Pin-up and KaBar's Big Firearms Debate Thread

[KaBar2]

Okay. I support the Second Amendment and all forms of firearms ownership, and Pin-up does not, so I started this thread so we could discuss it without hi-jacking a thread on elections ("Erections"--maybe that's a thread on Chinese elections. Whatever.)

Basically, I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves, that no person or Government or any entity has the right to prohibit them from defending themselves, and to that end, they also have the right to own and possess and use firearms, and all manner of weapons. (Someone once accused me of supporting the open wearing of swords, and I said, "Well, duh. Don't you?")

Texas, where I live, protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) in our State constitution, because of the right of states to raise and arm the militia. All able-bodied, male, Texas residents between 17 and 45 are automatically members of the militia (Federal too--Title 10, Section 311, United States Code) and are also part of the Texas State reserve military forces. This includes the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard (when under the command of the Governor of Texas,) the Texas State Guard (unpaid volunteer members of Texas' military police battalion,) the Department of Public Safety (state troopers,) the Texas Rangers (the "FBI" of the Department of Public Safety,) all county Sheriffs and their deputies, all constables of State and District Courts, all local police officers, and all public employees considered "Texas peace officers"--including all firefighters (both paid and volunteer), EMT-P paramedics and so forth.

They aren't kidding when they include all able-bodied males between 17-45. Any time there is an emergency, any police officer can turn to the nearest able-bodied civilian male and say "I deputize you--pick up that deer rifle and follow me." In fact, this very thing occurred during one of the most tragic mass killings in Texas--the Texas Tower Sniper incident. The sniper, a former Marine rifleman with a brain tumor the size of an orange, killed 13 people on the ground from a sniper position at the top of the clock tower of the University of Texas in Austin. TWO of the four men who went up the tower after the sniper were civilians who were combat veterans of WWII and Korea, and both the veterans were civilians armed with their own shotguns.

During the Fort Davis stand-off between the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and a violent, extremist, "Republic of Texas" splinter group, the news media called up the leader of the militia group I trained with, and asked him "Do you and your group support the RoT people in Fort Davis?" and he replied "Ask the DPS troopers if they need any help, we'll be glad to help them enforce the law."

Admittedly, these instances are rare, but the NRA estimates that civilians use personal firearms to defend themselves about 250,000 times a year, but most of these instances are not recorded or publicized. On a personal note, my wife has used her handgun three times since 1989 to defend herself from young men who were apparently attempting to either rob her or abduct her. She did not have to shoot them, all she had to do was pull her revolver and they ran like the cowards they are. They were more than willing to try to harm a defenseless woman, but they did not want to risk getting wounded or killed. They are very lucky it was not me, because I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

I have never had to defend myself against any attackers, but I am over six feet tall and weigh over 200 pounds, and male. Women are most often the victims of strong-arm robbers and rapists. In my opinion, ALL women should be armed, 24-7, because we live in a dangerous world of sorry little monsters who prey upon the weak and unprepared.

Perhaps in other countries the gunshot death rate is lower. But I bet the rate of robbery, murder, forcible rape and so forth is lower as well. In Australia, when they banned private ownership of firearms, the robbery rate and the "kick burglary" rate went up 44%, especially against women and elderly people.

Firearms, and especially handguns, empower women and those in society who are more vulnerable, if those persons choose to arm themselves and become proficient in the use of a pistol. Criminals will always be armed, regardless of the law, because they do not obey laws. Anti-gun laws only disarm HONEST PEOPLE.

[seeking]

kabar, what are you trying to prove? we've had these discussions a thousand times on here. people have different perspectives, no amount of message board arguing will ever change that, and all it generally does is annoy the piss out of everyone. it's nothing but preaching, and not only is it a waste of fucking time, but it also makes you look like a self righteous, hollier than thou asshole. no one really cares for attitudes like that too much.
i could give you concrete rebuttles to every single argument you've made, because they aren't based on facts, they're based on oppinion. the things that are based on facts (crime rates, statistics, etc) can be worded to reflect any side that you want to stand on.

there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this 'question'. people's reasons for wanting guns banned are just as relivent, rational and intelligent as your reasons for wanting them, end of discussion.

[KaBar2]

Why, Seeking, I can't help but disagree. It's not the end of discussion AT ALL. Actually, I created this thread so that Pin-up and I could discuss firearms, and if you feel annoyed about it, I sincerely hope you feel better soon. If it bothers you that much, then I guess the best thing to do would be to avoid reading this thread, and then you won't feel as annoyed. Sometimes, if I'm really annoyed and irritated, I listen to soothing music, like "Guns 'N' Roses." Or sometimes I go out and gun my car up and down the street a few times. Or I promise myself that I never gun read that annoying person's threads again. You get the idea.

[amorphic]

Screw guns and screw people who own them. I'd rather get victimized then become part of a greater problem that will cause more people pain and suffering in the long run.

[Faithfull]

THE PROBLEM WITH YOU KABAR IS THAT YOU ARE A RED NECK AND WE ARE (MOSTLY) CITY KIDS. SO FUCK YOU.

[Teh0wnz]

Kabar - off topic, what kind of car do you have? Is it worth gunning up and down the street? Ok, continue with the relevant discussion.

[Teh0wnz]

Originally posted by Faithfull
THE PROBLEM WITH YOU KABAR IS THAT YOU ARE A RED NECK AND WE ARE (MOSTLY) CITY KIDS. SO FUCK YOU.

Hey, you're a fucktard. Come say that shit to someone in Texas anytime, and I garauntee you'll be sleeping with the fishes... like we don't have cities in Texas... fucktard.

[Faithfull]

ILL SAY THAT SHIT WHENEVER AND WHEREVER I WANT.

FUCKTARD?!!!!????????????

[KYU]

*agrees with kabar*

[Teh0wnz]

Bring it then bitch, I can meet you somewhere in Dallas, and I will personally run your face across the asphalt.... and not feel bad about it.... Or we could always do the old fashioned hang your dumbass from a tree branch on a rope by your neck?

I'm not gonna reply after this, so if you feel that you want the last word (and you actually have something good to say) go for it. Jackass hee haw.

[InnerCityRebel]

i own an gun.it just comes down to the fact it is your freedom of choice..

[KaBar2]

Spoken like a man who has yet to discover just how evil the world really is. I disagree with you. Very much. Oddly enough, I do not feel a similar animosity towards people who oppose the ownership of firearms that you seem to feel for those of us that do own them. This, despite the fact that many anti-gun people are not content to simply go their own way in the world, but instead are actively trying to disarm me and millions of other law-abiding gun owners.

I have found that an armed society is a polite society. I have also found that many times the people that are most adamant about their intention to disarm the rest of the world are people who hold very unpopular opinions, or who covertly seek to seize power over others. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was translated almost word-for-word from a German law written by the Nazis to disarm the German Jews. The National Firearms Act has it's antecedents in the anti-freedmen "Black Codes" of the 1870's. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDAL MASSACRE in the last 150 years was preceded by a series of laws that disarmed the civilian population.

But, you have read all these arguments before, and know that they are true, but just don't care. Therefore, I can only conclude that either you feel that any sort of massacre is acceptable as long as it results in a docile, disarmed population, or perhaps you have your own reasons for wanting to be pretty certain that those that are too weak or elderly to prevail in an unarmed fight will not be armed.

Frankly, I think that EVERY GAY PERSON, EVERY WOMAN, EVERY MINORITY PERSON OF EVERY RACE AND NATIONALITY AND CULTURE AND LANGUAGE AND RELIGION should be armed with a pistol. In fact, I believe that every adult, period, ought to be armed with a pistol. And I also think that if this were the case, there would be a hell of a lot less robbery, rape, gay-bashing, hate crime, etc., etc., etc. going on.

I'm not advocating that any particular segment of society be denied firearms (except convicted felons--something already prohibited.) I think that every honest, law-abiding person should be armed, and any person convicted of a violent crime should be returned to prison if he (and it's almost always a he) is discovered to be in possession of a firearm.

Actually, since it seems unreasonable to ask the Government to repeal the over 20,000 gun laws that are already on the books, I would be happy if they would simply stop writing more laws, and ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Just doing that alone would put thousands of criminals back behind bars.

It looks like that hated Assault Weapons Ban is about to expire. THANK GOD. Not that it stopped anybody from owning any assault rifles, and definately not any criminals, but it was a sort of spoil-the-party law that the Democrats wrote, and CHICKENSHIT COWARDS in the Republican Party supported.

President Bush (41) signed it, and it cost him the presidency, the sorry sonofabitch. I was so glad that he was defeated. He deserved it.

Bill Clinton sold more assault rifles to the conservative right wing than any President in history. Prior to Bill Clinton's administration, I had owned one assault rifle, and sold it. During his administration, I bought several, and lots of ammunition. A friend of mine and I were counting the rifles that we knew of among members of the Texas militia, and we counted enough assault rifles to arm a COMPANY of men, all purchased during the Clinton years. That's well over two hundred rifles. Many, many of those guys owned four rifles or more (at $500 to $1,000 apiece), with which they intend to arm their friends and relatives in a crisis.

Clinton's gun-grabbing laws sold millions of rifles to concerned Americans. And if it looks like Kerry might win, no doubt, there will be a big upsurge in assault rifle sales again. And ammunition, too.

[Pinup]

<span style='color:silver'>"I believe that every person everywhere has the God-given right to defend themselves"</span>

I don't prone passivity in front of aggression just because i don't support the right for any citizen to carry guns, firearms, swords or crossbows of any sort. That's something which should be made clear in this post.

<span style='color:silver'>"Texas, where I live [skiiiiiiiiiiiip it] and so forth."</span>

In this paragraph you say that people are in part allowed to carry guns because some member of authority can 'deputize' them. These don't necessarily have to inter relate.

In fact, if i were a policeman, the last person i'd chose to follow me on any kind of operation would be the kind of guy who would happen to carry a gun at the present moment because he feels it could be needed in any day life. Just like you say that you shouldn't give political power to those who ask for it ? Call me crazy, i believe in that although there's obviously some kind of moot point in the whole thing. It's basically (i think) a question of judgement, and in a nutshell, i would not give the right to kill to someone who has, through the purchase of a gun projected himself in the actual possibility of killing. Is that clear ? Eh, whatever, just a sidenote.

Therefore, deputize all you want, and if the law in France were as such (maybe it is ? i never looked it up), if some cop were to hand me a gun to try and take down some nut, maybe i would. But then it is not so much a question of protecting oneself, as it is a question of fulfilling your duty as a citizen at that moment. To that extent, i would never allow my citizens to carry guns on the offchance they may have to use them in a citizen duty. To me, this argument does not stand, therefore, in the whole idea of guns linked to self (AS OPPOSED TO COMMUNITARY) defence.

Why ? Because that would only work if everyone who bought a gun would use it in such a way. Which is obviously not the case. Guns in the USA satisfy merely an individual since of comfort which defeats the entire purpose. Doesn't that scare you ? The idea that, when someone buys a gun, the basic motivation is "If I AM ever in danger, i will not die but the other one will.", and how subjective is that to be allowed to be incorporated into the greater scheme of a juridiction ? Sure, you may be in some kind of right, ethically, to be the one to outlive this situation, if you are the one who was aggressed, but the actual action of pulling the trigger and taking the other's life does not align. Defending oneself from aggression by anticipating in fatal aggression basically destroys the entire sense of value (what you could see as a form moral of superiority which justifies your using a gun) upon which your ethics are built. Whatever is WRONG is WRONG. I'd be glad to develop this if you disaggree, especially since i will have had a good night's sleep by then.;)

Admittedly, these instances are rare, [...] I would have waited until they got too close for me to miss before I pulled my pistol.

I'm glad your wife made it. However, the only reason why that is because it so happened her aggressors did not carry guns, which they could very well have. In which case, the problem of guns would have appeared most clearly : someone would have killed someone else. Be it those morons or be it your wife, i don't believe in the right of one man to take another's life, based on the whole idea that "you don't want to be the one to go".

Why do you not die ? Because you didn't pull the trigger out first. But you still pulled the trigger. Killing can not link up to the way law should provide justice.

CHAIN OF THOUGH WHICH SCARES ME :
"Someone was about to do something wrong, so I turned him into meat. What does he know ? Nothing, he's meat now. I knew what he was doing was wrong, but he didn't seem to care. So i killed him.
He was going to do something wrong, so I did it before because I KNEW what he was going to do was wrong. This makes me morally superior"

To me, it doesn't. This is what the authorization to carry guns is built upon, and i can't believe we can allow human beings to live on such principles.

Coming back to your point with your wife, it IS lucky she had a gun at the moment. But the only reason why i can say this is because she was the 'victim' and because she did not have to use it. Killing provides no judgement, nor does it act as punishment, as punishment, I believe, comes with awareness and, at some point, hindsight.

Basically :

If you can guarantee to me that ONLY defenseless and morally flawless people are allowed to carry guns, granted they NEVER have to use them, then i'll sign straight away. But that's basically the situation in which your wife was in.


I'd be quite happy to continue discussing this with you. There are several aspects i did not look at in this post, i merely concentrated on this whole illusion of morality which accompanies the carrying of guns for self defence. A lot of other aspects encourage me to go against the Second Amendment.

Making too huge posts would not benefit the discussion though, i believe, and therefore, i'll pursue with anything else i have to say (which i do) once you get back at me.

[Pinup]

you think gaybashing and general aggression of the weaker would be reduced if everyone carried guns ? why, sure, but would that be because people started understanding why they shouldn't be ? nah, they just wouldn't want to die.

in other words, would it be ok for me to be a pedophile if i didn't have the ability to molest ?

would you say that the climate in which the cold war developed was a healthy one ? it's really the same. people didn't get nuked because everyone had nuclear power, so no one used it. but both superpowers had the capacity of flattening their opponent straight off the map, and everyone was dead terrified. every fucking day of their lives, on this very fine balance. this is basically the climate in which you'd support human beings to be living in ? if every one carried guns, no one would use them ? but everone would have the power to take out anyone else ?

doesn't sound too healthy to me.




it's nighttime here, and as i said, i'll get back at my other thoughts tomorrow.

[imported_dowmagik]

kabar you sound like a fucking psycho. and this is coming from someone who loves guns.

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by KaBar2
I have also found that many times the people that are most adamant about their intention to disarm the rest of the world are people who hold very unpopular opinions, or who covertly seek to seize power over others. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was translated almost word-for-word from a German law written by the Nazis to disarm the German Jews. The National Firearms Act has it's antecedents in the anti-freedmen "Black Codes" of the 1870's. EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDAL MASSACRE in the last 150 years was preceded by a series of laws that disarmed the civilian population.

bingo!!!

I had to laugh at Michael Moore for making most gun owners look like paranoid racists. In Bowling for Columbine. He really does a disservice to many citizens who are “normal” and who are in the NRA or who own firearms. I do not own a fire arm but I am thinking about getting one. I honestly do not trust “my” government or most “law enforcement” agencies; I should be able to protect myself from anyone whom I feel is a threat to my life or the lives of my loved ones.

In all honesty guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A paranoid, psycho, or even racist person will always be that way….guns or no guns, and I and everyone else should be able to defend themselves from just such nut jobs!

The more and more I read, the more and more I see how are government is slowly stripping away the nation’s tax paying citizens rights. Now it’s all in the name of “Homeland Security” and most people are for it cause of 9-11. Shit, I live in NY and worked on the floor of the NYSE, oddly enough I quit my job a few days right before 9-11. I don’t feel any safer, homeland security or not. I know owning a gun will not help against terrorists blowing up buildings and shit, but I should still be able to own a gun, look at internet porn, and drive where ever I wish etc…..without worrying about a big brother or a KGB type government being all up on my shit.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Ben Franklin

"The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government." - U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama, Tibet

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." - Jesus, Luke 22:36

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
"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

Not trying to get all preachy, but those quotes are just as relevant now as they were when they were stated!

[KaBar2]

A very well-written reply. I assume, from the context of your post, that you live in France. Is this correct? France does permit gun ownership, but with quite a few more restrictions than most places in the U.S.

I do not agree that defending oneself from attack is morally equal to the attack itself. And I also do not wholly agree that a pre-emptive attack, or one nearly so, is less than moral. Individuals have the right to go about their business completely unmolested. In my wife's case, she was attacked (but not injured) once while driving her car on surface streets (she stopped at a light,at night, and two carloads of young men attempted to "box her in," probably to carjack the car, or perhaps to abduct her) and once in the parking lot of a store. In both those cases, she pulled her pistol from her purse, and the assailants ran as fast as they could. She could have shot them, or at least at them, but did not.

The third time, she was driving on the freeway at night, and a carload of young men attempted to prevent her from exiting from I-45 onto the U.S. 59 freeway. They had harrassed her for several miles, swerving towards her car, honking their horn, attempting to get in front of her to slow down and stop her on the freeway, but she was able to avoid all this. When they attempted to prevent her from exiting the freeway, she extended her hand, pointing the pistol out the window directly at the driver of the car. He slammed on his brakes to avoid getting shot, and was nearly rear-ended by a large truck. She was able to safely exit onto U.S. 59. Once on U.S. 59, she floored the accelerator and putting as much distance between herself and them as possible, "ran for home."

I cannot see how your argument holds water in these cases. In all three instances, it was at night (this makes a difference under Texas law), she was outnumbered by younger, stronger, and aggressive male strangers. No jury in Texas would convict her of any crime if she had opened fire on her attackers, in all three instances. She felt that her life was in danger, and indeed, it probably was. The ONLY thing that saved her from harm was putting her attackers in the position of being wounded or killed. And cowards that they are, they ran.

[Pinup]

Originally posted by the_gooch

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Ben Franklin



You are aware this quote, for instance, completely goes both ways ?

[krs702]

the other night some guy thought it would be real funny to pull a gun at me after i had been nice in guiding him for dope and girls

[imported_dowmagik]

question for kabar: when the assault rifle ban is up will people then be able to purchase fully autos without a class III?

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Pinup
You are aware this quote, for instance, completely goes both ways ?

how so??

[Milton]

I'm going to join the debate if thats allright. If you (Pinup and Kabar2) want to discuss without this, please let me know so I can erase it.

I think that in order to discuss the issue of gun ownership we must make a distinction between the moral, rational choice of owning a gun an the choice of actually using a gun. The choice to own a gun is generally a decision made in a time of safety and rationality, the choice to use a gun is not. The choice to actually use the gun is made out of desperation. Out of a reflex of self-preservation, there is no morality, no rational thought behind it. In the actual moment of pulling the trigger the human mind must be at its lowest, most primative state, its a reflex a split second decision between kill or be killed. And I am under the impression that you (pinup) are not of the belief that one human can make that choice for another. This is obviously going to create a stalemate in the discussion, because that is the funddamental point of disagreement.

On the other hand the right, and in some cases the responsibility to bear arms is another issue entirely. It is loaded with morality, a sense of duty, security, etc. As a gun owner myself the best I can do to add to the debate is to give you a few of the reasons that went into my decision to become one. First, using the arguement by purchasing a gun you show a propensity for violence and so anyone who would seek out ownership of a gun is not equipped mentally to own them. This rhetoric is a complete use of circular logic. Besides that, everyone has the propensity to be violent, there is no person who is completely peaceful all the time, under some extreme circumstance you would react violently as well as I would. To this end there are some circumstances where I feel it is necessary to own a gun should they arise. For instance, if I had to defend my loved ones or my family against an armed assailant, I would shoot to kill, no questions asked. That is a moral decision, I feel that there are some things in life worth dying, or killing for.
Secondly, my decision to own a firearm was aided by the constant effort to disarm the populace of this country. They say "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," pure rhetoric, but in my opinion an armed society is one of the greatest safeguards to a truely democratic society. Should one person, be he president or general or minister control all of the armed population of a country, the temptation and the opportunity for dictatorship is ever present. When the day comes where the government tells me that it is no longer legal for me to posess andd carry a firearm, I will buy as many as I can get my hands on. An unarmed society is a docile society. On a related issue, the reason that the United States has avoided mainland attack by an army for so many years is that the proportion of the society that is armed makes this unfantomable (sp?) if this country were attacked there would be millions of people willing to fight, what army in the world would risk that?

I will think of more later, but this is basically my reasoning.

[Pinup]

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security” Ben Franklin

Essential liberty : the one of living a life without others impeding upon my right to remain alive.

As far as i'm concerned, openly selling guns prevents this right.

On the other hand, allowing everyone to carry a gun, just to put everyon in a situation where, because of this climate, nobody will use them is a "temporary security", that is, until someone finally pulls the trigger.

Living like this is neither free nor safe.

[sneak]

Originally posted by KaBar2
Texas, where I live, protects the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) in our State constitution, because of the right of states to raise and arm the militia. All able-bodied, male, Texas residents between 17 and 45 are automatically members of the militia (Federal too--Title 10, Section 311, United States Code) and are also part of the Texas State reserve military forces. This includes the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard (when under the command of the Governor of Texas,) the Texas State Guard (unpaid volunteer members of Texas' military police battalion,) the Department of Public Safety (state troopers,) the Texas Rangers (the "FBI" of the Department of Public Safety,) all county Sheriffs and their deputies, all constables of State and District Courts, all local police officers, and all public employees considered "Texas peace officers"--including all firefighters (both paid and volunteer), EMT-P paramedics and so forth.



so this would include tease?
well, i think that says a lot!

haha, anyway my serious input amounts to:

*if everyone carries guns, then more murders / injuries / assults and etc will happen. there will always be people who are bigger than others and will want to assert their might. a smaller, more intimidated person could be scared to pull the gun on someone demanding someone. Or how easy would it be for someone just to "blast someone with a bullet becuase they are A) pissed off B) drunk or C) both. and this guy just looked at his pint the wrong way in the pub or something.

different societies have different norms and values, and also are different culturally. i have a feeling that where i live is a lot different to you. im sure the society i see as a young, graffiti writer in South London is a lot different to how it could be in the middle of Texas. With recent changes in the uk, i now have to be a lot more wary of how i carry myself at certain times - in fear of getting a gun pulled on me, getting stabbed or bottled etc. rises in gun crime culture means that its now the "bad ting" for london "youts" to arm them selves to make them seem bad and gangster. essentially i believe it comes from America and A) the gangsta lifestyle which is presented. now this isnt a fault of anyone. it just happened. or B) how America has a huge gun culture and it just has come across the pond*

anyway im muttering now. basically i agree with pinup if he disagrees with the right to bear arms.

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Milton
I'm going to join the debate if thats allright. If you (Pinup and Kabar2) want to discuss without this, please let me know so I can erase it.

I think that in order to discuss the issue of gun ownership we must make a distinction between the moral, rational choice of owning a gun an the choice of actually using a gun. The choice to own a gun is generally a decision made in a time of safety and rationality, the choice to use a gun is not. The choice to actually use the gun is made out of desperation. Out of a reflex of self-preservation, there is no morality, no rational thought behind it. In the actual moment of pulling the trigger the human mind must be at its lowest, most primative state, its a reflex a split second decision between kill or be killed. And I am under the impression that you (pinup) are not of the belief that one human can make that choice for another. This is obviously going to create a stalemate in the discussion, because that is the funddamental point of disagreement.

On the other hand the right, and in some cases the responsibility to bear arms is another issue entirely. It is loaded with morality, a sense of duty, security, etc. As a gun owner myself the best I can do to add to the debate is to give you a few of the reasons that went into my decision to become one. First, using the arguement by purchasing a gun you show a propensity for violence and so anyone who would seek out ownership of a gun is not equipped mentally to own them. This rhetoric is a complete use of circular logic. Besides that, everyone has the propensity to be violent, there is no person who is completely peaceful all the time, under some extreme circumstance you would react violently as well as I would. To this end there are some circumstances where I feel it is necessary to own a gun should they arise. For instance, if I had to defend my loved ones or my family against an armed assailant, I would shoot to kill, no questions asked. That is a moral decision, I feel that there are some things in life worth dying, or killing for.
Secondly, my decision to own a firearm was aided by the constant effort to disarm the populace of this country. They say "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," pure rhetoric, but in my opinion an armed society is one of the greatest safeguards to a truely democratic society. Should one person, be he president or general or minister control all of the armed population of a country, the temptation and the opportunity for dictatorship is ever present. When the day comes where the government tells me that it is no longer legal for me to posess andd carry a firearm, I will buy as many as I can get my hands on. An unarmed society is a docile society. On a related issue, the reason that the United States has avoided mainland attack by an army for so many years is that the proportion of the society that is armed makes this unfantomable (sp?) if this country were attacked there would be millions of people willing to fight, what army in the world would risk that?

I will think of more later, but this is basically my reasoning.

ditto.....good points milt.

[Milton]

Thanks Goooch...
Sneak, I just wanted to address a few of your points quickly. Someone already alluded to the cold war, and I think this is a good metaphor for the issue of gun ownership. At the end of World War II the Russian army could have easily defeated us in combat, however, we had "the Bomb" and so, they didn't attack. We were Kabars wife, we needed something to put us on a level playing field. Granted, the culture of the Cold War was tense, with the potential of destruction at any minute, but eventually we realized that we could live WITH the bombs without them being the same threat. Certainly if there were a society which was armed completely there would be a period where things were tense, where anyone was affraid to look at anyone wrong. But afterwards, after the tension was over and people realized the best way to deal with eachother was cordially, and respectfully, crime would go down drastically. Just because the threat is there...

[KaBar2]

I'm sorry if you think I sound like a psycho. Obviously, that was not my intent (LOL.) Probably, if you think that my examples sound wacky or paranoid, it is because you are not familiar with the facts.

Try looking into the website "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership." Their articles are very well researched and footnoted. I'm not Jewish, but I think Aaron Zelman is a very well-spoken, intelligent and dedicated guy. And his arguments are irrefutable.

(Edit: To answer your question, when the assault rifle ban expires, one will be able to once again purchase SEMI-AUTOMATIC military-style rifles, which only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, which have a removeable flash suppressor, and a detachable box magazine of over ten rounds, and a bayonet lug, and a fixed pistol grip that protrudes, etc. They are Class II firearms.

FULLY-AUTOMATIC rifles are classed as machine guns. They can fire more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger. Machine guns are controlled in the U.S. by the National Firearms Act of 1933. They ARE NOT ILLEGAL, only controlled by a rather confiscatory Federal tax. They are classed as Type III firearms.)

One of the worse things about the modern political climate is the profound differences between the experiences of the "urban liberal intelligensia" in cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco, and the experiences of people in most of the rest of the country. People who are educated in Ivy League colleges tend to think of themselves as "knowing what's best" for the rest of us benighted souls. They think that concern about genocide is ludicrous. "It can't happen here." Except that it CAN happen here, and already HAS happened here several times, the most recent instance I can think of being the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993. And numerous other examples abound in history, from the Haymarket Massacre, to (edit) Wounded Knee, to the Republic Steel strike, to the massacre of strikers' families by mining company gun thugs and the Colorado Militia's machine guns at Goldfield, CO., the attacks upon the Bonus Army, Coxey's Army, the massacre of black people in Tulsa, Oklahoma, you name it. There have been scores of massacres, big and small, and ALWAYS OF UNARMED OR VERY NEARLY UNARMED, DEFENSELESS PEOPLE.

The liberal Establishment propagates it's ideas, people who wish that the world was a better place adopt the ideas, and try to put them into practice, and somehow or another the ideas often involve curtailing the rights of someone else. Like the right to defend one's own life and the lives of others. Like the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not trust the Government, and I do not trust any of the leaders of any of the political parties, Demopublican or Republicrat. In BOTH CASES, their idea of a perfect world is one in which the people are subject to all their goddamned rules and are HELPLESS TO RESIST. Each of us must decide for himself or herself what we will do. The laws are not always just, most of the time, not even close. But, despite that, I feel a strong urge to obey the law as much as is possible.

People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny.

[Pinup]

Milton, as i said before, how can this possibly a healthy climate for relations ?

Not killing because you, yourself, can die.

Surely, you should be discouraged because of recognizing the immorality of your own actions, not because the immorality is turning against you.

As i said before :
"in other words, would it be ok for me to be a pedophile if i didn't have the ability to molest ?"

i think the priorities are in essence not the one that authorizing gun ownership stresses upon.

i disagree with other things. but i'm going to bed now. get back at kabar tomorrow, as you seem to have conveniently swerved around my point ;)

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Pinup
Essential liberty : the one of living a life without others impeding upon my right to remain alive.

As far as i'm concerned, openly selling guns prevents this right.

On the other hand, allowing everyone to carry a gun, just to put everyon in a situation where, because of this climate, nobody will use them is a "temporary security", that is, until someone finally pulls the trigger.

Living like this is neither free nor safe.

Well, what about knives? What about a car? A car can be used as a weapon.

Firearms are obviously not on the same level as the aforementioned but you get the point.

First guns will be taken away, then what?

Like I said earlier, people kill people, either through use of a gun, knife, bare hands, or even a well orchestrated and systematic genocide.

Like a motor vehicle, a gun is a responsibility. The potential owners of either should be trained and evaluated to some extent in order to determine if they are capable of responsible ownership. I do not think that if every citizen is strapped with a gun we will magically have some utopian society, but I do feel that many people will be more cautious of the things that they do. Also, I DO NOT think it is a good idea for people to walk around with handguns on a normal basis. Look at incidents of road rage; imagine if those same people had a hand gun in their glove or on their person.

[imported_dowmagik]

Originally posted by KaBar2


People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny.
I couldnt agree with you more. I do, however, disagree that we should give all gays, indians, blacks and mexicans a gun.

Especially indians, because lord knows they like to drink.

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by KaBar2
I'm sorry if you think I sound like a psycho. Obviously, that was not my intent (LOL.) Probably, if you think that my examples sound wacky or paranoid, it is because you are not familiar with the facts.

Try looking into the website "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership." Their articles are very well researched and footnoted. I'm not Jewish, but I think Aaron Zelman is a very well-spoken, intelligent and dedicated guy. And his arguments are irrefutable.

One of the worse things about the modern political climate is the profound differences between the experiences of the "urban liberal intelligensia" in cities like New York, Boston and San Francisco, and the experiences of people in most of the rest of the country. People who are educated in Ivy League colleges tend to think of themselves as "knowing what's best" for the rest of us benighted souls. They think that concern about genocide is ludicrous. "It can't happen here." Except that it CAN happen here, and already HAS happened here several times, the most recent instance I can think of being the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993. And numerous other examples abound in history, from the Haymarket Massacre, to Little Big Horn, to the Republic Steel strike, to the massacre of strikers' families by mining company gun thugs and the Colorado Militia's machine guns at Goldfield, CO., the attacks upon the Bonus Army, Coxey's Army, the massacre of black people in Tulsa, Oklahoma, you name it. There have been scores of massacres, big and small, and ALWAYS OF UNARMED OR VERY NEARLY UNARMED, DEFENSELESS PEOPLE.

The liberal Establishment propagates it's ideas, people who wish that the world was a better place adopt the ideas, and try to put them into practice, and somehow or another the ideas often involve curtailing the rights of someone else. Like the right to defend one's own life and the lives of others. Like the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not trust the Government, and I do not trust any of the leaders of any of the political parties, Demopublican or Republicrat. In BOTH CASES, their idea of a perfect world is one in which the people are subject to all their goddamned rules and are HELPLESS TO RESIST. Each of us must decide for himself or herself what we will do. The laws are not always just, most of the time, not even close. But, despite that, I feel a strong urge to obey the law as much as is possible.

People have the right of self defense. And we also have a right, a God-given right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, to overturn a Government that becomes a tyranny.


Well put!

I have to say that I agree 110%

[GLIK$]

rather than spouting off to thousands of people who couldnt care less on the internet, go do something about it.

[seeking]

not worth my time.

[imported_dowmagik]

[img]http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL526/1339797/2633548/51732289.jpg'>
simmer down seeks :lol:

[seeking]

you know why this isn't worth discussing? because everyone is on polar sides, but it's not a polar issue and none of you care enough to understand that. you want to be 'righteous', but could give a shit about what is actually 'right', and what is actually realistic. guns are not bad, and guns are not good, they are reflections of society.

if we banned guns, bad, bad shit would happen. guns would still be available to criminals and innocent people would wind up paying the price. no one would be any safer, and infact, people would be less safe, that is proven fact. every state that allows citizens to get ccw's, has seen lowered crime rates. it's a sad fact, but it's a fact. an armed society is indeed a polite society.

we live in a country where people are basically encouraged to be criminals. we dangle one carrot in front of 30 starving men, then tell them all they can have the carrot if they really want it badly enough. we give people a piss poor education, constantly reinforce in them that wealth is the only thing that brings happiness, then expect them to just accept the fact that they can not have it. what the fuck do you think is going to happen?
other countries do not have lower crime rates because they have less guns, they have lower crime rates because they have better societies. if you flooded them with guns, they would STILL have lower crime rates. they don't have guns because they don't need them.

this is why i hate this fucking discussion, because no one sees it for what it is. it's not a simple issue of guns=death. 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'. that is unarguable. until we fix society, there will always be a need for guns, because there will always be criminals with guns. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for us to rid america of guns. flat out, it can not possibly happen. there will always be guns on this soil. the only question is of who will have control over them. we will never be able to get the guns out of criminals hands, what we can do though is fix our society, so that the guns are irrelivent.


that is why i hate this discussion, because you're all ommiting facts in order to be 'right', and in doing so, you gurante the ineffectiveness of your argument.

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by seeking
you know why this isn't worth discussing? because everyone is on polar sides, but it's not a polar issue and none of you care enough to understand that. you want to be 'righteous', but could give a shit about what is actually 'right', and what is actually realistic. guns are not bad, and guns are not good, they are reflections of society.

if we banned guns, bad, bad shit would happen. guns would still be available to criminals and innocent people would wind up paying the price. no one would be any safer, and infact, people would be less safe, that is proven fact. every state that allows citizens to get ccw's, has seen lowered crime rates. it's a sad fact, but it's a fact. an armed society is indeed a polite society.

we live in a country where people are basically encouraged to be criminals. we dangle one carrot in front of 30 starving men, then tell them all they can have the carrot if they really want it badly enough. we give people a piss poor education, constantly reinforce in them that wealth is the only thing that brings happiness, then expect them to just accept the fact that they can not have it. what the fuck do you think is going to happen?
other countries do not have lower crime rates because they have less guns, they have lower crime rates because they have better societies. if you flooded them with guns, they would STILL have lower crime rates. they don't have guns because they don't need them.

this is why i hate this fucking discussion, because no one sees it for what it is. it's not a simple issue of guns=death. 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'. that is unarguable. until we fix society, there will always be a need for guns, because there will always be criminals with guns. it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for us to rid america of guns. flat out, it can not possibly happen. there will always be guns on this soil. the only question is of who will have control over them. we will never be able to get the guns out of criminals hands, what we can do though is fix our society, so that the guns are irrelivent.


that is why i hate this discussion, because you're all ommiting facts in order to be 'right', and in doing so, you gurante the ineffectiveness of your argument.


good point. i did mention 'guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people'.

honestly a good debate never hurt, especially when it's on the internet with people i will never meet. when ever i get into debates with my friends they always get super heated and tension follows afterwards.

what my dad always told me rings true: "never discuss religion or politics with friends or coworkers."

[WhiteOx]

I am a gun-enthusiast in Australia. Since the 1996 Port Arthur massare in Tasmania where Martin Bryant shot 37 men, women and children with semi automatic rifles Australia's gun laws have been highly restricted.

I have my A and B rifle licence with means i can own bolt action rifles and and break barrell shotguns. Pistols are restricted outside of gun clubs. Not even BB guns are legal in Australis. It is costly and extremely troublesome to get a license in Australia. You have to provide legal documentation of club membership, ownership of rural land and a passed firearmes safety test. This is followed by a 4 month wait for a license to be awarded. Furthermore for EVERY gun you buy you need to apply for a permit for each individual gun which takes over two months.

In all honestly, despite my fondness of friearms and hunting I am extremely glad, that these laws have been put forth.

I am 18 and I know for a fact that if guns were as easy to aquire both illegaly and legally as in America I would know many, many peope who would own pistols and semi auto rifles who quite frankly shouldn't be allowed to have possession of them. These people include my friends who really, in my opinion are not fit to own firearms. I know shootings would become extremely common even with normal kids getting into street fights and beefs. SHIT WOULD BE FUCKED UP. There are so many stupid filthy assholes out there who don't hve enough respect for human life and lack common sense.

to conclude I deserve a gun because i'm know how to treat them but too many cunts out there are to stupid and foolish to own them. In my opinon AUstralia has the perfect level of gun control (that is no handguns and only bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns). FUCK HAVING PISTOLS AND SEMI AUTO rifles on the street for christ sake that is a recipe for disaster.

[Kr430n5_666]

[img]http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/national/Cigar%2337.jpg'>

[WhiteOx]

you seriously must be the saddest cunt macros

your gay randoms pictures are not profound you pretentious fuck

[Kr430n5_666]

Originally posted by WhiteOx
you seriously must be the saddest cunt macros

your gay randoms pictures are not profound you pretentious fuck

[img]http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/national/VOD02.jpg'>
???

[WhiteOx]

Originally posted by the_gooch
potential owners of either should be trained and evaluated to some extent in order to determine if they are capable of responsible ownership. I do not think that if every citizen is strapped with a gun we will magically have some utopian society, but I do feel that many people will be more cautious of the things that they do. Also, I DO NOT think it is a good idea for people to walk around with handguns on a normal basis. Look at incidents of road rage; imagine if those same people had a hand gun in their glove or on their person.

THis is my belief exactly, however i recognise that there is no fair objective and reliable screening process to determine that right and therefore the it should not exist. As i said earlier just restrit guns to the point where it is complicated confusing and expensive and most trigger-happy fuckwits will not be bothered. There is a need to outlaw handguns, and semi autos of all kinds beause the only need for semi-automati and concealable firearms is to kill people.

[Teh0wnz]

Nooobody knows the trouuuuble I've seen, nooobody knows the sorrowwwwwww.

runs a tin cup across the bars

[Milton]

White Ox makes a good point. It is the "cunts" that don't know how to treat guns that makes them unsafe. A gun in the wrong hands is no more dangerous than a car. I believe that the right to own firearms comes with the responsibility of respecting them for what they are. Just like when you get a drivers license I think in order to get a gun license or permit you should have to take a safety course and show your ability to carry and possess it safely. The problem is that any restriction is a slippery slope towards total restriction. I discussed this with LaCosaNostra earlier. Neither of us thinks "any old wackjob off the street" should have the right to bear arms. But the person who decides who is a wackjob and who isn't has a lot of power.

Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse. The right to bear arms puts the average citizen on a more equal playing field than the leaders. Like Gandhi said civil unrest is a responsibility when the government no longer represents the people. There are times in history when it has been necessary for people to take up arms. It is what our country is based on. So when the time comes, if it comes in my lifetime, I will be there ready to fight for what I believe in.

[KaBar2]

Well, I'm not sure how to reply to you. On the one hand, I want to give you props for going through all the bullshit to obtain Australian firearms licenses, and on the other hand, I am appalled at your attitude towards your fellow Australians. There wasn't wholesale slaughter on the streets of Australia BEFORE the confiscation, so why on earth would there be wholesale violence NOW? The biggest change has been an increase in violent strong-arm attacks against women and elderly persons by sorry-ass coward robbers.

The last time Australia was in dire straights (WWII), they, like Great Britain, BEGGED the free world for firearms, and the United States delivered hundreds of thousands of rifles and pistols to the ANZAC forces. It's a damned good thing we were able to do so, otherwise Australia would be a Japanese province today.

Of all the nations on earth (excepting Great Britain itself, and possibly Canada) Americans feel closest to Australia. It has always puzzled me that our affection for Australia is not reciprocated. We see Australia as sort of a gigantic California.

When Australia passed a law confiscating guns, my friends and I sort of went into mourning. One less place we can count on for help when the shit finally hits the fan.

I am bouyed by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Australian gun owners buried their rifles rather than surrender them. I cannot believe that Aussies would EVER bend over and spread 'em for the gun grabbing assholes of the world. NOT AUSTRALIA!

I hope to Christ that Australia never surrenders. Ever.

[Mr. Peanut]

white ox made me laugh with the macros comment :)

[WhiteOx]

Originally posted by KaBar2
Well, I'm not sure how to reply to you. On the one hand, I want to give you props for going through all the bullshit to obtain Australian firearms licenses, and on the other hand, I am appalled at your attitude towards your fellow Australians. There wasn't wholesale slaughter on the streets of Australia BEFORE the confiscation, so why on earth would there be wholesale violence NOW? The biggest change has been an increase in violent strong-arm attacks against women and elderly persons by sorry-ass coward robbers.

The last time Australia was in dire straights (WWII), they, like Great Britain, BEGGED the free world for firearms, and the United States delivered hundreds of thousands of rifles and pistols to the ANZAC forces. It's a damned good thing we were able to do so, otherwise Australia would be a Japanese province today.


I hope to Christ that Australia never surrenders. Ever.

WOAH...lets not get carried away Kabar....That is a gross assumption which is easily disputed...

Kabar. I understand that you represent the conservative far-right in the gun debate. Remember, it is resistance to social change that brings about social conservatism in society. I'm sorry , but the Cold War is over and Russia isnt going to invade and occupy your country so its time you relinquish your fantasy about about forming underground resistance squads and 'fighting for your freedom and country'

[amorphic]

Originally posted by seeking
not worth my time.

I'm from Boulder, you're from Detroit. Let's agree to disagree

[KaBar2]

Talk to me about the Maylasian armed forces, which are like five or six times the size of the Australian armed forces. Maylasia is JAM PACKED with people. Australia is practically vacant.

You live in a bad neighborhood, bro. Best buy ammo.

[Pinup]

I don't feel like developing much. Few points i wanted to get straight :

- Prohibiting guns does not mean no right to security. I just believe Citizens cant decide of law for themselves. Guns makes it so easy it's frightening and so prone to abuse it makes me cringe to think about it. I've explained my view on this before.

- Guns only preserve "security" because of a climate of fright, and don't ascertain the problem justly. As i've written, like, 20000 times, i don't believe it's ok to be prone to violence if you can't execute your actions.
Furthermore, what next. Everyone has guns. So in order to be the powerful one, i'll wear a bullet proof vest or something. So everyone has to wear bullet proof vests. So i'll get a rocket launcher. I'm exxagerating, but see what i mean ? How can this be a solution.
This applies to the example with Kabar's wife. What if the other guys in the car had guns ? Good thing they didn't, but they could have.

- Kabar suggested arming the people gave the people power. I don't think both connect. Detaining a gun under Nazi ruling, in France, meant execution. And people got hold of guns. The only difference is that, in the states, people already have guns. But the essence does not change.

-Furthermore, i don't agree with gooch when he says cars are like guns in the way of danger. Guns are GUNS. You have to drive a car to kill someone. You need movement, you need an actual long run impulse. Some people have killed others with cars, but those people are real crazy to the extent that they never question their action during the whole span which precedes it. Guns do not provide this span. Pull out the gun, press on a trigger and voila. To this extent, guns cannot be compared. In fact, the french patrol militaries are compelled NOT to have their guns loaded when they patrol. The ammo is kept in a seperate pocket, so that the time during which you have to reach for the ammo and load it should serve to make sure you're doing the right thing. That's how weak man are, that only a rare few should carry guns.

I'm obviously not saying not carrying guns is the solution to all problems. I believe Guns cause more problems, and don't go about correcting the problem to which they are applied in the right way at all. This is why i disagree with seeking when he says this whole thing is a moot point b/c people are discussing on ethical principles. Sure, that's to do with it, and i said quite a bit about it (- there's a difference to me between self defence, protection and the actual act of killing. Once again, guns patch the whole, but don't "mend" the problem. I've written this already in my first post. Sorry if i'm repeating this, i'm just quite driven about the whole thing and i guess it 'soothes' me, haha), but the issue of guns is also quite down to earth. Not saying it can be solved. Probably won't be. But there are definitely several problems to tease out of the issue.

I think Dubya is going to win, although i sincerely hope not. The fact the voting machines were contracted to pro republican companies whoses bosses have already been convicted for fraud and insider trading gives me no faith at all in the authenticity of the result. But imagine if Republicans were to win forever because of this. Does this mean we won't be able to criticize the government anymore either ?

Goodnight to all.

[fermentor666]

[img]http://www.teamrous.org/PhotoGallery/adipietro_superSoaker.jpg'>

[img]http://www.teamrous.org/PhotoGallery/adipietro_superSoaker_posse.jpg'>

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Milton


Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse. The right to bear arms puts the average citizen on a more equal playing field than the leaders. Like Gandhi said civil unrest is a responsibility when the government no longer represents the people. There are times in history when it has been necessary for people to take up arms. It is what our country is based on. So when the time comes, if it comes in my lifetime, I will be there ready to fight for what I believe in.

yup, milton hit it on the head!

that's why they want us disarmed...bottom line. when the clampdown comes the less people that have firearms the better, less of a struggle.

am i paranoid? about bad government....you bet!

[the_gooch]

Originally posted by Pinup


I think Dubya is going to win, although i sincerely hope not. The fact the voting machines were contracted to pro republican companies whoses bosses have already been convicted for fraud and insider trading gives me no faith at all in the authenticity of the result. But imagine if Republicans were to win forever because of this. Does this mean we won't be able to criticize the government anymore either ?

Goodnight to all.


yeah, i agree. and that my friend is what scares me, cause after that what is next??

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by KaBar2
In Australia, when they banned private ownership of firearms, the robbery rate and the "kick burglary" rate went up 44%, especially against women and elderly people.

true, but i do feel a hell of a lot safer knowing there aren't many guns out there (not that there were many to begin with. there was never really a gun culture over here as there is in the states). i grew up in an area that has one of the lowest average income rate for an urban area in the country, and in turn one of the highest crime rates. in all my years i never felt the need to own a firearm. a cricket bat with a nail through it was all that was needed to fend off would-be robbers.

the reason for the ban was a massacre in which a deranged man went for a walk around a popular tasmanian tourist attraction and picked off about 30 or so people. prior to that you would often hear about people going into shopping malls, places of work and whatnot with a gun and killing people. incidents of this since the ban are few and far between


interesting tidbit: it was an australian shooter that one the gold medal at the last olympics, and is on his way to get another in athens this year.

[seeking]

i changed my mind, i'm back to not caring.

[Brownbread?]

Originally posted by WhiteOx
there is no fair objective and reliable screening process to determine that right and therefore the it should not exist. As i said earlier just restrit guns to the point where it is complicated confusing and expensive and most trigger-happy fuckwits will not be bothered.

I agree. I think that is the most practical solution. Both sides of the arguement have good points which is why guns should be available to the public but they should be hard to obtain. This creates a healthy balance which wouldn't be achieved by excepting the extremes of the right or left side of the arguement because they'd cause safety in one area and chaos in another.

[Rodney Trotter]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do. You knows it clart.

http://www.hyperlaunch.com/goldielookinchain/vids.html

[imported_b0b]

I'm with Pinup.

[sneak]

Originally posted by Mr. ABC
a cricket bat with a nail through it was all that was needed to fend off would-be robbers.


Strewth moite!
but this is also another point, more or less...

'low guns, make your own weapons!

[T.T Boy]

in my whole life i could never imagine why on earth i would ever need a semi automatic assault rifle. seriously.

i feel better knowing people arent armed when i walk the streets, cause i just think, when you give a local a gun, next thing you know hes captain hero shooting terrorists. but with a guy like kabar, i could see him having a gun, he seems responsible enough to not just fire it at will. thank god im not from texas.


if im onna get jacked for my wallet ill get jacked at gunpoint, they can have it, im not gonna start a james bond shootout over my bank card and maxed out visa. no sir. and also, noone will ever invade my country i dont think, if anyone was to do so, it would be the us, which wouldnt be so bad i guess. more fast food, more teror alerts, and more cheap beer.

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Milton


Lets talk about the constitution for a minute. Why is it that the second amendment to the constitution deals with this issue? In my opinion it is because an armed populace is a precursor to real democracy. Like I said before, there is the ever present threat of corruption when the people do not have a drastic recourse.

OK, lets get this straight...after your president illegaly took over cause he wasnt legally elected and then violated all the rights an individual deserves in democracy...the american citizens used their guns to reinstate whats fair?...


Fuck guns, if you cant understand why you need to live in a gunfree country for a while and see the difference.

[KaBar2]

Try living in a country where the PEOPLE are mostly disarmed, but the cops and the Army and the Secret Police have all the guns.

I don't trust anybody in authority enough to live somewhere where nobody has any guns but the Shultzstaffel, I mean the The Home Office, uh, no, I mean the Homeland Security Agency...well, you get the idea. Authoritarians have a tendency to get pretty entitled when nobody has any guns but them.

We all were appalled after the Oklahoma City Bombing, here in the United States. No guns used there. Then came the World Trade Center attacks. No guns used there.

Ever think about the fact that the FBI and the ATF got a lot less interested in kicking down people's doors after the OKC bombing?
And the Soviets admitted long ago that they completely ruled out any attempt to invade the United States because there are 270 million guns in this country. They wouldn't even be able to get out of their tanks to take a piss without getting killed.

If the people of the United States fail to rise up and protest something like the 2000 Presidential election, it's NOT because they do not have the means to resist. It's because they do not feel that the situation was sufficiently unjust to warrant resistance. Frankly, if I could be sure that Kerry and the Democrats would not try and pass more outlandish gun laws, I would be more than happy to see the Republican Party given a run for it's money. The Republicans promise one thing (compassionate conservatism) and deliver something else entirely (corporate cronyism.) The Democrats promise one thing (enlightened progressive liberalism) and deliver something else (buttinsky Mamma-knows-best patronizing.) I do not want to live in a Bushland Uber Alles Republican police state. And I also do not want to live in a disarmed Democratic Party world where the social workers, environmental protection agencies and therapists are backed by the SWAT teams of the Liberal Nanny State.

What can I say? Vote Libertarian. I would--if only they could win.

Do you remember that widely-publicized picture of that Cuban kid in Florida, what was his name? Elian Gonzales? Something like that. That pic perfectly represented the Modern Socialist Democratic State to me. A SWAT team coming to sieze a kid from his deceased mother's family, to deliver him to his father, living in a Communist dictatorship. Fuck THAT.

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by KaBar2
Try living in a country where the PEOPLE are mostly disarmed, but the cops and the Army and the Secret Police have all the guns.



I do, less murder, more safety and a legally elected PM.

And i ask you again, what does the 2nd ammendment serves when the constitution is totally raped and almost noone cares?

[WhiteOx]

like tessaeract, I also live in that country and its fine
chill the fuck out Kabar

and word to what ttboy said about the need for semi autos...And this is coming from someone who owns guns

[WhiteOx]

ONE MORE THING!

Kabar, chill out with your anecdotal, methaphorical and biassed stories to back up your silly little points

your starting to sound like Michael Moore's counterpart on the right-wing

[fermentor666]

For real, what do you need a semi-automatic for if it's not to kill a human being. To make you feel like more of a man? That's just sad.

[KaBar2]

And I don't just own one. I own what amounts to an arsenal, and I'm not the only one. I know at least thirty or forty guys just like me, and we aren't even making an effort to find new people.

The standard was to prepare for oneself, and three others. By the time the organization suspended training, we had the resources to arm a couple of hundred people with military grade rifles, besides ourselves. Every fourth weapon was to be an NHM-91 chambered for 7.62x39mm, and supplied with at least four 75-round drum magazines. (This is a civilian semi-auto version of the RPK.) Each of us bought a 1,000 round case of ammunition for every service rifle, plus a case of 7.62x39mm for the NHM-91 and a 1,000 round case of military blank ammunition for training. I served in the U.S. Marine Corps. We fired about 1,500 rounds every year qualifying on the KD rifle range. In the militia, they were shooting an average of 500 rounds every weekend on either KD ranges or in Hogan's Alley. In the four years I was a Marine, we never did the sort of intense training the Texas militia did. We did rappelling, tactical river crossings, ambushes, airboat operations, small boat training, movement to contact in both military camouflage and civilian clothing, etc, etc.

Call it whatever you want to. The bottom line is that we are well-armed, and we intend to stay that way. If you choose to be unarmed, that is your business. I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should do. I have suggestions for the world in general, and in my opinion, everyone should be armed. Here in Texas, it is not an unusual opinion at all.

Semi-automatic firearms are 100% legal in the United States. So far as that goes, so are tax-paid NFA Class III machineguns (we fired some of those too, but the ammunition cost is prohibitive.) Most of the NFA machinegun dealers I know got into the business so they could own as many NFA weapons as they like on one license. They are always looking for a customer, but each time a machinegun is transferred from one owner to the next, there is a $200 transfer tax. And since nobody wants to absorb the loss, they add that $200 onto the price when they sell it to the next legal owner, plus the buyer pays his own $200 transfer tax. So essentially, each time the weapon is transferred, the price goes up at least $400. That is the only reason that machineguns are not more popular. When I was attending college, I had a professor (a liberal Democrat) who owned TWO machineguns, as well as a host of other firearms. We did not agree on much politically, but I really enjoyed shooting with the guy.

Most gun owners are not politically active. They do not realize that there are powerful left-wing forces at work, attempting to disarm them. Most of the murders that occur in the U.S. happen among minority races. A young African-American male, between 14 and 25 has a 1:4 chance of getting murdered, murdering someone else, being serious wounded, or being imprisoned for some felony.

I sympathize with their situation. If I were a black father with sons, I would be terrified for them. But I am not black, and I have no sons. The American murder rate can be attributed to a handfull of cultural influences--the hip-hop, "gangsta rap", gangbanging culture, and the cocaine trade. Most of the murders occurring here are occurring in low-income, high-crime, minority neighborhoods.

I only know of one murder victim personally--my late ex-wife. She was stabbed to death in the hallway of her apartment by her landlady's ex-convict, three-time-loser, burglar son. He stabbed her five times in the back with one of her own kitchen knives. She bled to death while he tried to rape her as she died. He hid in her closet, and waited for her to come home from work. Like something from a horror movie, when she opened the closet door to hang up her dress, he attacked her. She had extensive "defense cuts" on both hands and forearms. She fought him, but he cut her to ribbons. Even if she had been armed, I doubt that she would have had time to get a pistol and fight back.

For some reason, which nobody seems to understand, he got seven years to life, instead of the death penalty. He's in a Texas prison.

My late ex-wife was the consumate liberal. She was a labor union representative, a member of the Congress of Labor Union Women, and very active in the Democratic Party. She knew how to shoot, because I taught her, back when we were both anarchist "revolutionaries." When we split up, I gave her a pistol. I've always wondered if she still had it that day, and what would have happened if she had been able to get to it.

We were married four years. We hitch-hiked and hopped trains all over the West. The woman I knew would have defended herself if she could have got her hands on a gun. So would anybody else, I think.

Once in a while, I visit her grave and leave flowers.

[fermentor666]

Dude, you're fucking crazy. The year 2000 already passed and there was no armageddon. You don't need all those guns!


Seriously, one gun for self defense is one thing, but when you have an arsenal that is unneccessary and pointless. It's like celebrities with 18 bedroom mansions and 10 cars. You are just showing off to all your gun buddies, admit it.

Just one more stupid competition to see who can buy more shit.

[imported_Tesseract]

I'm really sorry to hear about your ex
but seriously, half the points you state in favor of guns prove just how worthless and pointless they are. Looks like the only thing the second ammendmend serves is to get the gun industry richer and to put more tax money in the pockets of the goverment...oh, and have minorities whipe them selfs out, pretty convinient isnt it?

[KaBar2]

Nobody forces people to become killers. It's a voluntary act, a choice. The guy that murdered my late ex-wife had to plan it carefully, sneak up to her apartment with a key, go inside, get one of her knives, hide in her closet and wait. I wonder how long he stood there in the dark, among her clothes, waiting for her to return home after work?

Definately, it was premeditated murder. And in Texas, "capital" murder, worthy of the death penalty, because it was premeditated, from ambush, and committed during the commission of another felony (rape.)

My little arsenal is not for ego enhancement, it's to arm my family and friends in an emergency. I like to think there are plenty of guys like me in Texas. I figure a few hundred thousand, anyway. Maybe a million. The U.S. armed forces is only 1.8 million soldiers. The NRA is about 4 million men now. The licensed American deer hunters number 31 million. And the number of American gun owners is 70 million, and they own 270 million firearms.

Back during the Texas War for Independence from Mexico, there was a flag, called the Goliad Flag. It was the flag raised over the town of Goliad when the Mexican Army got there. It was a picture of a cannon barrel with the words: "COME AND TAKE IT."

Here in Texas we take the Second Amendment very seriously, as many Americans do. I feel something like those Texicans at Goliad felt, back in 1836. If the Nanny State wants my guns, let them come and get 'em. But first, I'll give them all my ammunition.

[fermentor666]

That's another thing, Tesseract is right. All that money you are spending on your guns is benifitting the government via taxes and the insanely rich and powerful gun companies with which many of the members of the US government are tied to.

And it's horrible what happened to your ex-wife. You have my condolences. But that does not make it ok to have enough weapons to take over Houston for a day.

[fermentor666]

What kind of emergency warrents an arsenal of weapons? And what kind of deer requires an AK-47 to take down? Doesn't that kind of take the fun out of hunting?

[KaBar2]

Hunting is a lot of fun, and very satisfying, but I don't hunt animals anymore. I did, when we were very poor, and lived in Washington State. But we don't need the meat these days, and it's a lot of hassle.

The Second Amendment is not about sport. One needs no justification to own firearms, indeed, the Second Amendment is about military firearms, firearms appropriate to arm the militia. That's why several of the rifles I own are AR-15s and MAK-90's, civilian copies of military rifles.

I own a few deer rifles too, but these days, I only shoot long distance targets with them. The range where I shoot has a 200 yard range, a 300 yard range and a 500 yard range. On the 500, I use my .308 Winchester and my .30-'06. The AR-15 (civilian copy of the M-16) is too underpowered to be very effective at that range, and it's 5.56mm bullet is so light, it blows around from any wind. In the Marine Corps we called the M-16A1 a "poodle shooter." Everybody wanted an M-14, chambered for 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester, in civilian caliber.)

I'm not a very good shot. As I get older my eyes are getting worse. A good Marine Corps sniper can hit human-sized targets out to about 1,250 yards. One shot: one kill.

[imported_Tesseract]

This is going nowhere, at least for me.

[skullnbones]

Originally posted by Mr. ABC
in all my years i never felt the need to own a firearm. a cricket bat with a nail through it was all that was needed to fend off would-be robbers

this comment makes me proud haha.

but seriously being australian i can agree with pretty much everything from whiteox. however i must say out of the few people i know that own guns (not including farm owners who actually need their rifles), all but one are the exact people who shouldnt have guns and as a matter of fact shouldnt be aloud anywhere near them or any other weapons. this however doesnt change the fact that i agree with the current laws and white ox's debate.

[Milton]

OK, lets get this straight...after your president illegaly took over cause he wasnt legally elected and then violated all the rights an individual deserves in democracy...the american citizens used their guns to reinstate whats fair?...

He didn't illegally take over the country. He took over the country in a manner that was not right, or just, but it was legal by the laws of the country. Do you think he would be sitting in office after a democratic commander in chief if he didn't win legally?

Kabar addressed the point here about the fact that the police and those in power are the ones with arms. I don't know if you've had interaction with the police or to what degree you have, but let me tell you a lot of them are people who I would not want in any position of power whatsoever. A lot of them abuse their power, a lot of them take advantage of the law to an equal or greater degree than criminals. A lot of them are minimally intelligent 25-45 year old men on a power trip because they have a gun on their hip. Most police I have interacted with think that because they were given a badge and a gun that they are automatically righteous, just, and correct in everything they do. Not the case.

I will offer you an antecdote about an interaction I had with the police as a justification for what I believe. [skip this if you're trying to read fast] When I was 18 years old, and a freshman at a university, I was followed for several blocks through a series of u-turns and various other manuvers by a car which I did not recognize. So I called a friend and had him meet me on the road. When we were together and I felt that we would be safe to approach the car we did. When we approached the driver pulled a pistol and waved it at us. We returned to our cars and sped off without getting the license plate numbers. Two weeks after we saw the same vehicle parked in a parking lot and got the plate numbers. At this time we called the police, and told them that this person had pulled a gun on us, but we did not want to follow through with pressing charges. About two weeks later the police outreach officer from the highschool I went to called myself and my mothers home, etc. Regarding the "prank phonecall" that I made to the police. When I addressed him, he pressured me to admit to speaking on the tape (which I wasn't on, by the way) I did not. He told me that he had "5 witnesses to say that it was me on the tape" which it wasn't. He said that he had already spoken to the other people involved. Which he hadn't. I explained the situation and what happened, exactly, and in complete honesty. After meeting with him, and having him try and get me to incriminate my friends, he took me "downtown" My friends were already there and they took us, one by one into an "interview" room and grilled us for about 2 hours each about why it was not funny to prank call the police, etc. etc. Each of us explained in perfect honesty what we remembered about the situation, and that it had in fact happened. They replied that "your friends already told us that it didn't happen" etc etc etc. I never admitted to anything and after about an hour of the investigation I refused to talk to them anymore without a lawyer present and that if they wanted to continue holding me they would need to either call me a lawyer or arrest me for something. This was met with an officer "going to get a superior" and another officer trying to "rap with me man to man." After another hour of us going in circles they let me leave and said that they would be in touch with me. I was never charged due to not being on the tape but both of my friends got to serve jail time and pay huge fines over this. All because some assholes take themselves way too seriously. These are not the type of people I want to have that much power over me.

The difference between an armed an unarmed culture causes the culture to be armed vs. unarmed. It's not the other way around. If you're coming from an entirely different culture it's hard to understand why americans feel the need to protect themeselves. Our whole culture is dog-eat-dog, we have a huge crime rate. This is why people still feel the need to have guns. Combine this with the lack of trust for people in power because we've been fucked over so many times, of course you're going to want to arm yourself.

Milton/ It's a cold world...

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Milton
He didn't illegally take over the country. He took over the country in a manner that was not right, or just, but it was legal by the laws of the country. Do you think he would be sitting in office after a democratic commander in chief if he didn't win legally?

Kabar addressed the point here about the fact that the police and those in power are the ones with arms. I don't know if you've had interaction with the police or to what degree you have, but let me tell you a lot of them are people who I would not want in any position of power whatsoever. A lot of them abuse their power, a lot of them take advantage of the law to an equal or greater degree than criminals. A lot of them are minimally intelligent 25-45 year old men on a power trip because they have a gun on their hip. Most police I have interacted with think that because they were given a badge and a gun that they are automatically righteous, just, and correct in everything they do. Not the case.

The difference between an armed an unarmed culture causes the culture to be armed vs. unarmed. It's not the other way around. If you're coming from an entirely different culture it's hard to understand why americans feel the need to protect themeselves. Our whole culture is dog-eat-dog, we have a huge crime rate. This is why people still feel the need to have guns. Combine this with the lack of trust for people in power because we've been fucked over so many times, of course you're going to want to arm yourself.

Milton/ It's a cold world...

I see your points but still disagree, in a country where guns arent allowed i've had the gun of a cop stuck against my head...terrible indeed, but what would change if i had a gun on me? at home? whatever..would i shoot the cop?
To me the whole 'protect your self' point is useless, its an illusion that you're protected to work out your insecurities that are being brought up by the way your culture dictates

Your culture dictates that anyone can carry a gun to enforce his intentions, if having a gun on a locker while asleep makes you feel better while your girl or your homie returns home and instead of a punch he gets a bullet, then do it..it just doesnt work

If you feel that the goverment cant protect you, start a riot instead of making them richer.

He didn't illegally take over the country. He took over the country in a manner that was not right, or just, but it was legal by the laws of the country

This whole sentence, leave apart the facts, equals to illegal to me but have it your way.

Without the slightest irony, i'm amazed by how the citizens of the most powerfull country live for decades in deep and paralysing fear.

Tesseract/ enjoying the sunshine

[WhiteOx]

kabar, sorry about your wife,
but you have to understand that your attitudes are the compounding an almost insurmountable societal issue

This thread is really depressing, i'm over it

[seeking]

what you guys are failing to accept is that kabar is a fucking lunatic revisionist, who's arguments are so fragile that even the slightest bit of reality can creep in and completely destroy everything he stands upon, so to maintain his position, he has to completely ignore any notion of logic or reason. you're all waisting your breath. in kabar's world, the liberals are still the one's imposing on peoples freedoms and the republicans are working for smaller government. the fact that the patroit act, a republican bill, is the largest infringement on americans rights since the internment camps doesnt really matter. in kabar's world, secret police are sitting outside everyones doors just waiting for the word from 'the man' to come crashing in and take us all hostage. too bad the dumb son of a bitch doesnt realize they dont need black helicopters, secret police, or even a ban on guns to control us, 1% of the country controls 99% of the wealth. we can have all the guns we want, we still can't over throw our gonvernment, because if we did, we would be 1000x's more fucked than we are now. in afghanistan, you can kill the electricity and they'll manage just fine. cut the power in america, and we can't get money out of the atm, which means we cant eat, which means we die. if there was a cvil war in america, we would starve to death in a month, and thats the god damn truth. he's building a fucking bomb shelter to save himself from a nuclear attack. earth to kabar, IT'S NOT GOING TO SAVE YOU HOMEBOY! if you want to carry on with your dellusions of security, then you go right ahead, but you're not safe from shit. your life is not your own. your life is controlled by the machines that we've come to depend upon to sustain us, and those machines are controlled by those in power - those with the money, who no amount of militias will be able to over throw. however if they somehow did, it would destroy the country along with the entire worlds economy. but who cares about reality when you have an arsenal of guns right, you simple minded motherfucker?! jesus christ. watching you sit on here with your outdated ass ideology is fucking painful. this is not 1966, the sooner you wake up and realize that, the better off (and safer) you'll be. brawn lost out to brains years ago. you and your little band of merry friars are training for a war with an enemy that doesnt exist.
but by all means, keep writing 7000 word essays, to a bunch of graffiti writers. maybe you can persuade one or two of us to go out and purchase a fully automatic rifle when the ban runs out...then we'll be safe. i mean, what's more secure than a graffiti writer with a machine gun?!
dude, give it a rest. isn't there a fucking soldier of fortune board you'd feel a little more at home on?

[imported_Tesseract]

shit that was refreshing

[villain]

Well seeks when this top heavy tower ultimately does collapse under it's own weight I would feel alot better with an assault rifle. I don't know if you all ready my resource wars thread but alot of shit is coming to a head and I'm not seeing a whole lot being done about it.

I realize that guns can cause problems. All you have to do is look at about every conflict in Africa where we tried to intervene by arming people there. We would probably do better by giving them jobs instead of guns.

[villain]

Sorry to spoil the party but I was hoping for more of a response. Oh well.

An interesting new discovery is that the ocean is absorbing most of our co2 emissions. However this is also a major factor in the coral bleachings. Temperature risings and a rise in the acidity of the oceans, a lowering of the ph.

How many ozone holes do we have now? 6?

[seeking]

villian,
when this top heavy tower collapses, i'd feel safer with an assault rifle too...which is why i bought one. HOWEVER, now that i'm not 22 and stupid, i now realize that all it will really do is prolong my inevitable death. i used to be of the mindset that the only way to fix america is to burn it down and start anew...which, i suppose would work, but it would require the death of the entire country, which puts any notion of 'success' into the 'highly arguable' column.
if there was a civil war and we tried to 'take back' our government by force, the first thing that would happen, is the banks would close up, and the people that control ALL the wealth would pull their money out, which would bankrupt the country overnight. all anyone would have, was the money in their pockets. all the stores and businesses would close up (after being completely looted). super markets, fast food chains, restaurants and gas stations would shut down. no one would be able to drive, marshal law would be declared, power would be shut off, sewage systems would be shut off, water would be shut off....we'd be starving to death in a matter of days, and thats the truth. remember the pandemonium we went through last year when the power went out for a day and a half? it was like fucking armagedon. i couldnt leave my house, cause all i had was a quarter tank of gas and no idea when i'd be able to fill it back up. my freezer thawed out, all the food spoiled, i had nothing to eat....and that was two days.
kabar and all his guns will not be able to feed the people, and without food, we die. therfor, the notion of needing guns to protect us from the government is a so short sighted, that it's blinded by its false sense of security. go ahead, take on the government...let them pry your gun from your cold dead hand...shouldnt take more than week.

[seeking]

as i said before, guns are not the issue, the decrepit state of our society is. in the sudan, 900,000 people were killed in 90 days with machete's fashioned out of old car parts. a lack of guns did not stop genocide. in switzerland, everyone owns automatic rifles, and yet they only have a handful of murders every year.
crime is a reflection of society. fix our society, and the guns will fix themselves. don't fix society, and the guns will end it.

[26SidedCube]

Originally posted by seeking
villian,
when this top heavy tower collapses, i'd feel safer with an assault rifle too......shouldnt take more than week.

Seeking's a smart guy... period.

Edit: So is villain, but that last post was a well-versed rundown. Now both of you kiss my taint-cakes.

[villain]

Ok that's better, thanks seeks...
I just wanted to say though you might be right about the economy collapsing... however that is illusory. Money is simply an IOU. It is not backed by anything anymore. Why else would the economy rise or fall at the mere words of Alan Greenspan. He merely has to say "Economy, rise from you're grave!" And it does. We have all the resources we need right here. After the big money pulls out we would have everything and they would have IOU's backed by nothing because we have everything. We would have to do some trade and bartering perhaps for a while and restructuring but as a country we would survive.
This is purely hypothetical however.

[villain]

Originally posted by seeking
as i said before, guns are not the issue, the decrepit state of our society is. in the sudan, 900,000 people were killed in 90 days with machete's fashioned out of old car parts. a lack of guns did not stop genocide. in switzerland, everyone owns automatic rifles, and yet they only have a handful of murders every year.
crime is a reflection of society. fix our society, and the guns will fix themselves. don't fix society, and the guns will end it.

I couldn't agree more. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Give guns to the wrong people, we got big problems. I definately think we should be more active on social and economical issues worldwide.... instead of just responding to extreme incidents.
A stable world is a safe and happy world.

[villain]

Originally posted by 26SidedCube


Edit: So is villain, but that last post was a well-versed rundown.

True true... I sometimes feel it is necessary to reiterate certain ideas because of their importance or to make sure everyone is on the same page.

[seeking]

Originally posted by villain
Money is simply an IOU. It is not backed by anything anymore. We have all the resources we need right here. After the big money pulls out we would have everything and they would have IOU's backed by nothing because we have everything. We would have to do some trade and bartering perhaps for a while and restructuring but as a country we would survive.

money is still backed by gold. it is also stored by very rich people in off shore bank accounts, and in cash in safes in their basements. it will still be worth something. perhaps not as much, but it will still remain relative.
as for the 'resources' we have here...exactly which resources are you talking about? we have nothing. think of all the business in your area... how many actually produce something of any practical use? how many could continue to produce that usefull product if our shipping/receiving/import/export capabilities collapsed? even if you lived next to a bread factory, how are they going to get the flour? who is going to drive the truck to the 'flour plant', and with what gas? what money are they going to buy the flour with? if not money, what are they going to 'trade' for it? who is still going to be working at the flour plant to produce the flour, while their homes and families are being looted? most men can't even fix a screen door now a days, much less kill and cook their own food. people like kabar, with their paranoid delusional hubris will have one leg up on the rest of us, but it's only a matter of time until they fall as well, cause when that shit happens, it's going to be every man for himself, and because of that, everyman will fall. some will go sooner than others, but we'll all go eventually. other countries don't have the saem fragile system we do. i was in jamaica for new years 98/99, and since the whole y2k hoopla had already began, i found myself sitting there, realizing that if all the computers shut down, it wouldnt make a lick of difference to these people. they'd still fire up their grills (made out of 50 gallon drums) kill one of their chickens, and make dinner. no big deal. they wouldnt be able to run their 'sound system', but they'd just hollow out a log, make a drum, and on they'd go.
villian, do you own a cell phone? do you have those phone numbers backed up on a piece of paper? i lost my cell phone one day, and i couldnt even call my fucking mom because i dont know what her cell number is. all i know is that i hit a button, say 'mom,' and it calls her.
no matter how many guns i have, if that cell tower goes down, and i run out of gas, my mom lives half an hour from me (by car). that's going to be one fucknig hell of a walk just to get to her and insure she's safe. and then what?

obviously, my overall point is that if it comes to the point where we need guns to get our government back, we've already lost our country.

[villain]

I see you're point.
Let me clarify mine. Say that 1% was forced out and took all the damn money with them. So what? We will just make more money.... It's IOU's... who says people have to stop working? Essentially the 1%'s money would become worthless and ours would be good because we are still working and producing goods here.... Then we can print 100$ bills with seekings head on it and it will be all good. :)

[Milton]

Newsflash: We already have. We no longer have control of our government. Those in power do whatever they want for their terms and then drum up support by manipulating what the people see, hear, etc. The average person watches Fox News for half an hour a night and develops his worldview based solely on this propaganda.

If the government was taken over by force money would be useless after probably the first day. The things that would be valueable would be gas, food, and guns. When the food ran out some would be able to go back to living off of the land, some of us would not. The top 1% can take thier paper money, it's going to be worth nothing when the bottom 99% control the gold. And by the way, you remember all of those countries world wide that hate us? Assuming that the people actually took over the government do you think they would do nothing? And by the way, a lot of us are only a few hours and a tank of gas away from Canada or Mexico...

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Milton
And by the way, a lot of us are only a few hours and a tank of gas away from Canada or Mexico...

What makes you think they'd let you in when you're broke and in need?

haha, i'm semikidding but i seriously doubt that americans have a clear picture of just how bad their nations foreign affairs are after the bushebag

[seeking]

Originally posted by villain
I see you're point.
Let me clarify mine. Say that 1% was forced out and took all the damn money with them. So what? We will just make more money.... It's IOU's... who says people have to stop working? Essentially the 1%'s money would become worthless and ours would be good because we are still working and producing goods here.... Then we can print 100$ bills with seekings head on it and it will be all good. :)

i know what you're saying, i just dont think you have a realistic idea of the pandemonium that would ensue if all of a sudden our government/police/firemen/social structure were no longer in control.
the first thing that would happen, is people would storm the stores, looting everything they possibly could. guns, ammo and food.
that would take about 3 hours of traffic jams, accidents, brawls, fires and violence. then what? you think joe schmo is going to leave his family, and drive his car down to the local water works so he can do his job? ok, lets say he does...where is he going to get electricity to run the plant from? look what enron did to us in a time of peace, you think con-edison is going to keep making power when all of a sudden no one is paying their bills? hell no. our entire structure would break down within two days. this is of course taking the 'worst case scenario' into consideration, but i think public fear being the way it is, once an outbreak engulfs a major city, the whole country will follow suit, like the domino effect, and since all the major 'necesseties' (water, electricity, communication, food, etc) are all tied together, if power goes down in NY, we've already seen that it's going down for half the east coast, ohio, and michigan as well. tell me honestly that you think people would be working together on an 'iou' system at that point? sure, eventually some sort of system like that would work itself out, but that would not take place for a long time.
as far as the money being worthless...yes, that's true, but you're also forgetting that rich people don't just have money, they have assets, both here and abroad. they own whole countries and all the resources in them. those people would hop in their private planes and take off, never to be heard of again. as far as the gold in fort knocks, i am fairly sure the government already has plans on how to handle our reserves in the event of such a crisis, but even if they didnt, suppose one group of people does manage to get in, blow the building apart and get the gold. well, you now have a couple hundred rich motherfuckers, who you know damn well are not going to share with the rest of us. why not? because they're not sharing now, when it's an issue of a large latte, or a medium latte. they're sure as fuck not sharing when it's a matter of life or death.

maybe i'm taking this too far, but i'm just trying to put a realistic spin on kabar's 'red-dawn' fantasy. there will never be a situation where the people are 'working together' in a communistic manner in this country. we have no understanding of that, and infact have been conditioned into exactly the opposit, which is what keeps us where we are.

[fermentor666]

No matter how many guns you have, you're going to run out of bullets at some point.

[seeking]

nope. i got the cheat codes so i have unlimited amo, and so i can see the whole map in the dark (not just the one little circle).



seeks/the legend of zelseekda

[sneak]

Realistically, how likely is the scenario of everyday Americans up rising and over throwing?

[Brownbread?]

Originally posted by seeking


maybe i'm taking this too far, but i'm just trying to put a realistic spin on kabar's 'red-dawn' fantasy. there will never be a situation where the people are 'working together' in a communistic manner in this country. we have no understanding of that, and infact have been conditioned into exactly the opposit, which is what keeps us where we are.

yea seeking i think you are kinda taking it a little too far. I understand that with the population and our dependency on computers and services there will be chaos at first but eventually there will be control. As corny as this sounds, one thing I can say about Americans is we like order and control.We like to be told what we need and where to get it. Although we hate each other we all like our little routines and if there was a problem we'd work in unison just so we'd get our little usual shit back to the way it was.It happens all the time when there is an accident during rush hour, fire drills, or some sort of natural disaster. Although those are on a smaller scale I think people would react similarly in a larger event. Also alot of people benefit from this country working. I really can't see the wealthy sitting around and watching the entire country go to rumbles. Where else do the rich get richer and richer?I'm not saying everything will be peachy but people will make best of the situation and move on for the sake of normalcy.

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by seeking
nope. i got the cheat codes so i have unlimited amo, and so i can see the whole map in the dark (not just the one little circle).



Impulse 9; IDKFA

[KaBar2]

I am willing to wager that I am one of the very few conservatives with whom you ever exchange ideas. Your little rant doesn't change a thing. And in 1966, the last thing I had any desire to own was a firearm, because I knew so little about human nature and real life that I was convinced that the "doves" would somehow prevail over the evil "hawks."

I am no more pleased by the fact that 5% (not 1%) of the population owns or controls 95% of the wealth than you are. I guess I'd like the situation a lot better if I was one of the 5% though.

I am inclined to stand with Villain when he says that if the world is going to collapse he'd feel a lot better with an assault rifle. Absolutely, me too. And in my opinion, the world ALREADY is going to shit. It's not some remote possibility, it's happening like a slowly rising tide.

I was very concerned about the Y2K thing, it's true. Fortunately, the evil, heartless, corporate world spent 65 BILLION dollars fixing all those defective computer programs and the meltdown turned out to be more-or-less a little fizz here and there. I had several acquaintences who are computer programmers. They were working 12-hour days, seven days a week rewriting code to make it possible for (19) "99" to change to "2000" instead of (19) "00". Several of them quit work in early December 1999 and took their families on "vacations" to newly acquired property in very remote areas of Idaho, Montana and Washington State. Y2K was no hoax, and even the programmers who were rewriting the code weren't 100% convinced it would work flawlessly. I wasn't too worried, because at that point I had an eight month's supply of food and was well prepared (along with several neighbors and friends) to fortify this neighborhood if necessary. We all had a good laugh on New Year's Day, when the computer failures didn't happen. I've still got part of the 110 gallons of gasoline I stored in 55-gallon barrels in my shed. I'm using it up slowly in my truck. We didn't buy much at the grocery store for a long time---didn't need to--we had plenty.

On 9/11, my daughter called home all upset, worried about terrorist NBC attacks. "Dad!," she asked, "How many gas masks do we have?!!" I said "Seven, why?" "Oh. No reason. I was just worried about a terrorist attack." "Come home and get yours, you can keep it with you." "I have a gas mask of my own?" "Of course. Well actually, you have two--I bought the small one when you were six, but it doesn't fit any more." "Oh. Okay." "Come home and get your mask. By the way, when was the last time you cleaned your rifle?" "Uh, I'm not sure. It's been a while." "From the looks of it, it's been a long while. Come take care of it." "Okay."

I understand that many of you, especially those of you who imagine that the people who hold conservative right-wing beliefs are all a bunch of cretins, disagree with all of the above. You have a right to your opinions. But I have a right to my opinions as well, and to share them (just as you do) with anyone who cares to listen. No, I wouldn't feel more comfortable on a Soldier-of-Fortune board, because there I would be preaching to the choir. But it sure sounds like some people on this board would feel a lot more comfortable if I weren't here.

Graffiti writers do not all fit one mould, any more than any other group is homogenous. There are liberal writers, conservative writers, apathetic don't-give-a-fuck writers, and everything in between. The same can be said to be true of tramps, trainhoppers and hobos.

My understanding is that Channel Zero is for communications with "no graff content." If my posts don't meet that standard, please explain why not.

I do my best to avoid personal, ad hominem attacks. In fact, I try to avoid any sort of negative posts directed at any individual, and to concentrate on the ideas and the information. Once in a while, my emotions get the better of my good sense, but I think I have a good record for not cussing people out and calling anyone any vulgar names. What would be the purpose in that? It's puerile and weak, and I try to avoid it. If I hit the Rossi red one glass too many though, sometimes I do get a little wack.

This board seems to be about as free-wheeling an internet forum as I have ever come across. I respect that. If somebody comes on here and posts something like "I went out with this girl, got her drunk and she fucked me and all my buddies!" I don't usually attack the guy and say "You fucking monster! How could you rape some poor chick that was drunk? Don't you have ANY moral values or self respect?" Instead, I try to phrase it in a way that leads the poster towards a more appropriate path, like "Well, I hope you used a rubber so you and all your fucked up friends don't come down with AIDS. And you better fucking hope she can't remember your name, because if her Dad finds out you gang-banged her, you might get fucking killed, genius."

Doesn't that seem better, more sensitive, more enlightened? I think so.

(I own a shit load of guns so that if all the doped-up, fucked-up, Communist dicksucking shitheels of the world decide to bring their fucked up program to my block, I can turn them all into a pile of stinking, rotting meat. Oh no! What am I saying? Forget that.)

I own firearms because it is my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of myself, my family, and the State. There's nothing wrong with that, it's perfectly honorable, and I make sure that I obey each and every State and Federal law in so doing.

And I think everyone, of every race, religion, nationality, culture and ethnic background should exercise all their rights under the Constitution, as amended, including their right to keep and bear arms. Don't you? All my friends do. Don't forget to vote! I won't.
And after I vote, I will come home and reload a few more hundred rounds of ammunition.

[fermentor666]

I don't question your right to have these guns, I question why you think you need so many guns, and what you use them for other than target practice. If you think you need a ton of guns for protection from armageddon or some sort of hostile takeover of our country, that's cool, but I don't agree.

[KaBar2]

Fermentor---as is your RIGHT. I respect that.

[shape1369]

not to be a nit picker, but the there is no gold standard for the dollar anymore seeks. any intro level eco class will tell you that. yes gold has its own standard, but the american dollar is no longer backed by it. the mutability of the dollar is one of the things i find the most interesting about our current economic system

if you can show me otherwise please do, but as i understand it we were takin off the gold standard quite a while ago.

anywhozille, on topic of social degredation and its possible ways of redemption, this is just my own personal belief, but i feel that as some have said before, america is a young country still...our society seems behind in its social standings because it hasnt had the same amount of time as others. europe and ther regions have had many years for their cultures to develope, weve had not all that long. take many of the countries in africa as example of this idea as well. ever since control was givin back from the european countries, most of the countries have been in a total state of desparity. is it because it is completely backward and incapable of developing? no, it just requires time.






after re reading this and editing a few stupid mistakes, i have decided no more political discussions for me after two in the morning....
sure the process can be speeded along with support from other countries. which can be seen through our borrowing of many governmentally structural ideas from europe and the likes (english common law). not only that but just taking tid bits from the cultures that amassed here in america.

i am in now way a supporter of life in america today. im not sayin its great nor am i sayin i particularly want to live here. but i do think that one of the components in this situation that has to be considered is the actual age of the country. america is like a child whos parents divorce when the kid is about five. they are forced to grow up quickly. which we have done and with quite a bit of sucess, but just like that child there is still much learning and maturing to be done.

[T.T Boy]

who would the militia kill if they were trying to take over? police men? the army? firemen? doctors? any politician? even if they were in charge of the dog catching department? i seriously wonder, like there isnt some captain of the state in every state waiting to be killed and if he does, the militia wins. someone let me know.


alot of north americans, myself included, (im not that enlightened) freak out a little when we get into less restrictive countries, kids way too stoned in holland, where the dutch seem to not get totally wasted, kids in italy drinking wayyy too much in the streets and going into clubs cause they can, where as italians dont seem to really et al that drunk. im sure any european can see this in north americans. we almost dont know how to handle ourselves when there are no rules, or less rules than at home, especially on things that are so forbidden to us, smoking, clubbing, drinking (this alot less to canadians i think, we get a ton of yanks in bc coming to drink), drug use etc.

guns are bad, well, not bad, but useless to civilians.

[seeking]

kabar,
my point was that you don't listen. you agree with villian, you'd rather have an assault rifle? well, had you read what i said, you'd know that i agreed with him as well, which is why i ALSO own an assault rifle (as well as handguns and a tactical shotgun). i've never once advocated the outright banning of guns in america, and infact speak out against it. i dont think it's realistic. but you don't bother to acknowledge the parts that don't aid your argument. you don't come here to discuss, you come here to lord over us with your sage wisdom, and have never once (that i've seen) conceeded to the idea that you might just possibly be wrong about something, or even that someone has a valid backing for their [opposing] opinion. you don't agree to disagree, you agree to thinking we have no idea what we're talking about. the fact that you've refused to comment on my take on the problem of guns, just further proves that to me. you're not trying to have a 'discussion' about guns. that would mean going two ways. you're trying to chair a lecture.

i'm not asking you to leave, i'm just questioning why you're here, wasting our time and your own with 7000 word essays that only go one way. you're like a tv evangelist in hot topic (cheesy punk rock store in the mall). you have text book arguments for your ideas and ignore anything and everything that doesnt come with some pre packaged rebuttle. i've seen it happen time and time again. no matter how logical or factual someone is, you completely ignore reality in order to hold on to your outdated ideology. you're a smart guy, who has a wealth of experiences and probably a whole lot to offer the world and to the youth, but you also need to remember that you don't know everything and that times change. fixing a 67 ford tempest is not the same as fixing a 2003 focus. you never seem to take that into account. you seem to come to one conclusion and hold onto it for dear life. none of the rest of us that get into 'serious' discussions on here do that, we're all open to the idea of expansion. i think your input would be a whole lot more well received if you'd follow suit.

anyway, back to the topic at hand. the one you insisted was not done at the sound of my bell. please tell me how your guns are going to win the freedom of the american people. tell me how giving a gun to every man woman and child would realisticly insure our survival. don't hide behind some bullshit minuteman rhetoric from 1876, or use your friends for your rational. your friends constitute about .00000001% of the countries population. take a good look at reality and then tell me (preferably in less than 6 pages) how your guns are going to save us, taking into account human nature, taking into account our weaknesses as a society, taking into account the nature of our existence. look at life in america, in 2004, and tell me how your guns are going to save us from ourselves. i'm not talking about simple hand guns and potential rape scenarios, that's too easy. you say we need to arm ourselves as protection from our government. so paint for me a portrait of an american revolution, where we go to 'war' with the government to take our country back. include all races, classes and ages. make me see how it would be any different than what i've described. (and again, do it as simply as possible. i'm a pretty perceptive guy, i don't need every detail spelled out).

[seeking]

shape,
there may not be a dollar to troy-pound conversation rate, but we still maintain a HUGE supply of gold here in the states. gold will always be valuable all over the world. barring the complete eradication of our country, the US dollar will always have some value as well.
or maybe i'm wrong. i've never actually had an economics class....or a geography class...or math beyond pre algebra, 12 years ago. ha.
i can tell you all about photography and skateboarding though.


seeks/just kidding about the skateboarding.

[shape1369]

seeks,

yeah, basically the actual value of a dollar is now based on the faith of the country. anywho, i do agree that if some cataclismic event were to occur as yall were discussing, the dollar would still hold value for the simple fact that its american... even if our money ends up having no value in other countries after such event, it would still retain some value in america itself merely because the layperson wouldnt know better than to know that it wouldnt... the value of the dollar is just as much based on the perception of its strength as its actual strength.

i was thinkin bout somethin last night as i fall asleep, it had somethin with another way to measure inflation....damnit it was cool too....i think it was something like takin the percieved value of the dollar comparative to its actual value...and i forgot how i figured out how to measure the two, but i did. it was one of those three in the mornin epiphanies right as ur falling asleep. but u cant remember the next morning.

one of the things i love bout these boards is that u can be taken seriously regardless of age. i just graduated highschool and am seventeen. but dont matter on here. just wanted to say thanks for the respect and all..

[seeking]

yeah, i knew that our dollars worth was pretty arbitrary. when so much of our economy is tied up in other, more fragile countries, stocks, futures and what not, it would be impossible to be more concrete. there's just too much fluctuation in the world to keep a gold deblume for each coinciding dollar bill. and actually, after we got into that, and after villians comments about the dollar being worthless, i started thinking about how our collapse would effect those with money. i kind of blindly assumed they would be fine because they have offshore assets and what not, but if we go down, it's going to be a huge domino effect across the whole world. our downfall would devestate the livelyhood of the entire 'civilized' world. most of europe would recover alright i think, but china, mexico, india, taiwan, etc? dudes would be in t-t-t-t-trouble. that then lead me to realize how important it is to fix our current system, and detrimental to the world it would be, if people like kabar actually somehow seized control of our country. that would arguably be worse for the world than the current system.

shape,
intelligence isn't about age, its about understanding. if you know you what your talking about, and have a desire to learn, people will usually always respect your input. welcome.

[Milton]

The dollar is still backed by gold. The difference is that it became a fluctuating currency under Carter I think it was. This means that its value goes up and down comparative to other currencies. It's not backed by a specific gold standard anymore..

[oneeightyone]

seeks is my new hero

on another note, im actually getting into politics bit by bit, im meeting people that might give me a push so to say if i ever want to get into it. so then i can control it all, and make laws to keep guns away from crazy ass people like our friendly neighborhood nut kabar.

[seeking]

actually, i obviously don't agree with kabar on much of this stuff, but i would hardly think of him as 'unsafe' with guns. he's probably 1000x's less likely to shoot an innocent person by accident than your average gun owner, because he's alot more comfortable with them. anyone that's dealt with people with guns knows that the more experience you have with them, the safer you are. it's like with driving.
also, i dont think guns should be banned in america. i think it's an unrealistic response to very realistic problem. i think fully automatic weapons should be banned, but as for handguns and shotguns, at this point i think the only thing that will stop violent crime is to create a less violent society, not to regulate guns.
i'm glad your getting involved with politics. someday i'd love to run for something but i've done way too much dirt for that to be possible. my new goal is to affect policy by exposing reality.

[KaBar2]

It seems to me that you are just as guilty as I am of holding forth on a particular set of ideas and perceptions of the world and refusing to budge. And since you own an assault rifle and a tactical shotgun, etc. then you must have a reason for doing so. Your particular reason for so doing is protected by the Second Amendment, just as is my own ownership of weapons is protected.

As I stated before, I no longer hunt. I do not need the meat, and it's too much hassle, although I enjoyed hunting when I did hunt. I am opposed to anti-hunting groups and their wacky ideas, and I reserve the right to hunt in the future, should I ever decide to do so.

Ownership of firearms in the U.S. is not about hunting. It's not about sport, at all. It is about the right of the people to be armed, because the people (ALL THE PEOPLE, by law--at least all the able-bodied male people between 17 and 45) constitute "the militia." If you look up the word militia in the dictionary, rather than depending upon some leftist journalist's perversion of the word, you will see what I mean.

There is no such thing as "a militia", meaning a small group of people who form a paramilitary group and arm and train themselves. The use of the word like that is a form of Orwellian "newspeak." Like naming the secret police headquarters "the Ministry of Truth." At first, everybody is a little put off by it, but pretty soon the change in concept is ubiquitous and people lose the concept (the true concept) of the original meaning of the word "militia." "Militia" become a buzzword for something bad, and people wholeheartedly embrace the idea that somehow the "defense of the Nation" is the perogative of "professionals." (Don't try this at home, kids. Leave it to "the professionals.")

If you read what was written by the Founders of the country, you will see that their worse fears have come true. They were very much against the creation of a "select militia" (like the National Guard) which was only open to certain people and only controlled by certain politicians. They were advocates of the Swiss militia system, in which virtually EVERY SINGLE MALE was required to participate, given a rank and assigned membership to a company of militiamen. This was known, in the parlance of that time, as a "Well-regulated" (i.e. "well-organized and trained") militia. "Well-regulated" does NOT equate with "controlled by the Government." Plainly, without question, the intent and purpose oif a "well-regulated militia" is to ARM THE POPULATION AS A COUNTERBALANCE TO A STANDING ARMY. The U.S. fought every war from the Revolution until WWI using volunteer state militias. Teddy Roosevelt recruited the Rough Riders from the bar of a well-known hotel in San Antonio, mainly from Texas cowboys, to fight in the Spanish-American War. (Too bad it was such a colonialist war.)

The period of American history right after the turn of the century was a horrible time for American liberty. The most powerful and wealthy men in the country, as well as in other countries, were conspiring to seize control of American banking, to pass "Jim Crow" legislation, to break the back of the growing American labor movement, and, among other things, to do away with the long-standing American "militia system." In 1913, the same year that they forced the law through establishing the Federal Reserve System (a central banking scheme that made them BILLIONS of dollars, and has essentially turned us all into slaves of that infamous 5% of the population that controls the wealth) they also passed the Dick Act (boy, well named) that disbanded the state militias, and replaced them with a FEDERALLY-CONTROLLED select militia named the "National Guard." This law permits the President to sieze control of a Governor's state military forces anytime he chooses to declare an emergency.

This was an act worthy of a Lenin, a Stalin, or a Hitler. Concentration of Power at the Very Top.

I suppose anyone can look at a historical event and interpret it any way one chooses, but I'll bet that 99% of the young people on this board had never heard of the Dick Act until I wrote about it on here. WHY NOT? It was a very, very profound change in the way our country defended itself, and the result has been that the average person in society no longer thinks he or she has any stake in performing National Defense, which is, I think, exactly the result the writers of the Dick Act hoped for. Opponents of the militia system say that it was ineffective and the troops were poorly trained (probably true, at that time.) They say that the National Guard and the militia system are "essentially the same." (Oh, really? Then why not leave the National Guard troops completely under the authority of a state's Governor and legislature?) They say that the National Guard will be used only in an emergency. The term "citizen soldier" is bandied about, and the idea put forth that the National Guardsmen would only be called to duty when absolutely necessary. I think the invasion of Iraq has raised a lot of people's eyebrows on that idea. I bet that they are going to have a very difficult time recruiting to the National Guard for quite a while.

The U.S. armed forced are supposedly "stretched thin" by the deployment of 150,000 troops to Iraq. Meanwhile THIRTY-ONE MILLION American deer hunters are available to defend the country, because they are, BY LAW, members of the militia, according to the United States Code, Title 10, Section 311, 312, 313, etc. (Look it up, it's online,) not to mention the other 70 million American gun owners. I fail to see any reason that Joe Deerhunter is supposedly a big old slob, untrustworthy and with suspect loyalties when he's in the Texas Constitutional Militia, and then becomes Lance Corporal Perfect after he joins the Marines. We sent four kids to the Army infantry and Marine Corps infantry out of our militia group. They were ALL very successful, well-trained, well-disciplined and in excellent physical shape before they ever arrived at Boot Camp. Believe me, the Marines had very little work to do on our kids, they were already combat ready. If anything, their military service made them LESS ready, not more, because the Army (especially) with it's sloppy discipline and poor morale errodes the average adolescent's self esteem and determination to do a good job.

One of the liberal media's greatest coups has been to cast the militia in the role of subversive, when in fact it is the GOVERNMENT ITSELF that has been subverting American liberty.

We have a tendency in the U.S. to have an attention span that is about a half hour long. TV, I think, is the culprit. We also have a very short historical memory. Many of the kids on this board were only two or three years old when Ruby Ridge and the Waco Massacre occurred. It is not part of their memory or conciousness. The OKC Bombing occurred when they were five or six. Ancient history.

This coming Presidential election is very important. Whoever wins will appoint four (or more) Supreme Court justices, who are members of the Supreme Court for life. Elect a young enough justice and the future course of the country can be influenced for a generation.

We are standing on the eve of a Turning Point In History. WAKE THE FUCK UP. Participate! Fight to maintain the essential liberties we have all enjoyed, because if we do not defend them, we will lose them. The wealthy, powerful, "Establishment" people ("families," I should say) are once again trying to dominate control of our collective future.

[Brownbread?]

Seeking i misinterpreted what you were saying. from rereading the thread i realized that you were talking about a slighty different scenerio than what I was commenting on.