The right to bear arms
Replies
-
Can I interest you in some Earthquake Insurance?
Sure why not? After all the fraking that's going on in our areas, we have been having way more (and bigger) earthquakes than there should be at this point in time on the geologic timeframe of the area.... but THAT is another topic for another day. :drinker:
But again, a semi-automatic weapon does not necessarily equal an M16 or an AK47 (eta) of even a "machine gun"... it could just be typical 9mm pistol.
I was just reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor about gun control in Canada... which obviously has much stricter policies than we do... they still have shootings, they still have guns smuggled into the country... they still have deranged people getting their hands on guns legally owned by others.... While, the incidents may be farther and fewer between than here, it still happens.... and things of such nature will continue to happen until the day that humans cease to exist.
So, since it is going to happen anyway, we shouldn't take measures to at least reduce the occurance?
I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the occurances, I have never held that stance.... but banning things rarely works... restricting things rarely works... You would have to have an utter and complete societal shift for it to work.... it only works in places like the UK, because their society as a whole accepts the complete banning of guns.... I don't see that happening any time in the near future here... Not when every time gun control comes up for debate (not even a drafting of legislation) people run out and get more guns and ammo.0 -
It's a better source than National Review, The Washington Examiner, or Humanevents.com.
If I were writing an academic paper would I cite wikipedia? No. But on a discussion board, sure. I cite it all the time. It's a great quick source of information. And more and more, it gives its own sources that can be checked if needed.
About five or six years ago, I saw a study that found wikipedia was more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. I wouldn't cite Britannica in an academic paper either, but back in the old days, I sure would consult it when I needed a quick source of information.
Like I said, just curious, because I have been conditioned as such that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and I cringe when it is cited. My husband points out that there are often math and science subjects that are absolutely incorrect (I know we aren't discussiong math and science... it is just my most noted example)... but enough about my tangent...0 -
I remembered the study wrong. Britannica won slightly. And the articles were only scientific topics.In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.
The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
That study was in 2005. Wikipedia had been around for four years then and has had eight years since to get better or worse. In my opinion, it's gotten a lot better. It's much better about providing its own references, which can usually be checked if need be. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a far sight better than the dark ages when the only references at my finger tips were a good one volume encyclopedia and the World Almanac!0 -
<<<<<<<<<<<<The "Right to Bare Arms"0
-
Nice guns.0
-
Just a random curiosity... since when has wikipedia been considered a valid source of information? I'm just curious, as I am seeing it quoted.... a lot.... and I am prone to not believe it when things have been innaccurate quite often on that site (which is bound to happen since it is larger user edited) and often enough that it is not allowed to be used as a source when righting research papers... I get we aren't in academics here... but I am just questioning the validity and the reason it is used nearly every single time I see something sourced....
Ok rant over.
Depends on where the wiki information comes from. Something written w/out attribution would have less validity, however a resource, chart, etc reproduced from, say, a government report wouldn't be any different than if you had gone to the govt website and copied the report yourself. From that standpoint, wikipedia is not the "source" of the information, just the place where it is collected.
It's the same with a source from any other website. For example, if I find a chart, graph, report from the CBO and it just happens to be published on a "liberal" website (or a "conservative" one for that matter), the validity of that government report is not lessened because of the site it appeared on.
Now if the objective data is used as part of an opinion column and one cites the opinion as "fact", then, yes, the source becomes very important to ascertain the credibility of the information.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people who both use those sources and those who read those comments to be able to tell the difference.I would think that gun death statistics should be pretty easy to verify.
For example, I get information from a number of sources--most of them more liberal-oriented, but more and more I rely on Twitter as my "news aggregator". I read the articles/columns at different levels--I can separate the partisan rhetoric from the objective data, and the subjective interpretation of the author from the objective data.
However, before I ever cite anything I read from a website in this or in any other public forum, I always follow the links to the original source, and I use google or another search engine to independently verify or cross-reference the information. There have been plenty of times when I have found that when a column cited a story that supposedly "supported" the author's viewpoint, when I read the original story, I came away with a completely different conclusion. Or I have found that the information cited in the original source had been questioned or refuted--which I found out by reading several other articles on the topic.
I guess what I am saying is that I think it is wrong to reject facts out of hand because of where they appear. I'm not implying that you are doing that, but it is not uncommon in forum debates for people to resort to "ad hominem" attacks against "sources" when they run out of arguments themselves. (Again, a general statement--not implying that you trying to use those attacks yourself).0 -
Can I interest you in some Earthquake Insurance?
Sure why not? After all the fraking that's going on in our areas, we have been having way more (and bigger) earthquakes than there should be at this point in time on the geologic timeframe of the area.... but THAT is another topic for another day. :drinker:
But again, a semi-automatic weapon does not necessarily equal an M16 or an AK47 (eta) of even a "machine gun"... it could just be typical 9mm pistol.
I was just reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor about gun control in Canada... which obviously has much stricter policies than we do... they still have shootings, they still have guns smuggled into the country... they still have deranged people getting their hands on guns legally owned by others.... While, the incidents may be farther and fewer between than here, it still happens.... and things of such nature will continue to happen until the day that humans cease to exist.
So, since it is going to happen anyway, we shouldn't take measures to at least reduce the occurance?
I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce the occurances, I have never held that stance.... but banning things rarely works... restricting things rarely works... You would have to have an utter and complete societal shift for it to work.... it only works in places like the UK, because their society as a whole accepts the complete banning of guns.... I don't see that happening any time in the near future here... Not when every time gun control comes up for debate (not even a drafting of legislation) people run out and get more guns and ammo.
You can almost make the argument that the US is not a "civilized" country--nor an emotionally stable one, either.
But you are correct, it does require political will. Personally, I always have a negative reaction when these discussions flare up after a mass shooting incident. I don't think emotional reactions make for good national policy. In this case, the issues of gun control existed before the latest shooting and will continue to exist even if there is not another mass shooting for several years. I am violating my "rule" in this case, because I think that the particularly heinous nature of the crime--of 6 and 7 year old bodies being ripped apart in senseless violence--might provide the impetus to break the national silence on this issue and break the stranglehold that the extremists have on the national discussion.
I don't think there is an answer that is either simple, quick, or definitive. I think we need to have an intelligent and rational discussion that focuses on what is possible, what is effective, and what is constitutional. I sometimes use the analogy of traffic and highway safety, or even deaths from cigarette smoking. Both of these lead to many more deaths than gun violence; both have been addressed on a long-term basis, with a goal of reducing deaths--not by saying that eliminating all deaths is the only standard of "success".
I also fully realize that you can't lump all "gun deaths" into one category. A lot of gun deaths occur in urban areas as a result of crime, gang disputes, etc. Eliminating assault weapons won't impact that at all--that is more of a policing issue, and new strategies of police response have significantly decreased gun deaths in some cities. Random mass shootings require a different response. Here I agree with those who say that eliminating guns is likely not going to eliminate the frequency of mass shooting incidents. However, there seems to be some agreement among criminologists that the goal should be to reduce the number of deaths that occur--and that is where preventing access to assault-type weapons, ammunition, large-capacity magazines can be effective. I'm not an expert in this area so I am not going to jump on a soapbox and argue for specific regulations, but there are plenty of people who are experts and I mainly want to see a more robust national discussion.
I guess I don't want to get stuck at the "because there is no easy solution, there is no reason to try" point, which is where I think we have been as a nation for almost 20 years. And like any national discussion, it means each side is going to have to listen to the other side and understand their legitimate concerns; and it also means that no one is going to get 100% exactly what they want.0 -
the most effective use of time and money, however, would be to target the mental health care in the country rather than banning certain types of guns.
what no one seems to want to talk about is the fact that had the shooter at that school used, say, a shotgun, he would have done the same heinous damage -- or, in fact, it very well could have been worse. so, then, do we ban shotguns, too?0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.
But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.
And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.
You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.
I feel the same way on the issue. You want to own a gun for protection or hunting? Fine. You want an assault rifle or a machine gun? Uh, why?
I agree with both of you.
However, banning the weapon isn't going to make it vanish off the streets. Making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening. See: alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition, black market anything.....etc x infinity.
Spending time writing the bans on assualt weapons is fine and dandy but don't delude yourself that all the owners of those weapons are suddenly going to say, OMG they're ILLEGAL NOW!? Well I guess I will just turn it over to Johnny Law......
My main question that nobody seems to have an answer for: A ban is only effective if you also have a time machine. What are you going to do to put this toothpaste back into the tube? Assault guns are already everywhere, on the street. Banning them only prevents new sales, so what are you gonna do about the (insert big number) guns already on the street?
Is my microphone working?
Should I just leave y'all alone?0 -
There are two possible types of bans: ones which only cover new sales and ones that cover existing guns as well. There is no political will for a ban that would require people to turn in their existing assault weapons. (Incidentally, that's the type of ban Gallup asked about and 51% opposed, as K8 linked to.)
Since guns are not perishable or consumable, you are of course correct ,LL, that a ban on new sales will have little impact. That's probably why no one responded: you are too right!0 -
There are two possible types of bans: ones which only cover new sales and ones that cover existing guns as well. There is no political will for a ban that would require people to turn in their existing assault weapons. (Incidentally, that's the type of ban Gallup asked about and 51% opposed, as K8 linked to.)
Since guns are not perishable or consumable, you are of course correct ,LL, that a ban on new sales will have little impact. That's probably why no one responded: you are too right!
You could do it as a voluntary buy back. Possibly more would do it if they don't have to.0 -
OK, I see a ton of people who are anti- gun asking why anyone needs a "Machine gun" or automatic weapon. They ARE already illegal. No law abiding gun owner has one. But those types of weapons are very popular among gang members who obtain them illegally..
Assault rifles are not necessarily automatic weapons. And why should we own them? Why not? There is nothing intimidating about them other than the name, but of course those of you who know nothing about guns are terrified just by the name.. Essentially, they are just fancy looking rifles but many people actually hunt with them. I prefer shooting my dad's AR 15 over any other gun because it is extremely precise and has very little to no 'kick' in it. His Chinese SKS could take my shoulder off though.
Has anyone seen the photo of the holocaust survivor speaking on America's current state? She warns Americans to gain control of their country, and compares our current position to the start of tyranny in Europe during her childhood.. She recalls as a child in Austria, Hitler being elected with an 80% vote. The changes started with food stamps, public education, nationalized healthcare (sounds like America huh?) then it became food rations, government control of the family and household, etc.... That is how Hilter went from a beloved candidate to a psychotic dictator. Slowly gaining control of the people.
Everyone here is so ignorant to think that a government is not capable of harming it's citizens. That is why the 2nd amendment was put in place to begin with. So the people have the power to defend themselves against enemies. Whether they be foreign or our our government. Tyranny has taken over or been fought in Great Britain, Africa, Asia and all throughout Europe. Why do people think that could not happen here? Truly naive.0 -
If public education leads to Nazism, it must be a very slow process.By 1870, all states had free elementary schools,[6] albeit only in urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
You're the one who's naive if you believe you're going to fight the US military with your dad's AR 15 or SKS. Yes, we the people have to be wary of our government gaining too much power, but the 2nd amendment has very little to do with that. The first, fourth, and fourteenth are more important in that regard.0 -
fbmandy55 - Watch your terminology. The current national on the legal term "assault weapon," which is different from "assault rifle."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._Assault_weapons
Also, stop being so paranoid.0 -
Has anyone seen the photo of the holocaust survivor speaking on America's current state? She warns Americans to gain control of their country, and compares our current position to the start of tyranny in Europe during her childhood.. She recalls as a child in Austria, Hitler being elected with an 80% vote. The changes started with food stamps, public education, nationalized healthcare (sounds like America huh?) then it became food rations, government control of the family and household, etc.... That is how Hilter went from a beloved candidate to a psychotic dictator. Slowly gaining control of the people.
Everyone here is so ignorant to think that a government is not capable of harming it's citizens. That is why the 2nd amendment was put in place to begin with. So the people have the power to defend themselves against enemies. Whether they be foreign or our our government. Tyranny has taken over or been fought in Great Britain, Africa, Asia and all throughout Europe. Why do people think that could not happen here? Truly naive.
I haven't posted here as I'm not a U.S. citizen, but I've read the comments with interest trying to understand the various viewpoints. I can't let this go by, though. Please, please, please, check these "facts". Do a little reading about Hitler. I don't believe he was ever elected in Austria, or for that matter in Germany either, although his appointment as Chancellor was confirmed in a plebiscite. He gained a lot of his power through violence much earlier than that. He had a lot of support from industrialists who saw great opportunity in the nationalism and anti-semitism of the Nazi party. I don't think it went quite the way your post reads.0 -
If public education leads to Nazism, it must be a very slow process.By 1870, all states had free elementary schools,[6] albeit only in urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
You're the one who's naive if you believe you're going to fight the US military with your dad's AR 15 or SKS. Yes, we the people have to be wary of our government gaining too much power, but the 2nd amendment has very little to do with that. The first, fourth, and fourteenth are more important in that regard.
It is pretty clear to me that US citizens need to be able to purchase tanks, cruise missiles, etc in order to keep up with what the government has so that they can fight the US military if needed!0 -
If public education leads to Nazism, it must be a very slow process.By 1870, all states had free elementary schools,[6] albeit only in urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
You're the one who's naive if you believe you're going to fight the US military with your dad's AR 15 or SKS. Yes, we the people have to be wary of our government gaining too much power, but the 2nd amendment has very little to do with that. The first, fourth, and fourteenth are more important in that regard.
It is pretty clear to me that US citizens need to be able to purchase tanks, cruise missiles, etc in order to keep up with what the government has so that they can fight the US military if needed!
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.0 -
If public education leads to Nazism, it must be a very slow process.By 1870, all states had free elementary schools,[6] albeit only in urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
Considering that the secret Muslim cabal had the foresight to doctor public records and newspaper articles 50 years ago and wait patiently for Obama to come to power to destroy America, I'd say that shows they have a lot of patience.0 -
If public education leads to Nazism, it must be a very slow process.By 1870, all states had free elementary schools,[6] albeit only in urban centers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
You're the one who's naive if you believe you're going to fight the US military with your dad's AR 15 or SKS. Yes, we the people have to be wary of our government gaining too much power, but the 2nd amendment has very little to do with that. The first, fourth, and fourteenth are more important in that regard.
It is pretty clear to me that US citizens need to be able to purchase tanks, cruise missiles, etc in order to keep up with what the government has so that they can fight the US military if needed!
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
I also notice that a large portion of them want to ensure that military spending is not cut. Seems counter productive.0 -
I haven't posted here as I'm not a U.S. citizen, but I've read the comments with interest trying to understand the various viewpoints. I can't let this go by, though. Please, please, please, check these "facts". Do a little reading about Hitler. I don't believe he was ever elected in Austria, or for that matter in Germany either, although his appointment as Chancellor was confirmed in a plebiscite. He gained a lot of his power through violence much earlier than that. He had a lot of support from industrialists who saw great opportunity in the nationalism and anti-semitism of the Nazi party. I don't think it went quite the way your post reads.
Quite. Hitler was never elected in Austria - he invaded 'peacefully' in what was known as the Anschluss. He was appointed Chancellor in Germany, not elected, though the National Socialist party he lead did make major electoral gains in the Reichstag. The only direct election Hitler contested was the Presidential election of 1932, which he lost decisively to Paul von Hindenburg. In fact, Hitler's beginnings were as a revolutionary who espoused violence to achieve his aims. The 'facts' presented are inaccurate at best.
The National Socialists did indeed offer food support, public education (or at least Hitler Youth - not quite the same thing) and medical care - the clue to all these policies is is the 'Socialist' part of their name - and achieved popularity among the electorate in this way, with perfectly rational and appealing policies to a German populace still suffering the after-effects of the First World War and the Great Depression. However, their ideological roots, and their enforcement methods, lay in bigotry and thuggery. The situations are not comparable - if you're going to claim historical precedence, checking that the facts actually equate would be wise.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.0 -
Has anyone seen the photo of the holocaust survivor speaking on America's current state? She warns Americans to gain control of their country, and compares our current position to the start of tyranny in Europe during her childhood.. She recalls as a child in Austria, Hitler being elected with an 80% vote. The changes started with food stamps, public education, nationalized healthcare (sounds like America huh?) then it became food rations, government control of the family and household, etc.... That is how Hilter went from a beloved candidate to a psychotic dictator. Slowly gaining control of the people.
Everyone here is so ignorant to think that a government is not capable of harming it's citizens. That is why the 2nd amendment was put in place to begin with. So the people have the power to defend themselves against enemies. Whether they be foreign or our our government. Tyranny has taken over or been fought in Great Britain, Africa, Asia and all throughout Europe. Why do people think that could not happen here? Truly naive.
I haven't posted here as I'm not a U.S. citizen, but I've read the comments with interest trying to understand the various viewpoints. I can't let this go by, though. Please, please, please, check these "facts". Do a little reading about Hitler. I don't believe he was ever elected in Austria, or for that matter in Germany either, although his appointment as Chancellor was confirmed in a plebiscite. He gained a lot of his power through violence much earlier than that. He had a lot of support from industrialists who saw great opportunity in the nationalism and anti-semitism of the Nazi party. I don't think it went quite the way your post reads.
Quite. Hitler was never elected in Austria - he invaded 'peacefully' in what was known as the Anschluss. He was appointed Chancellor in Germany, not elected, though the National Socialist party he lead did make major electoral gains in the Reichstag. The only direct election Hitler contested was the Presidential election of 1932, which he lost decisively to Paul von Hindenburg. In fact, Hitler's beginnings were as a revolutionary who espoused violence to achieve his aims. The 'facts' presented are inaccurate at best.
The National Socialists did indeed offer food support, public education (or at least Hitler Youth - not quite the same thing) and medical care - the clue to all these policies is is the 'Socialist' part of their name - and achieved popularity among the electorate in this way, with perfectly rational and appealing policies to a German populace still suffering the after-effects of the First World War and the Great Depression. However, their ideological roots, and their enforcement methods, lay in bigotry and thuggery. The situations are not comparable - if you're going to claim historical precedence, checking that the facts actually equate would be wise.
FBMandy55 is referring to Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian-American who leads the South Dakota "Eagle Forum." The Eagle Forum is a right wing American political group that fights against twentieth-century progress like equal rights for women. She is not a "Holocaust Survivor," as that term is usually used since she wasn't ever sent to a concentration camp. This is typical of the stuff she spouts at "tea party" gatherings."What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
"I am a witness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We voted him in."
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls. She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers. “Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Not so.
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2013/01/kitty-werthmann-survived-hitler-and.html
She was a witness to history but she either has a bad memory or has a 10-year-old's understanding of what she lived through.
Austria was set to hold a referendum on union with Hitler's Germany, which probably would have been rejected. Rather than let that happen, the Austrian Nazi party staged a coup d'etat and Hitler "just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force," meeting no resistance. After the invasion, the Nazis held a sham election which they claimed to win by 99.7%.
Werthmann's speech is typical right wing hyperbole. The things that brought Hitler to power just happen to be the same things Phylis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum oppose.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline0 -
2013
February 19th
Kim Jong-un achieves in negotiating peace between North and South Korea, forming the foundation for the Greater Korean Republic. He also receives the Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.[5]
Get back to me in a couple of months and let me know how accurate that "prediction" is!0 -
2013
February 19th
Kim Jong-un achieves in negotiating peace between North and South Korea, forming the foundation for the Greater Korean Republic. He also receives the Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.[5]
Get back to me in a couple of months and let me know how accurate that "prediction" is!
Yeah, Yeah... I know that is off... However, Kim Jong-un is already talking about reunification of Korea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/world/asia/north-koreas-leader-kim-jong-un-makes-overture-to-south.html?_r=0
So why don't we just wait and see.... All I'm saying is as much as people like to think that stuff like this is derived from paranoia... doesn't mean that it can't nor it won't happen.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
Anyone who reads the newspapers would know about those things. Kim Jong Il was not a young or healthy man. Kim Jong Un was known to be in the line as long as their was not a soft coup after Il's death. They have been shooting off rockets for the past decade (often to hilarious results).0 -
FBMandy55 is referring to Kitty Werthmann, an Austrian-American who leads the South Dakota "Eagle Forum." The Eagle Forum is a right wing American political group that fights against twentieth-century progress like equal rights for women. She is not a "Holocaust Survivor," as that term is usually used since she wasn't ever sent to a concentration camp. This is typical of the stuff she spouts at "tea party" gatherings."What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.
"I am a witness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We voted him in."
If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.
“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls. She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers. “Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”
Not so.
http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2013/01/kitty-werthmann-survived-hitler-and.html
She was a witness to history but she either has a bad memory or has a 10-year-old's understanding of what she lived through.
Austria was set to hold a referendum on union with Hitler's Germany, which probably would have been rejected. Rather than let that happen, the Austrian Nazi party staged a coup d'etat and Hitler "just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force," meeting no resistance. After the invasion, the Nazis held a sham election which they claimed to win by 99.7%.
Werthmann's speech is typical right wing hyperbole. The things that brought Hitler to power just happen to be the same things Phylis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum oppose.
Ah...thanks for providing the background! I figured it had to be something of the sort, but not being in the US, this charming lady and her misrepresentation of history are unfamiliar to me.0 -
It is hard to imagine that any government that was so hell-bent on controlling its citizens through the use of military force would be the least deterred by a few rifles or machine guns.
But I don't think that the people in the "fight the government" camp have really thought this through--it's more an increasingly frenetic rationalization for their gun fetish.
Who's to say we will never be under such a threat? I don't expect any Red Dawn (original, please) scenarios in my neighborhood anytime soon, but how do we know it couldn't ever happen? Better yet, suppose the current rift between the right and the left becomes so contentious that we end up in another civil war? Far-fetched? Of course. But THAT, to me, is what the second amendment is all about. If something crazy happens, we need the ability to defend ourselves. We can't count on the Air Force to have jets and helicopters at the ready to strafe our neighborhoods. Call me crazy, but if there is a race riot/civil war/invasion, I will have a gun. and many that don't will hope someone they know will loan them one. I know this tragedy has us all feeling a little uneasy, but in other ways we feel WAY too safe. You can just look at 9/11 and see that we aren't always prepared for what could happen next.
It is plausible (a Red Dawn scenario, even the new one)... My husband and I were just discussing this not too long ago... I know this sounds like paranoia (but it's not... it's more like seeing something creepy and now watching apprehensively) BUT my husband went to visit a friend and then bought a video game (yes, I know it's a video game but hear me out here).. that was written in 2010 (?) perhaps earlier because I believe it was also released then as well... called Homefront... now the backstory of this is creepy.... and an ex-CIA agent was consulted on this story to make it plausible.... Anyway the back story had "predicted" (or more acurately calculated) certian times to an almost precise accuracy... The firing of missiles from N. Korea, the death of Kim Jong Il (they were a month off of that date), Kim Jong Un taking the lead, Kim Jong Un speaking to the UN (which he is supposed to do next month)... and on and on.... it was very creepy as it was written before the actual events had unfolded... http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
Anyone who reads the newspapers would know about those things. Kim Jong Il was not a young or healthy man. Kim Jong Un was known to be in the line as long as their was not a soft coup after Il's death. They have been shooting off rockets for the past decade (often to hilarious results).
Yes, but it wasn't until recently that they have been fairly successful with their attempts at firing rockets and nuclear warheads... again, regardless of whether or not it's Korea... it could be just about anyone at this point... My point is, you just never know what is going to happen... and I would rather be able to have a fighting chance of survival than just to lay down and take it.
But back to the actual topic at hand... I agree the most with this editorial. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun0 -
Just popping back in to say the NRA's ludicrous attempts to blame video games for gun violence has caused me to lose all respect for them.
And I used to be a card carrying member (as well as a card carrying Green Party member, tremble with fear, rightwingers! Muahaha!).
Anyway, their attempts to shift the blame is just sad. Guns don't kill people, video games kill people? Really? Will they make that their new slogan?
Sad. You guys running the NRA used to be smarter than that. What the hell happened to you?0 -
If it came down to an armed revolt, you're either a non-American or a moron if you think any significant amount of our military would turn their guns on American citizens. They would be far more likely to join the revolt. Our armed forces are volunteers (to the extent that they are not drafted into duty; they CHOOSE it) who feel very strongly about protecting our freedoms. Their loyalty is to the people, not the governemnt.
So the issue is not about having to fight our own military. It's about living in a country where the only people who are allowed to have guns are politicians, law enforcement officers, and, of course, criminals. There are 300 million guns in this country, about as many as there are people. You can't just pass a law that says guns are illegal and BOOM, all the guns disappear. You're not going to get very many people to give them up voluntarily, and you're not going to force people to give them up without the armed revolt mentioned above.
The thing foreigners don't seem to grasp about America is that we do not consider ourselves to be subjects of our government. WE control THEM, not the other way around. And guns are just about the only way to ensure that that is always the case, which is why the Second Amendment was included in our Constitution. If they were not already afraid of a citizen revolt, the government would've banned all guns of any kind years ago.0
