Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

clark · 2004-06-07 16:56:50

In short, I respect your mind and the way it works, but not this particular argument.

I just respect you for your body. [shrug] :;): :laugh:

Anyway, I'm off to enjoy some food and drink. I'll chime in later.

I'll beat you good [shakes fist] grrr.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-07 17:41:49

You guys have some nice arguments, but...there's always a butt.

Why don't you use less personal examples and more sources for your arguments.

How about Michael Moore? Ok, I know he's a pushy jerk who distorts things to prove his points and all, but he does have some good arguments too.

I remember watching his movie "Bowling for Columbine" a year or so ago. He was taking the viewer on an 'exploratory journey' to find out why Americans kill eachother with guns so much -- about 30,000 deaths per year -- (quick google source) http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/h … s/decline/

He came to the conclusion that it wasn't because of TV violence or the number of guns on the street, but because of the way our leaders (political, business, spiritual) portray violence as the "American Way".

What do you think?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-07 19:36:56

I remember watching his movie "Bowling for Columbine" a year or so ago. He was taking the viewer on an 'exploratory journey' to find out why Americans kill eachother with guns so much -- about 30,000 deaths per year -- (quick google source) http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/h … s/decline/

I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt with "Bowling for Columbine" and was reasonably impressed. Until he started ragging on Charlton Heston about a kid that got shot, attempted to link the NRA with gun violence. The same old crap.

As for the link. Umm, you do realise that it's a front for gun control groups right? Just look at who they link to, VPC, Brady Campaign etc, these are hardline gun ban organizations with very clear agendas. They found out in 2000 that "gun control" is a losing issue so they've substituted "gun safety" as the buzzword.

If nothing else, that origami swastika in the upper left corner should have been a subliminal warning.

He came to the conclusion that it wasn't because of TV violence or the number of guns on the street, but because of the way our leaders (political, business, spiritual) portray violence as the "American Way".
What do you think?

Well, since you ask, I think that he's oversimplifying matters and overlooking some obvious points. Gun violence, and violent crime in general, is most prevalent in large cities. More people, statistically more crime, right? Well, not exactly. The combination of crowding, ability to be anonymous, relative poverty, breakdown of the family in many of the most impoverished communities and a general lack of respect for life and the ease with which it can be taken come together to give us the situation we know have. Some would have us believe that it is a distinctly American problem, it isn't. London's crime rate has soared, beginning around the time England banned guns, oddly enough.

A moment to wipe off the sarcasm.

Australia's crime statistics indicate the same, Jamaica, South Africa, the list goes on. Guns aren't the problem, they're not even really part of the problem. but banning them sure as hell makes matters worse.

So, back to the original topic, not only can we not 'breed out' aggressive behavior, we can't simply ban certain tools and pretend people are warm and fuzzy goody goodies all the time either.

We can significantly reduce violent crime by raising overall living standards, meaning improving the economy overall and allowing people to keep what they earn, and making them earn it in the first place. Instructing people early on in the proper care and handling of weapons, and in the consequences of using them. Finally, let them have the weapons.

Similar methods can be applied on a larger scale, though with greater diffculty to reduce the occurence of war. With a high relative standard (relative is the key) of living and abundant resources for all, the motives for conflict are reduced. When all parties are armed, the lack of strong motivation to fight coupled with the fear of the consequences will reduce, though never totally eliminate war.

In short, we need to advance and expand. We aren't going to Mars instead of solving problems here, going and staying is part of the solution.

Euler · 2004-06-07 23:58:39

If overcrowding is the problem, then Japan should have the highest crime rate in the world. So why does it have one of the lowest crime rats?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 05:10:49

If overcrowding is the problem, then Japan should have the highest crime rate in the world. So why does it have one of the lowest crime rats?

Overcrowding was just one point in a long list of factors that together collectively cause the sort of crime we have in America and increasingly in other Western nations. Too many people are looking for a single cause because if only they could find that one magic trigger (no pun intended) they could fix it and everything would be swell. Only there isn't one singular cause. The idea that we can fix the problem by banning guns, violent video games, television, or through conflict-resolution classes is asinine. We need to first recognize the nature of the problem, and it runs deep.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-08 08:06:16

I think you just totally ignored my post Cobra.

He came to the conclusion that it wasn't because of TV violence or the number of guns on the street, but because of the way our leaders (political, business, spiritual) portray violence as the "American Way".

What do you think of this?

Why waste your time talking about this --

(quick google source)

All I got from that was the 30,000 number.

The idea that we can fix the problem by banning guns, violent video games, television, or through conflict-resolution classes is asinine. We need to first recognize the nature of the problem, and it runs deep.

The nature of the problem is this -- Too many people (leaders especially) have the idea that violence is the American way.
OK, I've isolated the nature of the problem. Let's talk.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 08:22:49

I think you just totally ignored my post Cobra.
Quote
He came to the conclusion that it wasn't because of TV violence or the number of guns on the street, but because of the way our leaders (political, business, spiritual) portray violence as the "American Way".
What do you think of this?

What I said previously, that any attempt to pin the problem to one single cause is never going to find a solution because it misses the extent of the problem. If our leaders (political, business, spiritual) could change the situation simply by their potrayal of the "American Way" we wouldn't have the problem. The cause is a number of factors, working together in the very fabric of our society. Fixing it will require drastic changes throughout.

Why waste your time talking about this --
Quote
(quick google source)
All I got from that was the 30,000 number.

Just putting it out there for anyone who might mistake it for an unbiased source is all. Relax, I'm not trying to be hostile, just accurate.

The nature of the problem is this -- Too many people (leaders especially) have the idea that violence is the American way.
OK, I've isolated the nature of the problem. Let's talk.

No, you haven't isolated the problem. You've made a nebulous statement based on little or no data, reasoning or experience.

Returning to topic, this coincides with what Scott is suggesting to eliminate aggressive behavior. Focus on a symptom as the problem, attempt to correct it by finding the one magic cause, then wonder why things are worse than before you started. It's an exercise in futility that spreads ruin and misery in the process.

The "violence is the American Way" argument may be part of the problem, but it isn't the sole issue. I'd argue it isn't even a major factor, few gun toting street thugs are out poppin' a cap in someone's ass because they think it makes them good Americans. The causes are more basic, more deeply rooted, and more difficult to correct.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-08 08:44:39

I'd say that 'violence is the American way' isn't just one isolated symptom but the common thread that ties all the other causes of violence together. And, I at least quoted a source.

I agree with much of what you say, but you're being very, very political about it.

"I suggest we commision a committee to study this problem over a period of 50 years." -- Cobra Commander.

What would G.I Joe say?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 09:09:02

I'd say that 'violence is the American way' isn't just one isolated symptom but the common thread that ties all the other causes of violence together. And, I at least quoted a source.

Depending on how you interpret it, and therein lies the problem. It can't be quantified, if it's the cause of violence what causes it? It comes across as a cop-out, and I'm not saying that's your intent. Sourced or not, it really doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the root causes.

I agree with much of what you say, but you're being very, very political about it.

Which is not my intent, though I can certainly see how it could be interpreted that way. I call it as I see it, sometimes it's far from the center. That doesn't mean it's wrong or that it's politically motivated.

"I suggest we commision a committee to study this problem over a period of 50 years." -- Cobra Commander.

Actually, I suggested we introduce mandatory firearms instruction in public schools and begin a vigourous program of national reconstruction involving the revitalization of the domestic manufacturing industries, increased public works projects, military expansion (yes indeed) space development and colonization and top it off with massively reduced taxation on all wages leading to increased employment at relatively higher wages thus truly allowing everyone to succeed, encouraging pride, respect and a traditional family structure while reinforcing these trends with the elimination of government rewards for engaging in behavior and lifestyles detrimental to the good of society.

Okay, I guess it is kinda political.

clark · 2004-06-08 09:26:28

Defending yourself is not murder.

Let me twist your beliefs.

Defending yourself is not murder, no. Killing someone generally is. Now, of course, we are all endowed with the right to defend ourselves when attacked, and we are justified in using any and all necessary force by which to protect our person, and by proxy, our property, when attacked. There is of course the caveat, which is that we may only employ the force necessary to defend ourselves, and no more.

Which is why we may kill an intruder who is breaking into our home through a window, yet we may not shoot someone in the back as they run from our property empty handed.

Mundaka, you're a fine strapping man, and if a small adolescent attacked you (say with their fists), you would have every right to beat that child into submission. Yet, being as capable as you are, and unless absolutely warranted, you would not be justified in beating the child to death or simply shooting him in the face. That would be murder. Why? Simply because you would be employing too much force in the interest of self defense.

This reasoning runs all the way up to nation state sizes- measured responses. It's why we can invade a country with conventional forces, and be justified knowing that we are protecting ourselves, yet not use thermo nuclear weapons. The force is not justified by our need.

So you might be saying, okay, I get it, but what's the point Clark? Well, there isn't much point other than to set some ground rules. If we can accept this basic premise, as I am sure you will, then you must also acknowledge that guns either scare, or kill. There is hardly an in-between, and the effectiveness of a gun is diminished when people are not trained how to use, and shoot them. Many people don't take the time to learn how to effectively use a gun because they never intend to use it. It is primarily a safety blanket, and an item that can be used to ward off danger. When a person like this does use a gun, they endanger all of us because a firearm is a very lethal thing.

It's like giving the car keys to a person who doesn't know how to drive. Sure, they may be able to drive the car, but they put a lot of other people at risk.

Now, the other person who does learn to use a gun effectively, they are less of a danger to you and I, the law abiding citizen. They are in fact more of a danger to those who might attack them. These people know to aim for the center of the body mass, not the limbs. They end up killing their would be assailants more often than not, and in the sadder cases, they end up killing their own friends and loved ones who happen to sneak in to their home to surprise them, or because they missed curfew.

A gun doesn't give us a measured way to respond when our life and liberty is threatened. It is meant to do one thing, which is really nothing more than stopping the thing coming towards you.

Because a gun is a simple and effective tool, we rely on it more readily, even as other alternatives are made available to us. Things like learning self-defense, or stun guns, or mace, or tazers, or any number of other non-lethal forms of self-defense are available to us. But we all tend towards the guns because at the end of the day, knowing you can permanently disable your would-be attacker is a more sure and safer bet.

But there are alternatives.

"White elitest racists"? So . . . being white is as bad as being an elitest or a racist? OK, that's not fair, but neither is it fair to use such a simplistic description: just a few decades before the Revolution slavery was the norm and always had been.

Well, our fore fathers were white. They were elitists. And yes, they were racists. I'm not judging, I'm describing. Prior to the Revolution, slavery was the norm, and you know as well as i do, many of our fore fathers had qualms about it then, and still did nothing. Well, some fathered children by them, or set them free sometime after their own (the owners) deaths. In that way, I suppose they were enlightened and progressive.

To disgard all their thinking on those terms is to similarly disgard all the thinking that came before: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Ciscero, Voltair, good Lord, how many more -- and that's just the West -- how much wisdom are you willing to dismiss?

Who is disregarding their wisdom? By their own admission, their own desire, they wanted future generations of Americans to have a free hand in determining the course of their nation, and how it is governed. You can either memorize their wise words, or be guided by them- your choice.

The greatest minds were still limited by the times in which they lived. Their enlightenment was many times anthers chain. Shall we forever live by the decree of those who came before, or shall we be their equals, and look to improve upon their work?

This is a lightweight argument Clark, and you are not a lightweight mind.

Flattery will get you everywhere. :laugh:

As for a say in your community, do you mean democracy? That system where 50.00000001 percent of the people can decide slavery is legal? No thanks, I'll take a solid contract that binds the government and protects numerical minorities from political enthusiasms of the moment.

LOL! Of course not. I'm pro-Republic. Checks and balances my friend, with a strong judicial branch that can basically give the middle finger to the unwashed masses. It's funny that you bring up slavery though since every man has the noose of the draft hanging over his head- that is the modern day equivalent of slavery, so go figure. (the answer is signifiers and the signified, words are all we got, but I digress...)

You mean you don't love me anymore?

It's just physical :laugh:

Ian Flint · 2004-06-08 15:31:20

Actually, I suggested we introduce mandatory firearms instruction in public schools...

Yet another reason I will teach my own children. :laugh:

military expansion

Since you quote the Book of Mormon in your signature, I will use that terminology. You sound like a freakin' Lamanite, man!

For all the uninitiated: The Lamanites were a warrior race of savages bent on the distruction and/or enslavement of their neighbor race, the Nephites.

encouraging pride

What's that saying...? Pride goeth before distruction? ???

encouraging pride, respect and a traditional family structure while reinforcing these trends with the elimination of government rewards for engaging in behavior and lifestyles detrimental to the good of society

Scary, very slippery slope. Why don't you just eliminate all government rewards for any behaviours and lifestyles and just protect people's freedoms. (I assume you're talking about tax incentives and the like as upposed to Civil Rights, Equal Employment Opportunity, etc.)

I do agree with the following:

increased public works projects...space development and colonization and top it off with massively reduced taxation on all wages leading to increased employment at relatively higher wages thus truly allowing everyone to succeed...

OK, I guess I only agree with a couple of the things you suggest. :laugh:

Hey Cobra, are you really LDS or do you just like to quote Nephi? I would love to attack you from the Mormon angle, too. :;):

Oh, I didn't mean to drop my "American Way" argument. I just had to 'respond' to your 'ideas'.

I'd say that 'violence is the American way' isn't just one isolated symptom but the common thread that ties all the other causes of violence together. And, I at least quoted a source.

Depending on how you interpret it, and therein lies the problem. It can't be quantified, if it's the cause of violence what causes it?

This is what causes it:

Encouraging your kids to play massacre...er...um..."cowboys and Indians"

Standing up and yelling, "Hallalujah!" when the preacher says that Muslims are evil.

Reading some dimented version of Red Riding Hood to three year olds where Red shoots the wolf in the head three times with a handgun <Bam! Bam! Bam!> and then skins him and walks off with a fur coat. This really happened to my little girl at "story time" at the local library -- believe it or not.

Not voting against the President when he leads the nation into a war with Iraq based on lies.

Treating the September 11 terrorist attacks as an act of war and not as a criminal act.

Teaching your children the old Mosaic law of "An eye for an eye" after Jesus gave a better one "Turn the other cheek".

Never once electing a female President in America even though it is generally accepted that women are less violent than men.

This list could go on forever, but I hope you get my point. Fixing these problems would be far more difficult than what you suggest doing, but these are the problems that need to be dealt with. Or, maybe they're just more symptoms but at least I think I'm on the right track.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 18:08:46

Ah hell, we're not gonna get back on topic without fighting this old battle through to completion again...

Quote
Actually, I suggested we introduce mandatory firearms instruction in public schools...
Yet another reason I will teach my own children.

:laugh: good call. Gotta juggle the priorities on some of those reforms.

Quote
military expansion
Since you quote the Book of Mormon in your signature, I will use that terminology. You sound like a freakin' Lamanite, man!

I'm going to assume that you interpreted "military expansion" to mean "increasing territory at the expense of neighbors through military force" when in fact I meant "increasing overall size of the standing military forces." Sorry for any confusion.

Lamanite of all things. I cook my beasts of prey, thank you.

Quote
encouraging pride, respect and a traditional family structure while reinforcing these trends with the elimination of government rewards for engaging in behavior and lifestyles detrimental to the good of society
Scary, very slippery slope. Why don't you just eliminate all government rewards for any behaviours and lifestyles and just protect people's freedoms. (I assume you're talking about tax incentives and the like as upposed to Civil Rights, Equal Employment Opportunity, etc.)

That is what I'm saying. Rights aren't rewards from government and tax incentives, well, I'm for cuts across the board.

I'm getting the impression that the bulk of our disagreements are the result of misinterpretations of each others wording. Thoughts?

Hey Cobra, are you really LDS or do you just like to quote Nephi? I would love to attack you from the Mormon angle, too.

Nope, a purely literary interest.

Oh, I didn't mean to drop my "American Way" argument. I just had to 'respond' to your 'ideas'.
This is what causes it:

See, that's all I was saying, that it needs further breaking down. Another point of agreement!

Encouraging your kids to play massacre...er...um..."cowboys and Indians"

When I was a kid we ran all over the neighborhood with cap guns, blasting away. Neither I nor any one of them ever shot anyone.

Now the kids whose mothers wouldn't let them play with us, they're the ones you gotta worry about.

Standing up and yelling, "Hallalujah!" when the preacher says that Muslims are evil.

Okay, might explain churchgoers shooting Muslims. I don't have any stats on that.

Not voting against the President when he leads the nation into a war with Iraq based on lies.

Or errors, or correct data yet to be verified. We all believe what we want to believe, posterity will determine the truth. And c'mon, we haven't even had the chance to vote against him over those issues.

Treating the September 11 terrorist attacks as an act of war and not as a criminal act.

Okay, say we indict bin Laden and put a warrant out for him. Then what? What about future attacks? We can either try to prevent them, or treat them as a criminal act, meaning responding after the fact.

Were I a terrorist, I know which way I'd be hoping for... How do you say "I plead the Fifth" in Arabic?

Never once electing a female President in America even though it is generally accepted that women are less violent than men.

:laugh: Haha!

Seriously, now you're just venting.

Teaching your children the old Mosaic law of "An eye for an eye" after Jesus gave a better one "Turn the other cheek".

Yeah, sometimes it works out. But mostly you just get hit some more. Not much deterent value either.

This list could go on forever, but I hope you get my point. Fixing these problems would be far more difficult than what you suggest doing, but these are the problems that need to be dealt with. Or, maybe they're just more symptoms but at least I think I'm on the right track.

You actually make some good points, despite my jibes. So what do you suggest? Sincerely curious.

FrankPoole · 2004-06-08 21:02:38

I have drafted a Martian constitution that contains provisions intended to minimize the probability that warfare will occur on Mars.
Throughout human history, we have used warfare to keep human populations at ecologically sustainable levels. Now that we have birth control pills, condoms, and family planning services, we can control our own population without warfare.

This scheme sounds like the pre-WWII Kellog Briand Pact, essentially declaring war illegal. I'm sure your provisions will give the same brevity of peace.

Actually, we don't fight wars to keep down the population. We fight them (at least the West) for the most part, to combat tyranny. Not always successfully or with satisfactory end results, but this is at least the ideology.

Yes, birth control has been very effective at controlling our population. Controlling western populations to the point where we are dying. Take a look at Scandanavia, South Korea, or Japan and you'll see where the US is headed. Want to see the war with the barbarians won without a shot? Let them outproduce us in the bedroom.

FrankPoole · 2004-06-08 21:17:19

The Hutterites are the most successful people on this planet and they are pacifists. They do not spend their time and money building weapons.

Scott, the example of the Hutterites you mention is really amusing. Fundamentalist Christians who have a noted distain for birth control. No one BUT a people with strong moral values can settle Mars. The Hutterites know that a stable society is based on the family unit, a growing population, and separation of church and state. I hope that my fellow colonists have a higher moral authority than the state structure that you espouse.

FrankPoole · 2004-06-08 21:51:31

I'ld be happier if the saturday night specials were done away with- if you want a gun, why hide it?

Don't poor people have the right to defend themselves?

clark · 2004-06-09 06:49:21

Don't poor people have the right to defend themselves?

Yes.

Do people have a right to cheap firearms, which in essence makes them disposable?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 07:07:01

Quote
Don't poor people have the right to defend themselves?

Yes.
Do people have a right to cheap firearms, which in essence makes them disposable?

Even expensive firearms are often discarded after used in a crime, the cost is not really a factor. Unless you happen to live in a high-crime area and can't afford to spend $600 on a Glock.

Guns, cheap or otherwise, aren't the problem.

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 10:17:18

Bill White · 2004-06-09 10:28:21

If all gun owners were like Mundaka, gun control would not be an issue for me. If he comes to Chicago and we NewMarsians all eat dinner together, I would not be the least concerned with his carrying a weapon.

Fair warning, the Chicago police and the airlines won't be as understanding. :;):

That said, there are so many yahoos out there who have no business owning a gun OR driving a car. What do we do about them?

= = =

For the record, if I drove trucks around the American Southwest, buying a gun (a Glock!) makes a good deal of sense. Carrying a gun while I go shopping at Oakbrook Mall or Water Tower Place on Michigan Avenue is hardly necessary and

The last thing I want to do is to allow carrying a gun to give me a false sense of security if I choose to travel into Chicago's more unsafe neighborhoods.

= = =

PS - - Sometimes the sales clerks at Crate & Barrel will only pay attention IF you have a gun. . .

Bill White · 2004-06-09 10:31:58

The Hutterites are the most successful people on this planet and they are pacifists. They do not spend their time and money building weapons.
Scott, the example of the Hutterites you mention is really amusing. Fundamentalist Christians who have a noted distain for birth control. No one BUT a people with strong moral values can settle Mars. The Hutterites know that a stable society is based on the family unit, a growing population, and separation of church and state. I hope that my fellow colonists have a higher moral authority than the state structure that you espouse.

Frankly, I agree.

Now, how do we persuade such people to try?

clark · 2004-06-09 10:35:01

Actually, here in Texas you may kill a man who is fleeing with your car. Carjacking here is rare to unknown

Perhaps there are less car-jackings because of the cars...[ahem] I mean, trucks, that are being driven.

Well, to devolve back to the individual application of force, what if you are trying to stop a carjacking? Do you use your definition of justified force -- not to shoot a fleeing thief -- to derail a law that works very well here?

Killing someone over a car? What does your religion teach you?

Isn't the wanton application of your cultural system a form of cultural nonreletavism? (Would you consider California culture to be identical with our culture in Texas?)

Perhaps, but I see it as the valuation of life. Perhaps it's different in Texas.

Who is more the bully, the thief who preys upon your family, or the "legitimate authority" who forces you to submit to that predation -- and then demands that you pay him for your submission? Still, I see your main point and its a good one.

They are both bullies, in either instance. It need not be an either or situation. It comes back to justified force. We can't violently revolt against the State unless all other options to otherwise influence a change in the State are unavailable. You can't kill unless you have no other choice.

I think, in the case of a car jacking, there are other choices available to an individual other than killing the guy taking the car. There are alternatives. That said, sometimes it may be neccessary, and I can understand that. But it isn't so black and white as to be in every instance that killing should be our first and only option.

Experienced drivers also make mistakes, sometimes fatally. More than gun owners anyway -- would you ban cars?

No, I would do the same thing we do now- gross violations, or incompetance results in you permanently (or temporarily) losing the privelage to drive legally. We revoke the right for violent felons and wife beaters to possess a weapon, because we have good reason too. It's taking calculated risks to imrpve the saftey of society in general.

OK, anecdote time: as a gun owning, gun toting citizen, I've almost never pointed one at anybody in civilian life, and never pulled the trigger: I always used other methods first and so far that has proven sufficient -- so by my actions you can see I agree with you. I just want the option, that's all.

As do I, and I applaud your restraint. However, it isn't always shared by others. That responsibility you exhibit isn't shared. If everyone was a good person, we wouldn't need laws (or guns for that matter). But not everyone is, just like not everyone should be driving. Yet we have the means to take the bad drivers off the road, but nothing for bad gun owners.

This whole argument, and the way you present it, is rife with contradictions and contradictions of your contradictions. Its unworthy of you. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Seriously, tell me how. I'll clean it up if you show me what's wrong. Our fore fathers gave us the possibility to change the document that binds us, and governs us. They did that for the reason. I'm more inclined to look at the overall direction, as opposed to the left and right turns on the map they provided.

You have such good taste. :laugh:

No I don't. I'm just your run of the mill misanthrope.

Mundaka · 2004-06-09 10:40:08

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 10:44:29

If everyone was a good person, we wouldn't need laws (or guns for that matter). But not everyone is, just like not everyone should be driving. Yet we have the means to take the bad drivers off the road, but nothing for bad gun owners.

Clark, c'mon now, you're really not in top form for this discussion. We have all manner of laws to deal with "bad gun owners," far more than with "bad drivers." As you mentioned, violent felons lose that right.

Guess what happens if they try to get a gun anyway?
By entering the gunshop with intent to purchase they commit another felony, five years in prison if I'm not mistaken. If they actually touch a gun, that's another felony. To buy it they get that yellow form with the ten questions, if they lie that's yet another felony for each line they wrongly asnwer "no" to, pointless given the NIC system in place now. Just by trying to acquire a firearm the "bad gun owner" can conceivably be locked away for life.

Gun Control Act of 1964. Don't need any more. Just better, more easily accessible training.

Quote (Bill White @ June 09 2004, 10:28)
That said, there are so many yahoos out there who have no business owning a gun OR driving a car. What do we do about them?
Shoot them.

:laugh: I almost said it but refrained. Thanks for takin' the heat off.

Bill White · 2004-06-09 10:51:33

That said, there are so many yahoos out there who have no business owning a gun OR driving a car. What do we do about them?
Shoot them.

As always, who decides?

Edit: The problem with this is that every gang-banger gets one free shot and there is collateral damage from shutting him down.

Entire cities should have the right to be like those old-West casinos, check your shootin' irons at the door before coming in.

= = =

As for dinner, thanks. Let me buy some Kevlar first, from what I read, Texas is a free fire zone.

= = =

I actually lived in Dallas from age 6 months to age 4 years old and my dad's college degree is from SMU.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-09 11:33:16

Entire cities should have the right to be like those old-West casinos, check your shootin' irons at the door before coming in.

Except that cities are where honest, law-abiding citizens need guns the most.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-06-07 16:56:50

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#52 2004-06-07 17:41:49

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#53 2004-06-07 19:36:56

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#54 2004-06-07 23:58:39

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#55 2004-06-08 05:10:49

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#56 2004-06-08 08:06:16

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#57 2004-06-08 08:22:49

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#58 2004-06-08 08:44:39

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#59 2004-06-08 09:09:02

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#60 2004-06-08 09:26:28

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#61 2004-06-08 15:31:20

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#62 2004-06-08 18:08:46

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#63 2004-06-08 21:02:38

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#64 2004-06-08 21:17:19

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#65 2004-06-08 21:51:31

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#66 2004-06-09 06:49:21

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#67 2004-06-09 07:07:01

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#68 2004-06-09 10:17:18

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#69 2004-06-09 10:28:21

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#70 2004-06-09 10:31:58

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#71 2004-06-09 10:35:01

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#72 2004-06-09 10:40:08

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#73 2004-06-09 10:44:29

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#74 2004-06-09 10:51:33

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

#75 2004-06-09 11:33:16

Re: Selecting Peace - Abandoning Warfare

Board footer