Discussion in 'Videos' started by حمید, Apr 11, 2011.
Targeting ambulances? These murdering slimebags have no honor. No honor at all.
That's what I thought it was about when I first saw it this afternoon. Nauseating, heartbreaking and worse.
I've been reading about the Spanish conquests of the americas and the resulting genocide.
Imagine if our 'civilization' was invaded by sadistic thugs, from outer space. It's the only way I can get a grip on WTF happened with that.
No shortages of sadistic thugs in the middle east. If only people could shoot back. <sigh>
shooting back have never worked, is not working and will not work. The Use of any derivatives of the defination 'civilization' demands respect to the political decissions and its enforcments. "shoot back" might stablishe a false vision of democrcy not civilized.
'civilizations' are now intgrated and therefore it is up to the intgrity of intgrated politicians to see a peaceful soulution.
It worked fine for us here in the States a couple hundred years ago....
But, granted, the American Revolution was one of those rare instances where it actually worked. We got lucky in that our revolution leaders actually gave a damn about liberty instead of power (unlike our current crop in the modern day U.S.).
But yeah. It should always be kept peaceful when possible.
The point of having an armed citizenry is so we don't ever have to shoot back. It's one of the primary reasons why our government behaves itself when it comes to its own citizens. Well, mostly behaves itself. it's always trying to stretch the boundaries a bit here and there just to see what we'll let it get away with. Sometimes they get away with it, but most times we give them the backhand. At least that's how it was until 2001. But in the last couple years, the People have been getting tired of the gov trying to take our rights away to keep us "safe."
I am not talking about peace to last a few milenium. I am talking a bout educating behaviours that 'civilizations' find it disgusted if it is lost. Do not forget the total documented history of America is ca. 500 years, only with documented experiences of the middle age brought from Europe. I hope you dont mean to say you need to go through the same once you have recently exprienced the bad test of it.
Hamid; did you read post #32? I could work on a translation for you if the English gives you problems.
The two sentences in Lulzgasm's post below, states and makes clear the case for citizens and firearms. It's all about keeping the peace, and insisting on reason rather than force.
If it comes to force, and we are armed, we can at least die fighting for our freedom rather than being shot down like helpless animals.
I don't own guns to make trouble. I own guns to prevent trouble. I don't own guns because I'm afraid. I own guns in order to be unafraid and confident that I can deal with force if force is imposed upon me, my family or my friends.
Have you not heard/seen the terrible effects of armed citizenry in schools, malls, offices?
It is easy to act by emotion and emotionally regret that. Once you have the power it becomes very easy to act spontaneous and then think over what lost.
It sort-of goes along the lines of this argument:
If a government makes gun ownership illegal, the only ones who suffer are the honest people. The criminals will always have guns regardless. Therefore, you are disarming innocent and honest people, making them defenseless against the criminals who are already going to possess weapons illegally anyway, and giving the criminals more power and advantage.
Take the above paragraph, and consider this: governments are often by and large no less criminal than the delinquent teen who robbed the liquor store down the street from you last week. Do you want to put all the power in the hands of tyrants?
People who shoot up schools and malls are already criminal, and anyone who would actually want to do anything like that is going to illegally obtain and use a weapon whether firearms are taken from the citizens or not. And then what? You have armed criminals vs. the unarmed population. How do you think that's going to turn out? If the general population is able to carry firearms, how many shots do you think the mall shooter is going to get off before someone puts a bullet in his skull? How many shots do you think he'll get off if everyone there is unarmed?
Do you mean you prefer not to do anything about criminality, for selling criminality?
You obviously have had no education around firearms whatsoever. If your life is driven by emotion, then you have much growing up to to do. It takes maturity and discipline to think and act detached from emotion.
Right now, you remind me of all the moon bats where I live demanding that we all go to yoga class, ride bicycles, eat organic vegetables, give our guns to the police and then, everything will be nice. GTFO.
There will always be crazy people. There will always be criminals. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Last year, there were over 75 shooting incidents in my city. About 60 people were murdered by criminal gangs. One of these shootings took place in my neighbourhood, in a liquor store parking lot. A ten minute walk from where I live.
The firearm was a fully automatic Tek-9. Over 40 rounds were fired. The target of the shooting took six bullets and lived. Being a criminal, he's been no help to the police.
This is the world we live in Hamid. And all the ranting in the world about 'civilization' isn't going to bring about peace and serenity. Peace and serenity will come when people choose to live that way.
I don't really understand what you mean by that. If you're asking if I think criminals should not be punished, no, that's not what I think at all. People who break the law are going to own guns whether it's against the law or not, they are criminals afterall, why would they care if owning a gun is illegal? The ones who would give up their guns would be the law abiding citizens, who would then be powerless to protect themselves against the criminals. The only ones who lose, the only ones who suffer, the only ones who will be put at a disadvantage, are the law abiding, honest people.
Make gun ownership illegal, and you're only disarming the honest people.
No! Criminal force descends upon me and I will shoot it, probably shoot it dead!
Are not you like the most, trying to change it for the better?
if you are still not developed to find solutions without a need to arms, then perhaps you would join army to use it under the defination of democracy not to be loos around and choose freedom of using it.
I meant to say people are not born as criminals or tyrants. And it is better to deal with the problems proactivly from the start and be responsible rather than find it as a difficult task and justify it as easy as people are "already criminal" and in the same manner conclude an easy solution.
Change what for the better?
I do believe the world will be a better place if the vile cult of scientology is stopped and that's a cause for betterment that I am committed to and I will do it peacefully without firearms until it becomes necessary to do it otherwise.
Everything else? Well, I have a kind of deal made with my friends and family: I agree to never oppress them if they agree to never oppress me. This works quite well.
If random oppressors show up, with an oppressive agenda, they are going to have a very painful time of it because I will stop them from oppressing me. BTW, your suggestion that I'm not evolving properly according to your agenda is laughable.
If you really believe that in the world that we have to live in now, solutions will be found to defend freedom and human rights without a sometimes need to use force to defeat force, then I think you are some kinda nutty fruit bat and I'm not going to do any more typing for you.
I said people WHO are already criminals. Not that people are born criminals. I'm talking about any person who wishes to disregard the law, obtain a firearm, and proceed to use that firearm to commit more illegal activity, is going to find a way to do it regardless of whether or not firearms are illegal. If you are suggesting that there's a way to somehow rehabilitate existing criminals, and/or prevent future people from becoming criminals and put an end to all crime, I'm all ears.
However, since we don't live in a perfect little fantasy dream world where everyone spends the majority of their time frolicking through fields of daisies and sitting around campfires singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands, I'm going to have to say that gun ownership will keep the majority safer from the few bad apples who are going to own and use guns for evil purposes either way anyway.
No, human beings are probably not born as criminals and tyrants, but I believe we must be intellectually honest about this and admit that we are speculating.
There is much we don't know and I don't believe we can make such statements with absolute certainty. Maybe they are born to be criminals and/or tyrants. Maybe they are not. We don't know. Don't pretend to know things that you don't know, Hamid. It can make a person appear very foolish.
I'm all for proactive behaviour and very much against reactive behaviour but sometimes, life being what it is, we're left with only an ability to be reactive. We can work at proactivity when we can, not when we can't.
In the real world, good people start off trying to remedy problems proactively and remain as peaceful as possible. And as a general rule, there are no resulting issues with that. But what happens when the people who don't agree with you turn their guns on you? What do you do? Beg them for mercy? Die a martyr? Or do you fight back? What are you going to do if you are unarmed and want to fight back? Throw rocks at them??
If this is what you are engaged then perhaps I shall point out to some of the video clips here on the forum from those whom you think the world would be better place. They have founded world a better place, as you mention in accordance to your commitment without you finding it nececary to use firearms. If this has happened by educational information why do you find it nececary to use firearms then? Is it just because you find it is easy or you do not think what you are doing is working? Or you do not know what to do with your money not bloody?
More Guns = Less Crime
Very thorough study by John R. Lott
More Guns, Less Crime
UNDERSTANDING CRIME AND GUN CONTROL LAWS, THIRD EDITION
JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
472 pages | 87 line drawings, 77 tables |6x9 | © 2010
Studies in Law and Economics 2010
I think you're TOTALLY missing the point. No one said protesters should go in and take anything by force. Any act of violence on the part of the protesters should be in self defense and only used in a case where acts of force are being used upon the protesters first. That's the point. Sorry if you missed the idea. Protesters and citizens in general should have the ability to act in self defense against others who react violently against them. You're not going to throw rocks at at your opposition if they start shooting at you.
Change WHAT for the better? <------------ that is called an interrogative sentence.
I.e., a QUESTION that was asked of you.
You are obfuscating and I can't abide that. Goodbye. Take care.
what others have you read to show you other opinions?
I think you have not started a good day today. Perhaps you can think what has caused it.
Have a nice time
What defense does remain then, if not your and my voice asking our politicians to do something about it on behalf of those we feel solidarity with?
In Egypt, Mubarak did not step down until the military sided with the people. Why was the military's decision one of the primary causes of Mubarak resigning? Because the military has big big guns. And are trained in using them (training, btw, is something that should be required for armed citizens as well. After all, a gun is worthless if you don't know how to hold the blasted thing. Like this one time when I saw a guy try to shoot a .50 Desert Eagle one handed, side-ways, in "gangsta style". The only person he injured was himself).
Libya would've ended the same way if Daffy hadn't been able to flood his country with mercenaries. But in the end, Daffy's act of desperation will fail. He can only pay the mercs for so long.
It is perhaps better to concentrate on the fact what one stands for, not whom the one, one stands for, otherwise it is just to fanatically idolize one which you know from the history what severe consequnces it has. Frankly speaking, once a leader for such a long time and some basic problems still exists, makes the leader to have been an idole.
If there are tens of thousands of Iranian agents in Syria, then who's minding the store back home?
They borrow from each other. If you search the forum you can see some agents from lebanon's Hezbollah active in Iran. And if you search on youtube, you can see how the Iranian agents are boasting of having fostered Hezbollah in Libanon.
Dictators-aka one big happy psycho family.
If Assad doesn't step down, every Syrian in the country will end up dead at this rate. Surely he's not insane enough to kill them all. Is he?
Syrians should show an alternative, committed to peace soon, and show solidarity to the people f Iran and make it understood there is no chance of chaos that can be misused by lack of controll.
It's so inspiring to see neighbors helping each other out in times of difficulty.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!