ForumGarden

Mark Aspam;1496982 wrote: Not always true. There are accidental shootings frequently.

Also, some of the shooters are just plain NUTS.


I do wish you could sing from the same sheet from one post to the next. You wrote "It means that idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people shouldn't be able to do so", to which I replied "the people to whom you refer are criminals". They - idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people - are criminals and you're not talking about accidents. If you can show me one instance where a shooter "like the dude who just murdered 50 people" was pronounced not criminal for any reason whatever then fine, but it's not so. There are none. None of the shooters are "just plain NUTS". They're criminal. You even used the word "murdered" in your post, where do you then get "accidental" from? We're not talking about strafing a volunteer hospital in Kunduz here ["No criminal charges were filed and the soldiers and officers received administrative punishments"].

AnneBoleyn;1496994 wrote: If you are admitting to being wrong on 2 & 3, then it follows you are wrong on 1. ;-)I'm not admitting that at all, maybe you should read it again. I'm agreeing with you (2 and 3) other than the Muslim thing, which I think that you are over-emphasizing. I don't think that INTELLIGENT people think that way. That there are anti-Muslim bigots, and anti-Jewish bigots, and anti-whatever else is not in question, but don't extend that to the public at large.

Mark Aspam;1496998 wrote: but don't extend that to the public at large.The American public at large thinks the moon landings were faked on Hollywood backlots and that aliens abducted them when they were twelve, I'd not put much confidence in their capacity for coherent thought.

spot;1496997 wrote: I do wish you could sing from the same sheet from one post to the next. You wrote "It means that idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people shouldn't be able to do so", to which I replied "the people to whom you refer are criminals". They - idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people - are criminals and you're not talking about accidents. If you can show me one instance where a shooter "like the dude who just murdered 50 people" was pronounced not criminal for any reason whatever then fine, but it's not so. There are none. None of the shooters are "just plain NUTS". They're criminal. You even used the word "murdered" in your post, where do you then get "accidental" from? We're not talking about strafing a volunteer hospital in Kunduz here.I was referring to gun nuts who accidentally kill their own children or keep loaded guns unprotected. It's a big problem in the USA.

Several years ago a home not far from me burned to the ground on a Sunday morning because the gun enthusiast was manufacturing his own ammo. Luckily his wife and kids were at church. As I stood there watching the house burn, I thought to myself, "The family that loads together explodes together".

Mark Aspam;1497000 wrote: I was referring to gun nuts who accidentally kill their own children or keep loaded guns unprotected. It's a big problem in the USA. No you weren't. You were referring explicitly and directly to "idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people". Go back and check.

spot;1497001 wrote: No you weren't. You were referring explicitly and directly to "idiots like the dude who just murdered 50 people". Go back and check.The first thing I wrote was "There are accidental shootings frequently." - as I just described. Also gun nuts of various types. I'm not sure of your problem here, earlier in the exchange you seemed to be agreeing with me in regard to gun ownership in the USA vs. elsewhere. Are you sure you're not confusing me with the dude in Kansas?

Mark Aspam;1497002 wrote: The first thing I wrote was' "There are accidental shootings frequently." - as I just described. Also gun nuts of various types. I'mnot sure of your problem here, earlier in the exchange you seemed to be agreeing with me in regard to gun ownership in the USA vs. elsewhere. Are you sure you're not confusing me with the dude in Kansas??


Can you just read the thread? You wrote "There are accidental shootings frequently" only AFTER I used the word "criminals", not before! Just go back and see the thread in sequence!

My problem is that you're now posting "eggs are only ever brown" after you began with "eggs are only ever blue". I've not taken exception to your notion of brown. I challenged only your assertion of blue and you then introduced your self-contradiction as though it was some form of explanation instead of a total side-step.

spot;1496999 wrote: The American public at large thinks the moon landings were faked on Hollywood backlots and that aliens abducted them when they were twelve, I'd not put much confidence in their capacity for coherent thought.Now you're just being ridiculous. There are screwballs worldwide. What about your own animal rights activists who go out at night and dig up the corpses of their former detractors?

Added later: I don't know why you're trying to badger me here. I consider myself a sane American who is trying to describe the gun-nut philosophy of a significant percentage of Americans.

It's a real problem on MANY levels. The poster from Kansas seems to be a good example. I'm not accusing him of anything, just that he seems typical of the gun culture here, and if I'm describing him unfairly, I hope that he will respond.

Added still later: This is it for tonight - "America's Got Talent" will be on soon. Simon Cowell has returned this season. But I'll check back in tomorrow. Until then, everybody duck!

Homophobia is a stupid word. It's not a phobia - it's just plain ignorant hatred. However, when there are religions who openly promote such hatred as part of their tenet you are bound to have problems. Bear in mind that under Sharia law, being Gay warrants the Death Penalty (as do most things). For that matter, it wasn't until 1967 that it even BEGAN to be legal in the U.K., when it was first decriminalised (it wasn't fully legalised, as such, until 2003), which demonstrates the deep rooted prejudice across the board. Thankfully, most of the Western world has moved on, but those Middle Eastern cultures that remain stuck in the Middle Ages are unlikely to ever move with the times on such issues.

Apparently the FBI had already spoken to him twice before about his questionable activities & threats, yet took no action. He had made claims to have ISIS sympathies, yet they took no action. The chances are that he was merely mentally unstable, but once something like that gets into the mind of such a person, it becomes a total reality. Needless to say, however, whether he was actually connected to ISIS in any way whatsoever or not, you can be certain that they will delight in claiming responsibility.

Interestingly, this video was broadcast in Orlando just weeks before the event.

FourPart;1497005 wrote: Homophobia is a stupid word. It's not a phobia - it's just plain ignorant hatred. However, when there are religions who openly promote such hatred as part of their tenet you are bound to have problems. Bear in mind that under Sharia law, being Gay warrants the Death Penalty (as do most things). For that matter, it wasn't until 1967 that it even BEGAN to be legal in the U.K., when it was first decriminalised (it wasn't fully legalised, as such, until 2003), which demonstrates the deep rooted prejudice across the board. Thankfully, most of the Western world has moved on, but those Middle Eastern cultures that remain stuck in the Middle Ages are unlikely to ever move with the times on such issues.

Apparently the FBI had already spoken to him twice before about his questionable activities & threats, yet took no action. He had made claims to have ISIS sympathies, yet they took no action. The chances are that he was merely mentally unstable, but once something like that gets into the mind of such a person, it becomes a total reality. Needless to say, however, whether he was actually connected to ISIS in any way whatsoever or not, you can be certain that they will delight in claiming responsibility.

Interestingly, this video was broadcast in Orlando just weeks before the event.




I vote love affair gone wrong. ISIS is just the cover. Look at the posing the guy did for selfies. I have NEVER seen my daughters dad pose for even one like those much less the variety of them that this guy has put up.

And personally I'm more concerned with what those Baptist preachers are teaching our kids. There was another one of them on the news tonight spewing crap that makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck.

Mark Aspam;1497004 wrote: Now you're just being ridiculous. There are screwballs worldwide. What about your own animal rights activists who go out at night and dig up the corpses of their former detractors?

Added later: I don't know why you're trying to badger me here. I consider myself a sane American who is trying to describe the gun-nut philosophy of a significant percentage of Americans.




To be honest I think there's too much of a tendency to describe people one disagrees with as a nut. Animal Rights activists, where they don't overstep the line into criminality, are laudable people. Digging up a corpse is a cultural insult which also happens to be a public order offence here but if that's the worst they do then I'd vote for them. Blowing up experimental scientists, no. Breaking into labs using mammals, no. Lawfully picketing every lab in the country that's using mammals, damn right, go for it, labs using mammals are an abomination.

As for the gun-nuts, I really don't think you've looked at what I wrote in this thread. American burglars and robbers tend to carry firearms - if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. Being criminals they'll get those firearms whether the public in general is allowed to own or carry firearms or not - if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. That's a fundamentally different position to the British experience where nobody I know has ever encountered a criminal with a firearm and I have no expectation of ever doing so. That portion of the American public which feels an overriding insecurity to the extent that they need a firearm safety blanket given the state of society there, should not (for the reason I just outlined) be denied that right, and if the safety blanket consists of a semi-automatic rifle then fine, that's a firearm. Any criminal can criminally acquire a semi-automatic rifle in America regardless of whether the law-abiding man in the street has permission to do so.

UnitedWest is a hate group, Four Part, question your sources, look for independant ones. Not saying it's never the truth, but is slanted toward HATE.

spot;1497012 wrote: As for the gun-nuts, I really don't think you've looked at what I wrote in this thread. Who didn't look at what who wrote? Here is what I posted early in the thread:

The rest of the civilized world thinks that we are INSANE. I lived in Germany for eight years. I never knew of anybody there having a gun or wishing to have a gun or needing a gun for any purpose apart from hunting.

I wouldn't change a word and I don't know why you're not aiming your barbs at the Kansas poster who is solidly pro-gun. Mistaken identity p'raps?

Here is what he wrote:

I don't really pay that much attention to Hillary's rantings about our natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I don't know what loose gun laws mean, but I do know it is a progressive wet dream to take our guns.

UPDATE: It appears that the widow of the shooter will be charged with murder as accessory before the fact.

posted by four part

Apparently the FBI had already spoken to him twice before about his questionable activities & threats, yet took no action. He had made claims to have ISIS sympathies, yet they took no action. The chances are that he was merely mentally unstable, but once something like that gets into the mind of such a person, it becomes a total reality. Needless to say, however, whether he was actually connected to ISIS in any way whatsoever or not, you can be certain that they will delight in claiming responsibility.


Is it not the case thgat your republicans stopped legislation that wopukld have enabled the FBI to prevent people on their watch list from being able to buy guns?

NRA blocks law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns - NY Daily News

NRA, Republicans block proposed law to stop suspected terrorists from buying guns in U.S.


Currently, some known or suspected terrorists are prohibited from boarding airplanes by the government’s no-fly list — but all are allowed to buy assault rifles and other weapons.

While the bill remained a nonstarter, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist bought weapons in the U.S. over the last 11 years, according to the federal Government Accountability Office.


Orlando Shooting: New Push to Keep Guns From Terror Suspects

A bill that would prevent terrorist suspects, as identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from legally purchasing firearms has languished in the House for more than three years but is now receiving renewed media attention in the wake of Sunday’s terrorist attack in Orlando.


Basically in this country anyone that wants to buy an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition to keep at home we would consider a nutcase.

AnneBoleyn;1497018 wrote: UnitedWest is a hate group, Four Part, question your sources, look for independant ones. Not saying it's never the truth, but is slanted toward HATE.
Of course it's a Hate Group. The point is that the Hate Preachers, such as those in the video DO exist, and they appeal to the most fanatically unstable. It may be that someone such as this madman witnessed the video & took it to be the righteous path & set about fulfilling the Religious desires. It's a real abomination that so many Muslim Hate Preachers are allowed to get away with what they say & do in the name of Free Speech & Racial Discrimination, whereas if the cultural situations were reversed (ie Caucasian condemning Muslims & demanding their deaths), they would very soon find themselves behind bars.

This issue is an abomination from as far back as the reason the pilgrims left England many years ago. Even though we have progressed since they some are still living in the ancient past. The constitution was written when the bearing of arms was essential. This is a new time and era. Times have changed but many Americans have not yet come into the 21st cent. How many more innocent people have to die before many will smarten up. We know that violence breeds violence. More guns equals more bullets flying around and more innocents dying. These people should use their heads for more then a hair rack.l

Ted;1497081 wrote: This issue is an abomination from as far back as the reason the pilgrims left England many years ago. Even though we have progressed since they some are still living in the ancient past. The constitution was written when the bearing of arms was essential. This is a new time and era. Times have changed but many Americans have not yet come into the 21st cent. How many more innocent people have to die before many will smarten up. We know that violence breeds violence. More guns equals more bullets flying around and more innocents dying. These people should use their heads for more then a hair rack.lTed, meet Tude Dog:

I don't really pay that much attention to Hillary's rantings about our natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.I don't know what loose gun laws mean, but I do know it is a progressive wet dream to take our guns.



Ted is absolutely right. The purpose of the second amendment was to put down insurrections against the federal government, a real - or at least supposed - danger at that time in the nation's history. Using it to allow criminals and crazy people to commit mass murder is outrageous!

What is the gun situation in Canada?

Mark,

Gun laws in Canada are such that every gun "owned" must be registered. Of course not every "owned" gun is registered.



As for who carries guns on their person here, I have never encountered anyone in my 50 plus years of being a Canadian. Even in my limited capacity of knowing some rather colorful bikers, not a one carried a gun on their person.

Cowboys don't even carry guns on their person. Unless out on the range (I don't even think they do that much then)

Shootings here are always rare and shocking.

Mark Aspam;1497085 wrote: Ted, meet Tude Dog:

I don't really pay that much attention to Hillary's rantings about our natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.I don't know what loose gun laws mean, but I do know it is a progressive wet dream to take our guns.



Ted is absolutely right. The purpose of the second amendment was to put down insurrections against the federal government, a real - or at least supposed - danger at that time in the nation's history. Using it to allow criminals and crazy people to commit mass murder is outrageous!

What is the gun situation in Canada?


The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a ready reserve of trained men to respond to whatever crisis might arrive, be it invasion from another country, or an insurrection within the borders of the US.

The intent was that all able-bodied men in the nation would arm themselves train and prepare for militia activity. It was to provide an alternative to the idea of a standing army, which the founders wished to avoid.

LarsMac;1497103 wrote: It was to provide an alternative to the idea of a standing army, which the founders wished to avoid.There is, I suppose, no chance of returning to those heady days?

spot;1497114 wrote: There is, I suppose, no chance of returning to those heady days?


If only.

What is ignored is that when one lives in a civilized society one has to give up total freedom in some things. Laws are designed to keep the country safe. If guns are a problem then a law is required. One persons activities have no right to interfere with another persons rights.. To do otherwise is shear lunacy.

spot;1497114 wrote: There is, I suppose, no chance of returning to those heady days?


Yeah - lets send the Redcoats back in & take back our colony.

The redcoats represented a German monarch, if I remember right, and a large proportion of them came from Hesse.

spot;1497210 wrote: The redcoats represented a German monarch, if I remember right, and a large proportion of them came from Hesse.


Actuially no. During the english civil war rather than provide their soldiers with blue or grey uniforms which was the typical colour for keeping soldiers looking smart and less visible if sneaking up on an enemy on tne troops the parliementary forces were supplied with red uniforms since the dye was a lot cheaper than that use for blue uniforms. Parsimony rather than forethought and nothing to do with not letting the enemy see your blood. Cromwell's honest russet coated captain was in fact wearing a weather faded redcoat.

I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else. I honour a gentleman that is so indeed.




Thereafter blue became the colour of the royalists and red that of parliament that's why we talk about royal blue as a colour and why all the "royal" regiments have blue dress uniforms regiments owing their origins to parliament typically wear red. The atrocities commited by the parlaiamentary forces are why redcoats were hated in ireland and scotland and everywhere else come to that (cromwell et al).

Ever since the english parliament cut the head off a scots king no english monarch has been able to raise troops althouigh being pedantic geoge wasn't actually english.

German Geordie did indeed employ hessian mercenaries but he wasn't paying for them and they wore blue uniforms not red.

Ted;1497081 wrote: This issue is an abomination from as far back as the reason the pilgrims left England many years ago. Even though we have progressed since they some are still living in the ancient past. The constitution was written when the bearing of arms was essential. This is a new time and era. Times have changed but many Americans have not yet come into the 21st cent. How many more innocent people have to die before many will smarten up. We know that violence breeds violence. More guns equals more bullets flying around and more innocents dying. These people should use their heads for more then a hair rack.l


Actually, the original intent of the 2nd was as Lars in a later post as an alternative to a standing army. Reminds me that the first was freedom of POLITICAL speech.

All the same, we have our guns and decided it prudent to keep them for everyday threats. Not to mention hunting and other recreational activities.

Mark Aspam;1497085 wrote: Ted, meet Tude Dog:

I don't really pay that much attention to Hillary's rantings about our natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.I don't know what loose gun laws mean, but I do know it is a progressive wet dream to take our guns.



Ted is absolutely right. The purpose of the second amendment was to put down insurrections against the federal government, a real - or at least supposed - danger at that time in the nation's history.


You are half right. It is also so we can keep our own government in check.



Mark Aspam;1497085 wrote: Using it to allow criminals and crazy people to commit mass murder is outrageous!


I agree.

LarsMac;1497103 wrote: The purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide a ready reserve of trained men to respond to whatever crisis might arrive, be it invasion from another country, or an insurrection within the borders of the US.

The intent was that all able-bodied men in the nation would arm themselves train and prepare for militia activity. It was to provide an alternative to the idea of a standing army, which the founders wished to avoid.


Would come in handy should

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Ted;1497166 wrote: What is ignored is that when one lives in a civilized society one has to give up total freedom in some things. Laws are designed to keep the country safe. If guns are a problem then a law is required. One persons activities have no right to interfere with another persons rights.. To do otherwise is shear lunacy.


You see inanimate objects as the problem. I see bad people as the problem.

tude dog;1497295 wrote: You see inanimate objects as the problem. I see bad people as the problem.


So the task is to figure out how to keep bad people from certain inanimate objects.

A rather daunting task, indeed.

tude dog;1497295 wrote: You see inanimate objects as the problem. I see bad people as the problem.


I've never quite grasped why, in your opinion, America has such a huge proportion of bad people compared with other developed countries. I'd be very interested to know.

tude dog;1497292 wrote: You are half right. It is also so we can keep our own government in check.Well, you'd better elaborate on that. I'm not sure what you mean and I don't want to guess.

If you are (and again, I'm not sure) referring to nut groups like Posse Comitatus, Sovereign Citizen and the idiots in Oregon a couple of months ago, people like that usually end up dead or in jail, as they should.

If you don't like your government, "keep it in check", whatever that means, by voting against it in the next election.

spot;1497301 wrote: I've never quite grasped why, in your opinion, America has such a huge proportion of bad people compared with other developed countries. I'd be very interested to know.


Big population. More people, more a-holes. Simple math.

tude dog:

"You are half right. It is also so we can keep our own government in check."

Laughable. You'd be slaughtered. The government is better equipped, better organized. The sad thing is we are a nation divided, so who you think should be kept in check an equal amount of citizens would probably disagree. Time to grow up Cowboy.

AnneBoleyn;1497317 wrote: Big population. More people, more a-holes. Simple math.


You have a higher rate, at a guess around eight times the norm. Just compare your prison population per million with ours - the UK has a jail capacity of about 80,000 for a population around 60 million, and we have a higher jail population per million than most of Europe. At the same rate as us, America would have a jail capacity of under a half a million. Instead it's something over 3 million.

AnneBoleyn;1497317 wrote: Big population. More people, more a-holes. Simple math. ;-)More diversity. Everyone here except American Indians came from somewhere else historically. Other countries which have begun admitting foreigners are now having similar problems.

Also more diversity of income. Lots of desperate poor folks.

Provide some examples of this trend you're claiming. Australia doesn't show it, for instance. New Zealand doesn't. Canada certainly doesn't. They all had immigration at similar periods to America and immigrants formed a similar proportion of their final populations. Where are you talking about?

spot;1497323 wrote: You have a higher rate, at a guess around eight times the norm. Just compare your prison population per million with ours - the UK has a jail capacity of about 80,000 for a population around 60 million, and we have a higher jail population per million than most of Europe. At the same rate as us, America would have a jail capacity of under a half a million. Instead it's something over 3 million.


I winked, didn't I? Doesn't that indicate mirth to you? Or should I have said LOL?

spot;1497325 wrote: Provide some examples of this trend you're claiming. Australia doesn't show it, for instance. New Zealand doesn't. Canada certainly doesn't. They all had immigration at similar periods to America and immigrants formed a similar proportion of their final populations. Where are you talking about?I'm not sure if you're addressing me, Annnie or both of us. Holland is having a lot of problems with immigrants, including murders. I'm not going to go on a country-by-country survey with you. The USA is much bigger and more diverse than any of the places (except Canada) you mentioned.

AnneBoleyn;1497326 wrote: I winked, didn't I? Doesn't that indicate mirth to you? Or should I have said LOL?


Ah. That will be these new-fangled smilers then. I don't see those in this browser, I have more things suppressed than the Pilgrim Father who fancied the ship's bosun during the crossing.

Mark Aspam;1497327 wrote: Holland is having a lot of problems with immigrants, including murders. But that's in two decades!! The countries I offered have parallel immigration histories with America dating back two hundred years, you really have to compare like with like.



I'm not going to go on a country-by-country survey with you. The USA is much bigger and more diverse than any of the places (except Canada) you mentioned.


If you insist on generalizing instead of providing testable examples then it's all just so much hot air incapable of refining what either of us think, isn't it.

spot;1497329 wrote: If you insist on generalizing instead of providing testable examples then it's all just so much hot air incapable of refining what either of us think, isn't it.LOL! You're the one doing the insisting. I'm not a sociologist.

I love to visit England, especially London, THE CITY is absolutely amazing. THE PEOPLE are something else - I wouldn't live there if you paid me a million bucks - or pounds sterling. To each his own. I lived in Germany for eight years, friendly people, little crime, I don't know how they do it! But they are also having some immigration problems.

posted by tude dog

You are half right. It is also so we can keep our own government in check.




one of the main reasons the british police are unarmed is so that they would not be perceived as an instrument of the state. The aim was policing by consent upholding te rule of law rather thn enforcing it. We also traditionally had a small standing army in peacetime and that in the days of emopire was scattered throughout the world. Arming our police would undermine the principle of policing by consent.

Why are you so afraid of your own government if you elect them? maybe you should disarm your polkice so they start uphilding the law ratherv than enforcing=it and reduce your standing army so they can't be used against civilians.

I remember watching the kent state massacres on TV and being shocked that the army or national guard i think it was carrying weapons would be used in against unarmed civilians it was quite shocking to se armed troops patrolling new orleans after katrina - seemed and odd priority to stop lootingb rather than help people. Not to say that we haven't done similar in the likes of northern ireland and during the mioners strikes (damn thatcher) but it's hard to imagine british police opening fire on demonstrators.

spot;1497328 wrote: Ah. That will be these new-fangled smilers then. I don't see those in this browser, I have more things suppressed than the Pilgrim Father who fancied the ship's bosun during the crossing.


No, it wasn't a new-fangled smiler, it was (is): semi-colon, dash, and right side of parentheses. Put them all together and you get = a winky face. You don't see punctuation marks in your browser?? Then you have a crappy browser.

AnneBoleyn;1497336 wrote: You don't see punctuation marks in your browser?? Then you have a crappy browser.
I do see punctuation. Firefox aggregates ASCII-art like you're describing into the modern-day smiler graphic for display, and my display settings say exclude smilers. Dreadful things. People seem to think one can be uncouth or mocking and then the addition of a smiler demands no offense be taken.

spot;1497338 wrote: People seem to think one can be uncouth or mocking and then the addition of a smiler demands no offense be taken.


Just like the tone of voice or nicely placed wink..............in real life.....do you mean ?

:sneaky: (No worries Spot wont see that)

I've long since given up on gesture-conversation. Most these days consists of demands for peace, respect or casual oral sex.

spot;1497301 wrote: I've never quite grasped why, in your opinion, America has such a huge proportion of bad people compared with other developed countries. I'd be very interested to know.


I never said that, did I?

Maybe we do. We are a hugely diverse country. For example, I could go from where I live with practically no crime to a city 200 miles away with a goodly amount of crime. Between the fifty states that example could be repeated thousands of times.

Go figure.

gmc;1497334 wrote: one of the main reasons the british police are unarmed is so that they would not be perceived as an instrument of the state. The aim was policing by consent upholding te rule of law rather thn enforcing it. We also traditionally had a small standing army in peacetime and that in the days of emopire was scattered throughout the world. Arming our police would undermine the principle of policing by consent.


Well bully for you. Whatever works.

gmc;1497334 wrote: Why are you so afraid of your own government if you elect them? maybe you should disarm your polkice so they start uphilding the law ratherv than enforcing=it and reduce your standing army so they can't be used against civilians.


Right now I don't fear my government. I believe it is foolish to trust those who exercise power.

gmc;1497334 wrote: I remember watching the kent state massacres on TV and being shocked that the army or national guard i think it was carrying weapons would be used in against unarmed civilians it was quite shocking to se armed troops patrolling new orleans after katrina - seemed and odd priority to stop lootingb rather than help people. Not to say that we haven't done similar in the likes of northern ireland and during the mioners strikes (damn thatcher) but it's hard to imagine british police opening fire on demonstrators.


Kent State, Katrina, New Orleans etc, different situations, not all the same.

One thing I remember about Katrina the government confiscated weapons from law abiding citizens. Same thing happened in Greenburg, KS when in 2007 when a tornado flattened the city. I suppose these people are supposed to believe the government will protect them. In normal times, the government can't protect anybody and they go about taking what little protection people had.

AnneBoleyn;1497318 wrote: tude dog:

"You are half right. It is also so we can keep our own government in check."

Laughable. You'd be slaughtered. The government is better equipped, better organized. The sad thing is we are a nation divided, so who you think should be kept in check an equal amount of citizens would probably disagree. Time to grow up Cowboy.


First of all, I am not advocating rebellion. If the day comes, there is no telling what form it would take.