I Hate Surveys
-
I don't take survey's unless I get something out of it immediately. What difference is it to have companies do to just have the government or other companies buy it? Privacy is a bit of a joke since you don't have any privacy in the private sector from other citizens or corporate ones. I don't know what you think of concealed weapons laws, but they aren't a panacea of crime prevention, interception, etc. Take this situation for example http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060729&slug=webshooting29m1[^]. The guy in question was a little loose in the head and shot up the place. Motive can change and so can the actors, but the play is still repeated. They have open carry where I live. It reminds me of the old west six shooters. I think its funny to see. Then again I don't feel like I need a gun to feel safe in the world. I've heard a great many excuses for doing all kinds of things, just to make someone feel safer about some situation. Bottom line is you're going to die sometime and there is nothing you can do about it. Being afraid of your fellow man coming to get you that much is quite astounding paranoia and a distraction from all the things that can be fixed that are caused by man.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
Being afraid of your fellow man coming to get you that much is quite astounding paranoia and a distraction from all the things that can be fixed that are caused by man.
Wow, what a paradoxical statement. Government is made of people, they command subordinates to enforce their wishes on mankind with absolute force if necessary. That is a reason to be afraid of your fellow man. Another reason, people are animals just like the rest of life on this planet. Some like Ted Bundy or Stalin like to kill poeple. Mao killed 80 million people in a short amount of time. WHen someone comes to rape your wife or drag you away to be murdered, you would like to be able to instantly pop him dead with the pull of a trigger.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
overstepping government
Tell me, when if the US government overstepped and had military support, what weapons could the general public have the would equal the weaponery of the government?
Steve Jowett ------------------------- Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is obvious.
Whats keeping us from winning the Afghan war? Our high tech weaponry isn't as useful when the enemy is in plain clothing, going about their daily routines.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
How about that, http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3529051/Re-PERFECT-CITIZEN-program-places-sensors-througho.aspx[^] Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of falling into the "loop" that I mentioned in my Backroom post, but you can see something similar happening here. Of course the NRA members are going to answer no, it is self reinforcing, I'd take issue with the final two: Do you support the passage of a new law which would hold gun owners criminally responsible if their gun is used in a crime, even if the gun is stolen?
Is this really the case? I doubt such a law would stand, in the UK we have shotgun licensing (mainly to weed out nutters from getting shotguns) anyone who doesn't secure their guns correctly gets spanked (and the cabinets are checked yearly). If someone hasn't taken reasonable measures to secure their guns, then they deserve criminal actions. Do you agree with anti-gun extremists who claim that gun registration, gun owner licensing, closing gun shows, and outright gun bans would help prevent future terrorist attacks on our nation?
"anti-gun extremists" is pejorative. How is this an extreme position? Restricting access to guns probably would help, but this needs to be matched against personal freedoms. The benefit in a pure counter-terrorist sense must be pretty small as they can get the guns by other means. I doubt anyone would argue for gun registration solely on the grounds of counter-terrorism, and if they do they should be rightly flamed. There are other good arguments for a degree of registration (if only to weed out nutters like the UK). I really (honestly) don't understand the US citizenry's attachment to this amendment. I can understand the historical reasons why it is there, but who are you all bearing arms against? It puzzles me why is it considered reasonable to garner an arsenal of weapons (not just guns), and why would you need such a thing? Are the Canadians really that scary :-) ?ragnaroknrol The Internet is For Porn[
Keith Barrow wrote:
outright gun bans would help prevent future terrorist attacks on our nation?
What's actually humorous about that to me is that I can't remember the last terrorist attack that used a gun. They seem to prefer explosives.
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
-
Opinion Polls[^] Classic!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
That's exactly what crossed my mind when I was reading Simmons's post!
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!)
-
Whats keeping us from winning the Afghan war? Our high tech weaponry isn't as useful when the enemy is in plain clothing, going about their daily routines.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
But, there is no war in Afghanistan. It's just for show. Pay attention!
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
overstepping government
Tell me, when if the US government overstepped and had military support, what weapons could the general public have the would equal the weaponery of the government?
Steve Jowett ------------------------- Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is obvious.
Sheer numbers would probably be enough. There are man more citizens than there are troops, and I'd bet that many of the federal troops would be reluctant to fire on citizens. Beyond that, tell me how successful Russia or the US have been in Afghanistan. The insurgents there use AK-47's and stolen heavier weapons (like RPGs) and are using guerrilla tactics exclusively. Seems to me that a conventional fighting force can't possibly win a war like that. Look at what happened to the French and the US in Vietnam as evidence.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
a disarmed public is reduced to being subjects (instead of citizens)
Never owned a gun, and probably never will. Here in the UK that makes me a citizen not a criminal (with the exception of sport hunting, which is a minority sport here). As for arming the public to defend against an overstepping government! Most of the westwern world is ruled by democratic government systems, and so any overstepping government is removed in the next elections. There are countries where members of the public take up guns to fight the government. These are called dictatorships, and if the gun toting maniacs do take over they become anarchies. Defence against criminal activity is more like it, however we have had quite a few gun related killings in recent years. Guess what, most the 'victims' were also criminals. The others were just caught in the cross fire, like that guy recently, inocently standing near a drug dealer at two in the morning ... hmm... Guns! I wouldn't trust most people with a piece of string!
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wrote:
There are countries where members of the public take up guns to fight the government.
You mean like America?
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wrote:
These are called dictatorships, and if the gun toting maniacs do take over they become anarchies.
Yeah just like it happened in America - big dictatorship that we are.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
overstepping government
Tell me, when if the US government overstepped and had military support, what weapons could the general public have the would equal the weaponery of the government?
Steve Jowett ------------------------- Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is obvious.
Steven J Jowett wrote:
Tell me, when if the US government overstepped and had military support, what weapons could the general public have the would equal the weaponery of the government?
Are you kidding? There are 200 MILLION guns in private hands in this country, and a military that's made up of just under 3 million volunteers, at least half of which I suspect would switch sides immediately. God forbid it ever happens. But if the worst did happen, it would be over in a matter of hours.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
-
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wrote:
There are countries where members of the public take up guns to fight the government.
You mean like America?
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wrote:
These are called dictatorships, and if the gun toting maniacs do take over they become anarchies.
Yeah just like it happened in America - big dictatorship that we are.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
This is where it all goes wrong of course. My point is that America fulfils none of these things so why the guns? America have never had the public take up guns to fight the government, the American civil war was between different states and fought by armies put together by the two sides. America tends to fight against dictatorships, and has always had a democratic form of government.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
-
This is where it all goes wrong of course. My point is that America fulfils none of these things so why the guns? America have never had the public take up guns to fight the government, the American civil war was between different states and fought by armies put together by the two sides. America tends to fight against dictatorships, and has always had a democratic form of government.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles at it. Margaret Fuller (1810 - 1850) [My Articles] [My Website]
The Man from U.N.C.L.E. wrote:
America have never had the public take up guns to fight the government
This is simply wrong. America was forged in EXACTLY that crucible. The opinions of the founders regarding government and power were formed in the run-up to the revolutionary war (between our two countries*), which is why the Bill of Rights exists. Events from all over the world after the founding of the country have only confirmed the need for the citizens of a country to assert their control over their governments - peaceably if at all possible, but assert them regardless. The 1st amendment is the preferred method of preventing tyranny. The 2nd amendment exists in case the 1st amendment fails. * I point this out not to be condescending, but because I'm not sure if Brits have a different name for the event.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
