defend my family against all enemies foreign or domestic.
Besides, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6

Me too, mate!

I've deleted all copies of the linked post, both from my hard drive, and from my web host.

I don't know how to do it, and I am not going to claim to definitely be able to, but somehow I must work on ceasing to care about American domestic politics.

Right you are ;)
I simply don't have the time to get involved in the whole quagmire that is politics in general.
I like to think more in binary, it's 'yes' or 'no' & i like to keep the 'maybe's' as few as possible
:)

You can say that guns need to be regulated.  You can say whatever else you want in response.

I will simply say this.

My grandfather was a bomber pilot during WW2.  I have spent the last 20 years of my own life, Americans, watching the evil that he, and millions of others, put their minds and bodies at risk to fight, gradually re-establishing itself in your country.

I am uncertain as to why, but I am apparently upset by this to a much greater degree than most of you apparently are yourselves.

It is becoming extremely difficult, and extremely painful, to watch.

we are against a wall.
the new tech that could get us out of the hole is being held back.saving it for ww3.

now the country is stagnating back towards religion again.another form of cannibalism.

I believe there are many different stances on guns.  Influencing factors are:  A particular culture may see gun ownership one way having been influenced by their culture.  Countries and the type of government and it's laws influence gun ownership.  Your upbringing by your parents would be another influence.  There are many factors that influence how a person would think if they needed or wanted to have certain types of guns.  All of our countries have been violent at one time or another.  Look back in the history of each country and you will find violence with guns.  The main thing with America is that we have been given the right to bear arms.  When you look back at our American Revolution you will know why.  We do not wish that right to be taken away.  Our government does a knee jerk reaction to to many crisis and tries to take whatever they can from the populace because they can.  It is whatever is "IN vogue" to get the votes.  Power is intoxicating and when you have money what else is there.  "I" must have power is what a good deal of politicians want.  There are those of course who have pure motives.  Then if you want to go even further, those in power do not want to have the populace armed because they can walk in with their power and do what they please.  Some Americans like to just target practice with their weapons.  Others like to hunt.  There are those who want to protect from the armed criminals.  There are those who want to make sure the government doesn't step in (elements of the gov't) and take away our rights.  My beliefs are a mixture.  Those people of other countries have their views.  I respect that.  The decision (bottom line) is a personal decision.  Thanks for your attention.

My opinion on Guns...

Islamic nations have no qualms about being armed to the teeth... even their kids learn early to handle machine guns..

Kindergarten Level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bra53uzgPDk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EItFkhUEzdM

So... you want to take MY guns away?

Just try it

Hi Zorgon, ditto on what you said.  My guns are staying with me.  If they want them, then they will have to pry them from me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKasF6l3y0

This history of gun control will help really know my stance on guns.

Quote from: zorgon on December 23, 2012, 11:35:11 PM
My opinion on Guns...

Islamic nations have no qualms about being armed to the teeth... even their kids learn early to handle machine guns..

And why they do it?

Quote from: spacemaverick on December 23, 2012, 09:52:10 PM
Then if you want to go even further, those in power do not want to have the populace armed because they can walk in with their power and do what they please.

Those in power can use their power to get you away from your guns, even if you are allowed to have them, like they did in Nazi Germany, where people could have guns but the Nazis found ways of sending those that they knew were against them to prison for other reasons.

Think about it: when did the established powers did something they didn't want? Do you really think that the government does all that it wants except when guns are involved? Why did the "founding fathers" (that expression always reminds me of the way the Portuguese fascists talked about government, always presented as a kind of a "father figure") added that second (it's the second, isn't it?) amendment? Because someone told them that 200 years later the people would need guns to throw down the government? And if they were so intelligent and thought everything so well, why is it the second amendment and it was not part of the original document? Probably because it was in their interest and because it was not really something that was needed to be in the constitution (or whatever document it was), like it was in someone else's interest to make alcoholic drinks illegal (where were the guns then to stop that stupid idea?).

I have been wondering?  For those not in this country or even those that are. It seems some are under the impression that "machine guns" (like in the movies) where used in the current tragedies. This is not so. One pull of the trigger, one bullet. Although "machine guns" are not illegal, one can get a special permit to own one, they are not the guns used in the tragedies. Although "gangs" police and government have all the access they want. ::) They can make a BB gun look like a "machine gun"   

Quote from: Phedre on December 24, 2012, 01:49:19 AM
It seems some are under the impression that "machine guns" (like in the movies) where used in the current tragedies.

I haven't seen anyone saying that.  ???

From what I understand it, the gun (or guns) were always presented as "semi-automatic".

I bet if I asked any One of You if You believed in freedom You would say, "Oh, sure,"  But many here seem to think the solution to life as risk is to strip freedoms away from People.

The fact is that life IS a risk, and One cannot make Us safe by taking away freedoms.  All it does is drive Us closer and ever closer to fascism.  And decidedly NOT free.

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 24, 2012, 04:29:35 AM
I bet if I asked any One of You if You believed in freedom You would say, "Oh, sure,"  But many here seem to think the solution to life as risk is to strip freedoms away from People.

Yes, I do believe in freedom, and I do believe that freedom doesn't mean that anyone can do whatever they want, and that with freedom comes responsibility, and that those that want to live in a society should be responsible for not infringing in other people's freedom.

QuoteThe fact is that life IS a risk, and One cannot make Us safe by taking away freedoms.  All it does is drive Us closer and ever closer to fascism.  And decidedly NOT free.

Sure, life is risk, after all, all people that have died started out by being alive.  ;)
But yes, people can become safer when some of their freedoms are taken away. If you take away someone's freedom of movement by holding them in closed room you made his/her life safer, as now it's harder (or even impossible) for that person to, for example, be hit by a car.
As for freedoms, what about loitering laws? And what about drinking in public places?

Quoteand that with freedom comes responsibility

Precisely!
If we can all agree to be responsible for our actions, and responsible for all life, not just your own, but your neighbour, or that stranger, or that dog, or even just a houseplant.

Be aware of life, nurture it, then we will be free.

I would think that the ONLY reason you would lock someone in a closed room was if they were a real danger to others. And even then those would quickly diminish, as society becomes more stable & people adjust mentally to it.

QuoteAs for freedoms, what about loitering laws? And what about drinking in public places?

We have public drinking places, they are called 'pubs' or 'bars' depending on where you live ;)
These places should be open 24/7 it would sure ease congestion ;)

There is no such thing as "responsible freedom". Either you are FREE or you are held accountable to obey a certain set of rules, either self manifested, or bestowed upon you by a government or some higher authority (dieties). You either want controls put in place to hinder behavior deemed unacceptable or you do not.  We do have the freedom of choice to either follow these guidelines or face the consequences of our actions.

QuoteWe do have the freedom of choice to either follow these guidelines or face the consequences of our actions.

In a sense, you are right.
Truly free means also being free to kil & maim, but that's a kind of social no-no isn't it?. Thou Shalt Not Kill is taught in every religion, although not many respect that part of it.
So yes, we humans are bound by social restrictions placed there to protect us from ourselves, but within those (very sensible) restrictions we can do what we like.
Sometimes i just don't see what all the fuss is about......

Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on December 24, 2012, 03:10:47 PM
In a sense, you are right.
Truly free means also being free to kil & maim, but that's a kind of social no-no isn't it?. Thou Shalt Not Kill is taught in every religion, although not many respect that part of it.
So yes, we humans are bound by social restrictions placed there to protect us from ourselves, but within those (very sensible) restrictions we can do what we like.
Sometimes i just don't see what all the fuss is about......

Indeed...we are taught at a young age that all life is precious, so why do we cheapen our lives by allowing weapons to destroy lives en-masse to fall into the hands of the general public? The more tools we are allowed to have to destroy lives the more rules must be put into place to protect people from those incapable of making moral decisions. One problem with this is that now there are far too many people to enforce any such laws effectively. Why is it ok to be allowed to have all manner of firearms including machine guns but yet you can not make a bomb? Your enemy might have a bomb and all you have is a gun...what now? It seems to me that society is having a hard time getting along, so we impose our will at gunpoint. Even viruses get along with each other better than humans do.

Let's have a worldwide ban on assault weapons.  None for civilians or military.  Let the military go back to fighting with much lower tech weaponry.  Knives, swords, spears, rocks, fists.  I'm quite certain my ancestors, in their various clan wars, were able to inflict plenty of damage on each other withought assault weapons.  At some point they managed to start getting along and getting married.  The further back I go in my ancestry research, the more clans I find that I'm related to.  At some point, they got tired of having to clean up the mess after they'd killed each other.

I support gun ownership for hunting and self defense.  My revolver can fire six shots, each requiring a conscious effort.  If it's empty I can throw it.  I don't need the ability to mow my crabby neighbor down.

Shasta

those that give up liberty for freedom or safety deserve none.

Exactly, robo. 

Believe Me, Petrus, I would be boiling mad if I didn't choose to pour that energy into a solution to the very problem We have:  the central bankers and Their usury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lujpbdOm0Qc

Nice piece, Petrus!

He speaks the truth.  Hopefully We will wake up fast enough such that They don't bring Us to Our knees.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html#ixzz2Fzr5YTU1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4XjT2tbVw

Thought this should be here in this thread:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mXRmRxTC5E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKasF6l3y0

This one is an hour long but I liked it.

The framers of the Constitution of the United States knew exactly what they were doing, and why. it is quite sad that so many in this country have an opinion about guns, but actually have not a clue about the facts about which they speak. And the media is completely grossed out with such who are quick to jump into gun control, with clueless actual knowledge.

We should look to our history, and to the history of other nations, to the relevance of the people being adequately armed, to the actions of governments.

For instance, here is a quote on the subject, by one of the most well known persons of this earth - - -

""Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

And here is a link to a detailed commentary that contains that quote, which describes India's history in the mud and quicksand of this subject.

http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

This is a worthwhile read, and it does let us see into how a country's governing stance on guns has affected the lives of the people, in very negative ways. I am sure that if we were to look, we could find numerous other such similar examples of how "gun controls" by governments have deleteriously impacted the lives of citizens.

One of my biggest concerns is that the angst of another terrible tragedy will be the the very basis for "not letting another crisis go to waste", in dealing with guns, and the 2nd Amendment.

rdunk... History is made, I suspect.  It seems We may actually agree on something! [grin] [wink]

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 30, 2012, 05:55:53 AM
rdunk... History is made, I suspect.  It seems We may actually agree on something! [grin] [wink]

;) Yes we do, and that may be "historical!!  ;D  ;D

The sadness of this subject, is that for the most part, it seems to boil down to gun control needs, according to governing intent, rather than any real move to address the obvious causation issues. :(   

Well, We likely disagree about the cause...  I say its staged "news" devised to create the "problem," so They can manage the reaction to the "solution" that We voluntarily give up Our rights.

And I say They have been doing this for a while.

Quote from: rdunk on December 30, 2012, 05:06:15 AM
We should look to our history, and to the history of other nations, to the relevance of the people being adequately armed, to the actions of governments.

OK, could you give us some examples of cases of the people being armed resulted in the successful overthrowing of a government?
Thanks in advance. :)

QuoteFor instance, here is a quote on the subject, by one of the most well known persons of this earth - - -

""Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

It's not really on the subject, as the Arms Act, 1878 was not a guns ban, it was a full arms ban, including "fire-arms, bayonets, swords, daggers, spears, spear-heads and bows and arrows, also cannon and parts of arms, and machinery for manufacturing arms".

I found a page (but I have to look for it again) with some court decisions that said that even ceremonial knifes and spears were banned.

It was much worse than having people get a licence for a gun.

(The above quote comes from the only source I could find for the Arms Act, 1878, on the Digital Library of India (http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/). A plug-in is needed to see the TIFF images online, or you can use the direct links for the relevant pages (page 8 (http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/0007/042/PTIFF/00000008.tif) and page 9 (http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/0007/042/PTIFF/00000009.tif)))

The civil rights movement in the USA, the suffragettes in the UK (universal suffrage/vote for women) and the Indian's breaking free from the British Empire were all successful precisely because they were not violent.  If you have guns that is a perfect excuse in a state of emergency for a government to destroy you.  If you are peaceful it is next to impossible for a tyrannical regime.

Learn your history.  Please watch the whole clip as the end is the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4qUSlYR_1M

And here's the guy who won your Presidential election but your guns stayed away when your nation refused to stand up for democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDbFzOO92OA

And when They come for You to put You in a FEMA camp...? Will non-violence work for You?

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 30, 2012, 09:25:19 PM
And when They come for You to put You in a FEMA camp...? Will non-violence work for You?

When they come for you, do you think guns will make a difference or will they be the excuse?

We're allowed to have guns where I will be moving to next year because it will be like a farm, so therefore your allowed.

Put it this way, any nasties turn up on our property wanting to wreck havoc they will be getting some bullets in their butt and that's that.

Al Gore is a "real loser", then and now. In my opinion of course, along with many millions of others. He is a real hypocritical crook, in saying one thing and doing another -  - much like someone else we all are getting to know.

Quote from: Amaterasu on December 30, 2012, 09:25:19 PM
And when They come for You to put You in a FEMA camp...? Will non-violence work for You?

I know this was not an answer to me, but I would like to grab the opportunity to say that I think that non-violence is not the answer for all situations, sometimes violence is the only answer. :)

Armap, I am in agreement with you.

wasnt there a genocide a while back where the folks killed were unarmed?
what country was it.
if i remember,i think they tried peaceful negotiations but they didnt work.
what was that country,hmm.

Quote from: Pimander on December 31, 2012, 02:28:42 AM
When they come for you, do you think guns will make a difference or will they be the excuse?

I just know I would rather go down fighting - and if it is the EXCUSE, then this is NOT the country *I* was raised to believe in.  In fact...  It already isn't, with "Patriot" Acts, NDAA, and exec orders... TSA virtual cavity searches merely to intimidate... DHS... And on and on.

Quote from: Pimander on December 30, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
And here's the guy who won your Presidential election but your guns stayed away when your nation refused to stand up for democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDbFzOO92OA

Even if Gore had won, I would by no means have interpreted that as proof of the health of American democracy.  Gore is a narcissistic psychopath in his own right, albeit of a somewhat more mild and presentable form; but then again, Democratic Presidents always are kinder and gentler than Republicans in terms of their appearance. 

That is how the game is played.  The cabal only ever offer up psychopaths for the people to vote for; but the difference is that Democratic Presidents are consistently better at pretending that they are not.  You only need to look at the Democrats' currently incumbent offering for proof of that.

Quote from: Pimander on December 31, 2012, 02:28:42 AM
When they come for you, do you think guns will make a difference or will they be the excuse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr_OpFxCx-A

If you are asking me whether or not I think it is genuinely going to get to that point in your country, Pimander; then I will say, probably not.  I would ask you to watch that video regardless, and listen to what he says.

This is a matter of principle; some would use the word honour. 

I am a civilian; perpetually and irrevocably.  Yet I have had experiences where my life was directly threatened, and I have also had experiences where I have had to engage in surrender in order to cut my losses, and remove myself from a situation because I could no longer tolerate it, regardless of the consequences.  I have had other experiences where, while not life threatening, I have been in a situation which seemed hopeless, yet when I remained willing to fight, I was able to prevail.

There have also been Kobayashi Maru moments; rarely.  Times when I was going to lose, no matter what I did, and I was forced to accept it, because it was obvious.  Yet what such instances taught me, is that situations where loss is inevitable, are (sometimes, not always) times when it is even more important to fight, than when you know that you have a clear chance of winning. 

This is the attitude that I should adopt more often with Amaterasu's work; which is why I might as well go ahead and say it, because she has proven again here that we understand each other.  If, purely hypothetically, I was ever going to seek another partner, then from the point of view of our shared value system at least, I currently know of no one else who I would consider more appropriate. 

This does not mean that Amaterasu necessarily needs to feel that I am making advances towards her which she needs to deflect; there have been male individuals who at times I have felt similarly towards as well, and it did not change the nature of my friendship with them, when such was acknowledged.

Quote from: robomont on January 01, 2013, 06:51:07 AM
wasnt there a genocide a while back where the folks killed were unarmed?
what country was it.

It doesn't "ring any bells".

Quoteif i remember,i think they tried peaceful negotiations but they didnt work.
what was that country,hmm.

Peaceful negotiations that ended in genocide? I find it unlikely, what the unarmed, soon to be killed, people could have to offer in those negotiations?  ???

While searching for it, I found this description of the stages of genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide.2C_influences_leading_to_genocide.2C_and_efforts_to_prevent_it).

Quote

Stage	Characteristics	Preventive measures
1.Classification	People are divided into "us and them".	"The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."
2.Symbolization	"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."	"To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden as can hate speech".
3.Dehumanization	"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases."	"Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen."
4.Organization	"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."	"The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations"
5.Polarization	"Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."	"Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups...Coups d'état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions."
6.Preparation	"Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."	"At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. ..."
7.Extermination	"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human".	"At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection."
8.Denial	"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."	"The response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts"

The first stages sound familiar.

PS: it's hard to make tables in a post, but at least it's possible. :)

Quote from: ArMaP on January 01, 2013, 01:58:00 PM
The U.N.

I have long been of the opinion that the United Nations should urgently be abolished; since in and of itself it is an aspirant form of tyranny, and it is a particularly insidious one, as it relies exclusively on people's positive emotions, and a suspension of critical thinking, in order to be positively regarded.

Additionally, the very concept of "hate speech," and "hate crimes," is itself a form of arbitrary and monstrous tyranny, which Hitler no doubt would have considered delightful.

It is true, however, that it is the classification and dehumanisation aspects which are the root cause, and which are the most troubling.  I was thinking earlier tonight, that such classification and division tactics are at the root of our current inability to find a better economic system. 

Virtually every form of economic organisation that we can think of, has generally been reduced down and neatly packaged into two opposing classifications; Capitalism and Communism.  Any use of currency within non-mutually reinforcing transactions, for the most part, is considered Capitalist; any talk of mutually reinforcing, altruistic behaviour which does not involve currency, is considered Socialism or Communism.  Yet here there are false associations, for the bank bailouts of 2008 were suddenly considered Capitalist, and large scale genocide and mass murder, are considered Communist.  As I have written before, with Communism we have a scenario where the concept of equitable sharing, has been placed side by side in the public mind, with the concept of genocide on a continental level.  It is practically impossible to perform any altruistic act for another person without money changing hands, at this time, at least among Americans, without being labelled a Communist.

If we are going to find any way out of this mess, then the only way we will do so, is first and foremost to get rid of the "-isms," and to simply do what can be proven to work, without having to label everything.  At times, that may well mean measures that are currently considered "Anarcho-Capitalist," such as the use of Bitcoin as a stable form of international currency.  At other times, it will mean utilising recent developmental successes which are usually considered "Communist," which would include the co-operative or worker-run factory movement, and such examples of barter-driven communities as are described here (http://www.countercurrents.org/curl030510.htm).

So we must create, if they have to be called that, hybrids, based on detached observation of simply what does or does not work within a given context, without insisting that anything must be universal or exclusive, or the "one true way."  If Zorgon wants to live in a monarchic, hierarchical society with a gold-based currency, let him.  If some of the rest of us want to do something else, then we must be permitted to as well.

This is why the talk of "unity," is vile and toxic and evil to my ears, and why I will not hear it.  All "unity," ever really means, is people of diverse backgrounds and preferred ways of governing themselves, being forced together in one giant concentration of power, where they are then forced to adopt a single way of doing things which does not suit most of them.

The United Nations is not to be embraced or advocated; as an institution, it is to be destroyed.  There is a simple litmus test as to whether or not what world government is morally tolerable, and that is to ask what is to be done with people who refuse to be part of it.

Quote from: biggles on December 31, 2012, 02:44:21 AM
We're allowed to have guns where I will be moving to next year because it will be like a farm, so therefore your allowed.

I agree that farmers should be allowed to have guns, assuming they are "stable" people.

Quote from: rdunk on December 31, 2012, 03:29:14 PM
Al Gore is a "real loser", then and now. In my opinion of course, along with many millions of others. He is a real hypocritical crook, in saying one thing and doing another -  - much like someone else we all are getting to know.

I don't think you are a real person, you are just a troll for the religious right.  Nobody could possibly just believe the complete opposite to the truth with such stunning consistency.  ::)

Gore was the WINNER OF YOUR ELECTION.  Bush was the LOSER.  The oh so democracy loving, free -  lets remember ARMED - American people were also the losers when they allowed tyranny to win over Democracy.  Shame on you all.

What did you get?  A country run by big oil and the banks.  You got wars and an unelected President.  Yep, your guns are clearly very helpful.  Pathetic.

Shame on you all.
hey pimander..stuff it

R E A L L Y
we have all heard who thinks what about guns..
can we move on now or are you all going to sit in your puddles and splash somemore

waste of time.. but what's new with that???????????

Quote from: robomont on December 25, 2012, 05:59:17 AM
those that give up liberty for freedom or safety deserve none.

We can relate to that.

For robomont (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16%20December%20to%2031%20Dec%202012/hightimesBud600.jpg)


(http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16%20December%20to%2031%20Dec%202012/happy2013wallpaper600.jpg) (http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w400/thorfourwinds/16%20December%20to%2031%20Dec%202012/3713_free_animated_christmas_wallpapersgif.jpg)

Peace Love Light

tfw   (http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)

Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Quote from: sky otter on January 01, 2013, 05:22:06 PM
we have all heard who thinks what about guns..
can we move on now or are you all going to sit in your puddles and splash somemore

Spit your dummy out as much as you like.  You may not stand up for democracy, and you may dislike my free speech/typing.  Tough.

The fact of the matter is, the nonsense about guns protecting you from tyranny is a fallacy, and the only thing you can say to counter me is "shut up".  Well no I will not.  I will respond to whatever post I like, however I see fit.  And it was a response to a post and ON TOPIC.  This is a thread that someone started on guns.

If you have no contribution to make to the debate then you don't need to post.  If you do not want to see a debate on guns then don't read the threads on it.

Quote from: Pimander on January 01, 2013, 04:19:58 PM
What did you get?  A country run by big oil and the banks.  You got wars and an unelected President.  Yep, your guns are clearly very helpful.  Pathetic.

(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/34500/Time-for-the-Big-Guns-34557.jpg)

petrus , i like what you said in that final paragraph.

my question is ,we need to prosecute a few leaders in this country for war crimes,where do we find people willing to capture ,charge and trial the so called world leaders.
presidents and pm's mostly.
when do we release bradley manning for obeying the law.
we all talk big but the powerful go free while the weak fill our jails.

Bradley Manning is another media construct - like Adam Lanza.

pimander
i have obviously pissed you off..so be it

my response was not to shut you up about your opinion

my telling you to stuff it was in response to your saying that MY COUNTRY
should be ashamed because we don't follow your pseudo intellectual feelings about
gun ownership

i took exception to that comment and i responded and continued by saying that
we have heard you
over and over and over and over
your  redundancy has not made a dent in changing anyones mind

you can say what you want till the cows come home and you probably will
we will not agree on gun ownership and that is fine with me

but do not think that i will stand for a slam on my country by you or anyone



oh i do have a comment

and i can read anything i want so there.. psss..sticking my tongue out back at cha
hahahahahahahaah

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

(http://i17.servimg.com/u/f17/13/55/53/83/57651010.gif)  heh heh..now we're on the right level

There ya go :D  You tell em

(http://www.funny-games.biz/images/pictures/1737-big-gun.jpg)

Quote from: Pimander on January 01, 2013, 04:19:58 PM
What did you get?  A country run by big oil and the banks.

Yeah and we see how YOUR gun control laws work...

Crroks in YOUR utopia can RENT guns to do the crime...

London's drug gangs now rent guns for their turf wars

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/03/guns2.jpg)
Criminals still have access to firearms

QuoteOne particular detail stood out in the accounts of the shooting of Thusha Kamaleswaran, the five-year old girl left paralysed after being caught in the crossfire during a shoot-out between two drugs gangs in south London. It seems that the gunman, Nathaniel Grant, was using a "rented" gun. It makes the process sound as casual and routine as hiring a van. In some ways this is the most chilling aspect of this dreadful case. It is not supposed to be like this. Following the Dunblane and Hungerford massacres, Parliament enacted some of the toughest firearms legislation on the planet. The ban on handguns is so rigorous that the British shooting team has to train overseas for this summer's Olympics.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100147277/londons-drug-gangs-are-now-renting-guns-for-their-turf-wars/

The ban on handguns is so rigorous that the British shooting team has to train overseas for this summer's Olympics.

Wow now how dumb is THAT?

UK Organised Crime

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_uk_organised_crime/img/8.jpg)

QuoteGuns seized

Soca says it has had some early successes with firearms – this image shows some of those already seized.

In its first year, it says one of its partnerships with Dutch agencies led to the interception of rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles destined for the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/uk_uk_organised_crime/html/8.stm

So in the UK the citizens and the shooting clubs can't own them, but organized crime is better armed than the coppers and can even rent them...

Well our system may not be perfect but when the Gang bangers next door start shooting I can at least shoot back :P

And those dang rattle snakes and other desert critters can get NASTY

UK Gun crime on the rise

(http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/441.$plit/C_71_article_1007733_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?24%2F05%2F2007%2018%3A03%3A30%3A177)

SPIRALLING gun crime is blighting Greater Manchester with more than 3,000 firearms incidents in the last 15 months, the MEN can reveal today.

This startling figure equates to SEVEN gun-related incidents EVERY day.

And actual shootings, not including crimes where guns were not fired, increased nine per cent in the last 12 months alone, with 120 confirmed discharges.

Officers who compiled the figures say the blight being caused by gun crime is "severe", saying children as young as ten are joining south Manchester's notorious gangs.

QuoteThey say splinter groups imitating gangs from Los Angeles have formed out of Manchester's infamous Doddington and Gooch gangs, with the Old Trafford Cripz consisting of ex-Gooch gangsters and the Moss Side Bloods being made up of former Doddington gang members.

The evidence of spiralling gun and gang culture - revealed by the M.E.N. today - emerged in one of three disturbing gun cases which all concluded on Wednesday with NINE young gunmen being sent to jail.

Det Supt Darren Shenton, in charge of GMP's XCalibre task force which tackles gun and gang culture, insisted the number of gun crimes had fallen dramatically overall during the last five years despite the recent increase in shootings.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1007733_gun_crime_on_the_rise

THOSE were the first three articles that came up on google search...

Seems YOUR system is not any better than ours....

As long as we allow gangs to even EXIST we will NEVER solve this issue. Here the gangs are all known... they drive around with gang logos on their cars... WHY can we not just make a law that allows us to arrest them and send them to Afghanistan or other place where they can shoot till the cows come home?

Cops in huge house gun haul

(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00619/guncache_682_619451a.jpg)

Quote MORE than 70 loyalist paramilitary weapons and thousands of bullets have been found by police in north Belfast, it was revealed today.

The huge arms cache, linked to the Ulster Volunteer Force, was uncovered as officers searched the house of a man who is believed to have taken his own life.

More guns were also found in other searches of lock-up premises in the greater Belfast area.

Police said today that all the guns had been taken away to be examined by forensics experts.

Police have not disclosed the exact location of where the guns were found, but it is understood the house where the man died suddenly last weekend is in or near the Ballysillan area.

It is one of the biggest arms dumps ever found in Belfast and ballistic tests will be carried out on every weapon to determine if they have been used, and if so, how many shootings they have been used in.

The name of the dead man has not been disclosed, but it is understood he was well known in loyalist paramilitary circles. Police are not treating his death as suspicious, but an inquest is likely to be held later.

A statement by police in the city today said: "A substantial amount of guns and ammunition were discovered as part of an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sudden death of a man in the north of the city at the weekend.

"During a follow up search of the man's house, more than 70 suspected guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition were discovered. All have been removed for forensic examination.

"A further small number of suspected firearms were also found in lock-up premises in the greater Belfast area."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1821826/.html

Teaching your kids right.... UK imitation Gun Toys

(http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/images/imgstore/133_qigrsko5uz.jpg)
A selection of imitation firearms seized during the summer holidays. Picture from police website

QuoteOn this web page you will be able to watch a dramatic film produced by pupils from Bristol Fairfield High School about the dangers of possessing imitation guns and test your skills at spotting the difference between real and fake firearms.

http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Somerset/Minehead/TA24/Archives/Archive-News/120739-An-imitation-gun-can-create-a-real-danger-for-your-children

Channel gun run
Sun investigation: Secret tide of arms from France

See article for picture  They have a new copyright image blocker  :(
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4528145/Sun-investigation-into-the-secret-tide-of-guns-from-France.html
Spree ... Sun man Nick Francis with blank-firing and powder guns

Quote BRITISH crooks are buying guns and other lethal weapons on day trips to France — then smuggling them back to the UK.

In a deadly and illegal version of the booze cruise to Calais made by honest Brits, gangs call it a "tools cruise".

Taking advantage of France's slack gun laws, criminals are paying less than £20 to make the short trip across the Channel.

Once there, they are free to buy replica blank firing guns which can be converted to shoot real bullets for as little as £50 by underworld armourers.

Even more alarmingly, anyone over the age of 18 is allowed to buy what are known as "black powder weapons" — guns which look like vintage muskets but fire heavy ball bearings using gun powder and are capable of killing.

They are being smuggled back to be used in gang feuds and assassinations on the streets of Britain's crime-plagued cities.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4528145/Sun-investigation-into-the-secret-tide-of-guns-from-France.html


Seems you need to clean up your own turf before ya come stomping on ours :P

Wow Zorgon, seems as if this hit a few bad notes on the issues. It is exactly how I felt about the topic being discussed but didn't know how too say it, until I seen your posts...;)

Guns don't kill people, we know that.  ::)

1WW

Pimander said, "I don't think you are a real person, you are just a troll for the religious right.  Nobody could possibly just believe the complete opposite to the truth with such stunning consistency". 

One of the dumbest statements I have seen on this forum, and you are supposed to be an administrator.

If I was going to be a "troll", here, I first would have to learn just exactly what it took to be a "troll". Yes, I would/will always speak my Christian (not "religious") thoughts and beliefs, but my comments about Al Gore had absolutely nothing to do with "religious" anything.

And yes, my thoughts regarding my country of America are on the political right, as absolutely is the Constitution of this United States of America. And yes, it does absolutely support the right for the people to bear arms, as has been noted by the Supreme Court a number of times. The Constitution of the United States is the "People's right to carry (guns) permit"!

Pimander, are you actually out of high school yet - many of your comments would indicate possibly not!  :o :o   ;)

P.S. most "religious" comments are now regulated to be in the Religion cave (non-public forum board), so I do try to comply with Z's desires in that regard in the open forums!

Another thing I find "funny" in this gun situation is that many (if not most) handgun makers are from Europe (at least those that I know), and even when they have restrictive laws in their own countries they don't have a problem exporting them to the US. :)

i was at walmart today and the lady in sporting goods said they sell out of ar15 's within five minutes of them coming through the door.
they get three ,each shipment,first come ,first serve.
they had a sig saur assalt rifle on the shelf,i think that ones german made.

off topic ,i saw a new ar/ak model the other day.it was a hybrid.
it looked so badass.
forward assist of ar with the clip and round of a ak,bunch more stuff too.drooling man.
i could easily see this gun being used by some kinda world police.

Quote from: ArMaP on January 02, 2013, 12:10:06 AM
Another thing I find "funny" in this gun situation is that many (if not most) handgun makers are from Europe (at least those that I know), and even when they have restrictive laws in their own countries they don't have a problem exporting them to the US. :)

Very good point ArMap  its you dodgy Europeans that are cuasing all the stink :P  One of the most popular handguns here in the USA is the Italian made Baretta :D

Pimander, at this point I am not happy about what you think of my country and do not care for your opinion about what you think of our politicians or leaders.  I don't think anyone has attacked what your country believes regarding guns.  It seems that the discussion keeps going around in circles.  We know your stance on guns and you know everyone elses.  So I simply would like to know why you persist in knocking my country and the opinion of it's citizens on here.  Just curious?????  What does it gain?  A number of people in your country and in Australia have made videos for the people in our country advising us not to give up our guns.  We know what our rights are and a good number aren't going to let anyone take our arms.  I even met 2 fine people from the United Kingdom at a gas station here in Florida while I was in a police uniform and they told me about your laws regarding firearms.  I did not judge them but simply enlightened them to our laws and rights.  They were very nice people.  Having been in the military and law enforcement (31 years combined), I have no problem with people who legally possess, carry and use a firearm legally and properly.  Human nature being what it is (no matter where one lives) can be evil or good depending on whether the person feeds him or herself good or evil.  (Garbage in; garbage out).  I want that ability to defend my family and friends where we live.  The second thing is; when you look at the number of countries that have disarmed their citizens, you will notice that a large number of people have been terminated when a despot rose to power.  Look at the havoc brought upon Western powers and Russia by what is called a ragtag bunch in Afghanistan.  How long did the Russians survive there with their technology?  How long has NATO and Americans been there?  These ragtag "guerrillas" have kept us in battle for 12 years..  When someone says we cannot hold out against technology, I would beg to differ (As a former combat soldier).  All I would ask is for you to respect my country and not talk bad about it.  Thank you.

with all due respect sm,pimander should not have to respect the usa,im a citizen of the usa and dont respect her,why should a foreigner be required too?

i dont care much for pman ,but i respect his opinion.
full steam ahead pimander.

Just my opinion.  Sometimes I get defensive about my country since I served my country for a number of years. (31 years between Army / Air Force and law enforcement) I served the people (my choice and my real intention).  Nothing personal to Pimander.  My country is the people.  Unfortunately the people are losing their way.

heck ,im a marine corp dropout and twenty years later i still get angry if i see a marine treated bad.
i guess some of the brainwashing stuck.

thirty years is a long time to stick to your beliefs.

no offence intended,but do you admit the military may have brainwashed the soldiers into a certain mindset that creates a cloud that blocks out the truth.

Oh yeah.  Everyone has a different motivation for joining.  Some patriotic, some in need of a job and various other reasons.  Yes, some have been brainwashed if that's what you want to call it.  I admit to that.  I guess I have no problem with guns because I was taught as a child about guns and even fired guns under adult supervision.  The county I live in down here in Florida averages 23,000 arrests in a year.  We have gangs and especially in one area in particular.  I now worked for an armed security company and we helped the local police clean up the area.  We shot no one and no one shot us.  A good number of us were prior military or law enforcement or both.  Just about 1/2 mile South of where we worked was the worst area in the county.  More heavily armed than the area in which we worked.  The town in being taken back block by block with the help of citizens, armed security and law enforcement all working with one another.  We had 34 deaths in our county this past year.  Most by criminals who obtained their firearms illegally.  Brainwashing, persuasion or whatever you want to call it does exist within the military and many other government entities.  I took my oaths seriously as do many, many others.  Unfortunately some drink the Kool-Aid....

Quote from: spacemaverick on January 02, 2013, 03:35:04 AM
... I have no problem with people who legally possess, carry and use a firearm legally and properly. 

Constitutionally speaking, ANY "law" that infringes on the right to bear arms is null and void - so... All Americans who possess and carry guns, in any fashion, are doing so legally.  Whether They are doing so "properly" may be disputed.

Of course, We have allowed Our right to be infringed in practice.  Sad but true.

Quote from: robomont on January 02, 2013, 06:01:14 AM
no offence intended,but do you admit the military may have brainwashed the soldiers into a certain mindset that creates a cloud that blocks out the truth.

I do.  I've seen it.

Quotei dont care much for pman ,but i respect his opinion.
full steam ahead pimander.

I respect Pimander, which is why I've gone back and edited out a couple of comments I've made in recent replies, when I started to get a little heated.  I don't do that for a lot of people either, truth be told.

I also don't want to be too hard on him for expressing an opinion on this topic, which is essentially fear based.  I'm possibly going to have to have some more necrosis scraped off a leg wound that I've had for ages, tomorrow afternoon; and I'm seriously not looking forward to it.  I don't normally touch alcohol at all now, but I drank after the last time they did that.

So I do know what it is like to be afraid.  I've really been afraid for more or less my entire life.  I also know, as I've already mentioned however, that there comes a time when you have to stop running, and deal with a situation, fear or no.

I admit; in this thread I've been blowing my own horn way too much, and probably making myself sound like a real poseur in some respects.  There is a motive behind it, however; I want to try and infect Pimander with a little Orcish spirit, if I can.

Quote from: sky otter on January 01, 2013, 09:43:03 PM
my telling you to stuff it was in response to your saying that MY COUNTRY
should be ashamed because we don't follow your pseudo intellectual feelings about
gun ownership

I said you should be ashamed of yourselves for failing to stand up for democracy when you had an unelected president imposed on you.  So many of you claim that gun ownership is connected with protecting you from precisely that type of thing.  It made no difference.  I stand by my comment that it is shameful.

It is shameful that you use that line to justify having so many guns and high numbers of homicides - despite the fact that it is quite obviously a fallacy that you want to protect yourselves from tyranny.  You had the unelected oil/bank/corporate man Bush, you had your wars, your lack of energy independence, you still have to pay private bankers swathes of your GDP every day but your guns have made no difference.  It is a nonsense.

well i hope you aren't going to split a vein chastising us badddddd americans..lol

i was not joining your argument..couch couch..excuse me.. your debate. ::)

i can only speak for myself and i can only control my working within the system to make changes

but as long as you are working with humans who are able to grab a bit of power and are greedy  then you will continue to have this problem..

obviously your countrymen  are fine upstanding folk and you don't have a working reference for this kind of problem..good for you

but if you have read your history you might note that folk only revolt when they reach bottom
i don't think we are there yet


screaming your views and shaking our finger at folk doesn't fix the problem it only makes them walk away from you or poke back

perhaps some suggestions on how to dismantle a corrupt white man mentality would be more helpful here....i can tell you as a female growing up with it that there are some changes..
they aren't huge but they are there..and they are occuring on a regular basis but when a youngl  someone gets pulled into the system..they don't know how to change it without being chewed and spit out.
fear, as you know , is a strong motivator in any theme

the tools we need for change don't include being yelled at by a neighbor..especially a self-righteous one.

so forgive me for not continuing the debate...i have work to do to make a difference and not a lot of time to waste being told i should be ashamed..
i'm not


ok.. sorry i had to come back and say apologies for being entirely off topic
i  haven't giving my stance on guns...i was giving my opinion on government
guess i shouldn't post on stuff, huh?

bwhahahahahahahahah ;)

Quote from: Pimander on January 01, 2013, 04:19:58 PM


Gore was the WINNER OF YOUR ELECTION.  Bush was the LOSER.  The oh so democracy loving, free -  lets remember ARMED - American people were also the losers when they allowed tyranny to win over Democracy.  Shame on you all.

Just catching up on my reading and I came across this little quote.

I'm sorry but you are absolutely WRONG when you claim that Gore won the election. The Miami Herald went back and recounted every vote that was cast. And guess what? Bush actually gained votes. So please give it a rest. There was a movie about the election and in this movie, I think it was called 'Recount', the Demos tried to portray the election as being 'stolen'. Well they spent over 90 minutes recounting how the Repubs 'stole' everything. But as the credits rolled by, if you cared to read any of it, it was stated that the recount changed nothing, NOTHING!. So please give that little lie a rest.

(http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/logobanner.gif) (http://www.legitgov.org/)

QuoteHow the Miami Herald Lied About Their Own Recount

The widely anticipated release of the results of the Miami Herald recount of Florida undervotes finally happened on April 3rd. The results of the recount demonstrate that under most rational scenarios, Al Gore would have won the Presidency. According to the data, far more people cast a vote for Al Gore than for George W. Bush. And the results strongly suggest that Gore would have won any statewide recount done under the auspices of the Florida Supreme Court.

But the Herald headline and lead tell a different story. They say that Bush would have won if the recount had gone forward.(1)

How did the Herald justify its headline, and its lead? They did it by:

    Misrepresenting the Florida Supreme Court decision

    Creating bizarre scenarios that assume the impossible

    Ignoring previous relevant Florida Court decisions

    Burying the information that demonstrated that Gore won in Florida

And throughout the post-November period, the Herald consistently ignored, or withheld, information that called into question the legitimacy of the Bush regime, while aggressively pursuing stories that raise questions about Gore supporters claims of victory.

The key information, that Al Gore received the most votes in the Herald examination of the undervote, was relegated to deceptive and confusing tables, and mentioned in articles among a plethora of various scenarios and equivocations. You have to read, and decipher, the 'fine print' to get to the facts.


Why the Lie?

By itself, the data from the Herald manages to prove absolutely nothing. But taken in conjunction with the media recounts that have been done of the overvoted ballots, the Herald data does prove one thing decisively---more people VOTED for Al Gore than for George W. Bush in Florida.


Then why did the Herald declare Bush the winner? Although there is more than sufficient evidence to say that the Herald did so because of its clear, consistent and unmistakable political bias, the real reason is probably money. The Herald went to considerable expense to do this recount, and the only way it is every going to get a return on this investment is by selling the book it is doing on the recounts. The best way to do that is to create controversy about the results. Controversy sells books.

The Herald recount represents a distinct low point in journalistic integrity and credibility. After promising a completed recount in three week, it took three months. After declaring, without equivocation, that it would not release any partial results, the Herald released the results from Dade County, and then completely misrepresented what those results actually meant. And now they give us the Big Lie. 

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/ElectionStudies/lukasiak_mhrecount.htm

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 02, 2013, 04:38:44 PM
I'm sorry but you are absolutely WRONG when you claim that Gore won the election. The Miami Herald went back and recounted every vote that was cast. And guess what? Bush actually gained votes. So please give it a rest.

Not so.

QuoteIn his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a U.S. correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=0

QuoteHad the Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards used the loosest standard in judging ballots and finished the recount by the court-set deadline -- which Palm Beach did not meet -- Gore almost certainly would have won. He might have gained 2,022 votes in the two counties when Bush's state lead was only 930.

And that tally may be conservative because it excludes the cleanly punched ballots in Broward, 252 Bush votes and 786 Gore votes. Broward election officials say they cannot be certain that cleanly punched ballots weren't also read during the machine count.

U.S. Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Pembroke Pines, a constant presence at the Broward recount, argued that every ballot mark was made deliberately by a voter indicating a candidate. All impressions should have counted, catapulting Gore over the top.

``The reality is that the canvassing board did not use a liberal standard and did not use the correct standard,'' Deustch said. ``Had they used the correct standard, Al Gore would be president.''

http://web.archive.org/web/20011127072559/http://www.miami.com/herald/special/news/flacount/docs/038575.htm

Citizens for Legitimate Government=A multi-partisan activist group established to expose and resist US imperialism, corpora-terrorism, and the New World Order

WOW....

Absolute Bush Haters.....

::) :o ::) :o ::) :o
Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.
His 10 point plan...
Bush has blown up the world. Now the onus is on Democrats to say how they would put it back together. Nice move.

I say, resist and tell it like it is. The war and the domestic crisis are the messes that Georgie made. Here are the steps I suggest to remedy this terrible situation.

1. Tell the people that George Bush and his friends are killers, liars, and thieves and that not only shouldn't they listen to him and them, but that they all belong in jail.

2. Get George and his friends out of the way -impeach, or if no time, wait till election-then put them in prison where they belong. No more reason to be afraid of what they say, calling opposition 'cut-and-run' Democrats. Let them say it from prison and see if they can 'cut-and-run' from behind bars.

3. Get the people he deployed to the disaster out of the disaster.

4. Rebuild the US first. Rebuild the schools, roads, infrastructure, housing, education system, medical insurance and other needs neglected by the Republicans over the last eight years, as they went on their killing spree and spent all of our money.

5. After cooling the Republicans by arresting most of them and shutting their stupid mouths forever, start working on reversing Global Warming.

6. Revoke all the tax cuts made by the criminal Bush clan.

7. Remove all the "Justices" put in place by the Bush clan, including on the Supreme Court.

8. Abolish all the bullshit programs put in place by Bush clan, including Medicaid "reform" and the provisions attached to the 'no-child-left-behind' scam. Surely Bush was left behind.

9. Consider the possibility that the Republican ideology contravenes the Constitution because its policies and beliefs endanger the well-being of the people. Consider making the Republican Party illegal.

10. Start a party that opposes the Democratic Party from the left of the Democratic Party and makes the Republican Party a detestable relic of the past akin to the slave-holding Confederates.

If you quote this guy and his leftist wackadoos.... Well I guess theres no hope for you.... :-\

sure abolish the pub party now that the paulies took it over.
in four years all hell is gonna break lose when the republican party transforms.
from what i understand,rons supporters basically own that party now.
my guess, the media will forget that party exist.

Scrap em both :P  Set me up as king  I will fix things :D

Zorgon,

You have my vote.

As for now, we have Eric Holder and his ilk in charge,
its ok for them to use guns in Fast and Furious,
which killed how many people?

Remember, Holder set out a long time ago to brainwash
people about guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNE5vuI9TNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GNE5vuI9TNo

Looks like its worked on quite a few people.

::)

Guns dont kill people, people do.

Now, consider what kind of a government wants to
disarm the public, while it flies drones around the world
killing men, women and children.

???

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 02, 2013, 06:59:08 PM
WOW....

Absolute Bush Haters.....

I don't see anything wrong with that.  Bush and his father were almost certainly the two most rampant, total, blatant, utterly unrestrained psychopaths to ever hold American political office. ;)

Earlier in the thread, discussion of gun ownership in
big cities....

Addressing to that end, sure guns wont protect us from
the government. However, that does not address the whole
issue.

Tell me, if your in a big city, why are you safe in your own
home without defense?

People break into homes in the city all of the time, so why
be a needless victim statistic.

Guns have saved the lives of many! Lets look at it that way,
shall we for a minute?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MkbkvY9Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MkbkvY9Rs

Quote from: petrus4 on January 02, 2013, 11:04:54 PM
I don't see anything wrong with that.  Bush and his father were almost certainly the two most rampant, total, blatant, utterly unrestrained psychopaths to ever hold American political office. ;)

I'm really, really glad thats only your opinion, one that i disagree with.
While I'm no Bush lover by any stretch of the imagination, both were far, far better than the alternative.
Of course thats my opinion..and like certain body parts, everyone has one.... ::)

Peace
Rock

Quote from: zorgon on January 02, 2013, 09:26:37 PM
Scrap em both :P  Set me up as king  I will fix things :D

Ahh a benevolent dictator...now that's the ticket.... ;)

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 02, 2013, 11:20:15 PM
Ahh a benevolent dictator...now that's the ticket.... ;)

They all start as benevolent...

My future Daughter in Law sent this to me...Thought it was apropos...

(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/427700_491691140882515_1855829367_n_zpscea995ac.jpg)

Quote from: petrus4 on January 02, 2013, 11:04:54 PM
I don't see anything wrong with that.  Bush and his father were almost certainly the two most rampant, total, blatant, utterly unrestrained psychopaths to ever hold American political office. ;)

A totally nuts statement, in my opinion - and I am a Texan.

I do assume you are simply proffering your uninformed opinion??  :o

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 02, 2013, 11:18:25 PM
I'm really, really glad thats only your opinion, one that i disagree with.
While I'm no Bush lover by any stretch of the imagination, both were far, far better than the alternative.
Of course thats my opinion..and like certain body parts, everyone has one.... ::)

Peace
Rock

Obama isn't any less psychopathic; he's just better at pretending he isn't.  Democratic Presidents generally are.

Quote from: petrus4 on January 03, 2013, 01:49:44 AM
Obama isn't any less psychopathic; he's just better at pretending he isn't.  Democratic Presidents generally are.

Funny you say that, the first thing I thought when I saw Obama was that he was a bigger liar than all the previous US presidents, so I thought "he will be elected".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5dg_AcBeHgo

THE GUN FREE ZONE

Sorry, couldn't help this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtm-ts6fVFE

Gun Control in the United Kingdom.  Has it really worked?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs

Some British want their guns back 2010.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc

Australian people talk about gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKE0NI-Djxs

Comments from Canadians on gun control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNnd5XHWN4Q

Gun free zones kill people.

When an owner of a property posts their property as a Gun Free Zone, they imply that they will take on the responsibility for the personal self defense of persons who enter that property.  No protection, they become an enabler of the shooter.

Quote from: ArMaP on January 03, 2013, 02:08:39 AM
Funny you say that, the first thing I thought when I saw Obama was that he was a bigger liar than all the previous US presidents, so I thought "he will be elected".

To expand on my earlier point, and to answer Rock, it actually isn't that the Bushes were any better than Obama; they are perceived that way because they were Republican Presidents.  Republican voters (which the military generally are) only notice the sins of Democratic Presidents, and vice versa.  There were calls for Clinton to be impeached for fellatio, because he was a Democrat.  A Republican President on the other hand, could eat live babies with impunity, and nobody would say a word.

Quote from: ArMaP on January 03, 2013, 02:08:39 AM
Funny you say that, the first thing I thought when I saw Obama was that he was a bigger liar than all the previous US presidents, so I thought "he will be elected".

And you said you weren't an expert in Polyticks  :P

The Redneck Vote

(http://meanwhileinrussia.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/redneck-with-big-gun.jpg)

Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on January 03, 2013, 01:41:31 AM
My future Daughter in Law sent this to me...Thought it was apropos...

(http://i1135.photobucket.com/albums/m623/Sgt_Rocknroll/427700_491691140882515_1855829367_n_zpscea995ac.jpg)

Well this should get interesting:

Quote"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNjxzFgKcHY

http://www.prisonplanet.com/biden-says-obama-to-use-%e2%80%9cexecutive-action%e2%80%9d-to-restrict-second-amendment.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/biden-says-obama-to-use-%e2%80%9cexecutive-action%e2%80%9d-to-restrict-second-amendment.html)