To you 2nd Amendment freaks out there ...

mulp · #**121** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

And where did you come up with that? Just because someone kills in the name of god does not mean they are christian in fact many things have been done under the guise of religion it is not the religion at fault rather those that twist it to there own means. Cristianity could have never existed and hitler would have done the same thing under some other banner of what he wanted the people to see as truth . Religious killing and in the name of religion has been going on long before christianity bud. The difference these days is you don't see christians in this country blowing up buildings, cafe's , buses etc. in the name of christianity. You sure as hell see it all over the middle east now don't you.

I don't disagree/deny that religion has been used as justification for killing people and all sorts of other things, and that it has gone on for thousands of years. However, perhaps you would care to give other examples that show that Christians haven't been far more zealous in using Christianity for killing people in large numbers. Take for example, Rwanda - those tribal factions were both Christian, so Christianity didn't seem to put a damper on mass murder. Kenya is largely or significantly Christian too. Of course, Stalin was more enlightened; he viewed religion which there would have been Christianity for the most part, as the opiate of the masses, so millions died, though not so much from mass murder, but more from finding people in need of reeducation for their irrational thinking, sending them to gulags where they were able to work through their bad thinking doing productive labor, teaching the intellectuals about the nature of the working man. That these elites weren't tough enough to survive work and died by the millions merely proved the weakness of people of belief, and not muscle.

The Zionist bombed the King David Hotel as they used terrorism to get the British to leave Palestine so the Zionists could establish a Jewish State. That plus other Zionist terrorism including the capture and hanging of British "peace keepers" (they didn't use that term then) were all part of the opposition to British governance of Palestine by the Zionists that led Britain to announce that they were leaving Palestine and if anyone else in the world wanted to deal with the problem, feel free to get the UN mandate to do so. The British leaving Palestine is like what the many Democrats and some Republicans are calling on Bush to do with Iraq.

So, on the one hand, Christianity has sort of provided the leadership in how to really use religion for evil, but it is neither the first nor last to do so.

On the other hand, Christianity has sort of provided the leadership in how to think about liberty and how to promote good, but its is neither the first nor last to do so, with founding of the US growing out of a enlightenment that might not have been as vibrant without the fruits of an Islamic enlightenment in Iberia (think Spain) that was brought to an end by both the conflict between The Church and Protestants and between the barbarian hordes sweeping across a Europe plaqued with plagues. Interesting the line between the two enlightenments is marked by the "discovery" of the Americas, as the Jew Columbus explored the oceans and on his discoveries provided an outlet for many Jews to flee the Inqusition and settle in the Americas, including a very early settlement in what was Mexico for generations until US imperialism invaded and conquered it - we call it Texas these days.

Oh, yeah, we have the cases of Christians killing Mormons, and then the Mormons retaliating and killing Christians.....

You can say that these acts done in the name of Christianity aren't the acts of real Christians, but that implies that Jews killing Christians or Muslims killing Christians or Mormans killing Christians are somehow done by true believing Jews, Muslims, and Mormons.

And religion isn't the only thing that people use to justify political action and especially hatred and denial of liberty. Jefferson attempted to rationalize over the remainder of his life the denial of liberty that he helped create in the Constitution. He and others ended up creating a science that rationalized slavery and racism.

But let's return to Jefferson who, liberal that he was, tried to work through the issues by thinking and writing about them, putting out ideas that captured his thoughts, and that more than anything inspired my writing the original essay

Quote:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Jefferson wrote that comment on liberty and a number of others prompted by the Shay's Rebellion, and I wrote mine prompted by yet another mass murder on a university campus.

mulp · #**122** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipes

Nice try ,simpleton.

Law -abiding is WELL UNDERSTOOD to be a non-felon.

The gunman in Illinios was must be a good law abiding citizen because he was a non-felon, and also very well respected, a good student, and judged to be of good character by those on campus that knew him, including the campus police. And even the police investigators are baffled by his actions, because they are so contrary to everything they have learned about him.

So, again, liberty has its costs because you can't even limit liberty to only law abiding citizens of good character, while denying it to those who aren't, and be safe.

Liberty is a terrible thing, but the alternatives are so much worse.

mulp · #**123** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

Mulp you can not compare a long functioning democracy with a virining one at war with an imbeded army apossed to such. Your comparisons are that of a kid.

So, you are arguing that Iraq should have stayed under the authoritarian government of Saddam?

That Bush's idea of "spreading democracy" was an idiotic idea?

Or are you advocating democracy without liberty?

Or are you saying that if the society is stable and democratic and not prone to the violent use of guns, then more guns to kill people will lead to fewer people being killed.

But if we look at the gun violence and death rates in the US in comparison to those figures for Britain, a pretty much all European nations as well as Japan (the only long standing stable democracy in Asia), they have both lower rates of gun ownership and lower rates of gun violence. And if we look at sort of the exception, Switzerland, we see that mandatory gun ownership seems to be related to Switzerland's higher rate of gun violence relative to its European neighbors.

But let me be clear, I'm for liberty, so you can own as many guns as you want; I will seek to limit my odds from being killed by you and others with guns by seeking to avoid being around people with guns. That I can't always be safe from guns and might be killed by guns is a cost that I accept as a price for my liberty in things that matter far more to me, because I expect you to accept and defend my liberties in other areas more important to me.

All I suggest that you both accept the evidence that more guns means more gun violence, and then clearly state "gun violence is the price of gun liberty, but all liberty has a price, whether it is the liberty to move around in cars which kill far more people than guns, or liberty from government suspicion which might allow small number of terrorist killings for political reasons."

Please don't insult my intelligence and that of rational inquiring minds with the bogus claim that more guns means less gun violence.

satv365 · #**124** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

Maybe it would be smart of you to come up with a plan to keep our college and high school classrooms a little more safe, eh? And while your at it, maybe you'd like to devise a plan to keep the shopping malls free of terrorists, eh? The ball is in your court.

Easy, Colleges and Universities and Malls get shot up. People look to government for protection. People get in a frenzy and demand more Gun Control, and demonize private gun ownership.

Yet, these things continue to happen. They always will continue to happen. No amount of Gun Control will ever stop this, it never has, it never will. End of story.

Perhaps, you should be looking at Campus security. After all, they do pay tuition. At least the White Students, do. Maybe throw in a browse of there security set up before sending little Timmy off to College.

Or better yet, realize this society is full of more mental illness caused by environment. Food, Pollution, Media, etc.

Cheeseburgers don't make Rosie Odonnel a fat ass.
Matches don't cause house fires.
Guns don't cause people to kill.

mulp · #**125** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36shadow

Well then you should know better than now shouldn't you? It is not the gun and if they were all outlawed then the criminals would be making bank. Because criminals without them would still want them and the old supply and demand and shortage do to not being legal would send prices through the roof. Hence making it a land mark buisness for the criminals. Now then what would you have stopped those who choose to kill are going to kill the only thing you are changing is the manner in wich they do it. Take prison and jail for example, Wich by the way has a STRICT NO GUN POLICY they are 100% ILLEGAL in jail and prison. PEOPLE GET KILLED AT WILL THOUGH NOW DON'T THEY. That only goes to prove a point that a killer is going to kill period. You guns kill freaks don't get it. You want a plan how about bring some fucken morals back to our society some national loyalty and civic responsability. The little things that use to count. Like the pledge of allegiance in school (wich gave each kid a sense of loyalty and responsability to there family,neighbot, community and there nation) Not this liberal fucking I'm an individual and out for myself fuck anyone who gets in my way attitude. How about backpeddle with the over the top social services that has done more harm than good. We want to protect those kids that are abuse and tortured. Not punish or take away the right of the parent to dicipline there kids and MAKE THEM LISTEN. Bring back a day when on the news when we see a parent like the black lady making her son stand out on the sidwalk with a sign to teach him a lesson. Other parents say good for her not this LIBERAL BULLSHIT YELLING THAT IS ABUSE MENTAL ABUSE. HOW ABOUT A NATION THAT DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY TO OUR PUBLIC LEADERS , PRO ATHLEATS ETC. ETC. instead of watching them lie, break the law and brag about it AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Look at bill clinton it is not that the man got a blow job hell he probably needed it. But he holds the highest office in this nation and sets the example and he sets a very bad one and we say it's ok WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT OUR KIDS TO LEARN FROM THAT. Movie stars have a revolving door on drug and alcohol rehab yet instead of it ruining there career it is like a boost to it. Mayors get away with it etc. etc. yet down on the average joe level they bust down your door like the fucken second comming and you go to jail no if ands or buts. Gays, little girls and women walk down the street in less shit on and more showing that most did in there bedroom in the past. I can go on and on and on But the problem is not the gun it is the radical liberal let them do there own thing reason with them see what they want to do. These kids are grown up now and the generation behind them are now old enough. Now look what all that is getting us. It is not the gun it is the break down of the moral and civility in our society broght on by radical liberal methods.

So, you are arguing, and I am finding it a bit difficult to understand your argument filled with all your obsession with sexual activity, that the reason for the gun violence isn't the liberty to own guns, but is instead the liberty to think certain things like, gays are natural, or the liberty to express one's self with short skirts, or the liberty to break the bounds of reality using things other than alcohol?

In short, you are saying that liberty to own and use guns is good, but the liberty to think and express and enjoy one's self without causing physical harm to anyone is too dangerous and should be restricted?

noneof yourbusiness · #**126** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 04:14 PM

Euopre is a less violent society then America. You dont need a weapon to protect yourself in western europe. You sure as hell do on America.

You cant avoid criminals and dangerous situations. There may be higher problilties in certain areas but it can happen anywhere.

mulp · #**127** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

Euopre is a less violent society then America. You dont need a weapon to protect yourself in western europe. You sure as hell do on America.

You cant avoid criminals and dangerous situations. There may be higher problilties in certain areas but it can happen anywhere.

Well is the reason its less violent because there are fewer guns or are fewer guns needed because it is less violent.

If you look at Switzerland where every man is required to have a gun (part of their civil defense that has kept Switzerland out of all wars for a couple hundred years), you find that violence is almost as high as in the US and much higher than the rest of Europe where gun ownership is tightly controlled limiting the number of guns, especially guns designed to kill people, that people have. The difference between Switzerland and the US might be explained by every person in Switzerland that owns a gun has military training while most of the people in the US that own a gun haven't had even basic safety training.

36shadow · #**128** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

I don't disagree/deny that religion has been used as justification for killing people and all sorts of other things, and that it has gone on for thousands of years. However, perhaps you would care to give other examples that show that Christians haven't been far more zealous in using Christianity for killing people in large numbers. Take for example, Rwanda - those tribal factions were both Christian, so Christianity didn't seem to put a damper on mass murder. Kenya is largely or significantly Christian too. Of course, Stalin was more enlightened; he viewed religion which there would have been Christianity for the most part, as the opiate of the masses, so millions died, though not so much from mass murder, but more from finding people in need of reeducation for their irrational thinking, sending them to gulags where they were able to work through their bad thinking doing productive labor, teaching the intellectuals about the nature of the working man. That these elites weren't tough enough to survive work and died by the millions merely proved the weakness of people of belief, and not muscle.

The Zionist bombed the King David Hotel as they used terrorism to get the British to leave Palestine so the Zionists could establish a Jewish State. That plus other Zionist terrorism including the capture and hanging of British "peace keepers" (they didn't use that term then) were all part of the opposition to British governance of Palestine by the Zionists that led Britain to announce that they were leaving Palestine and if anyone else in the world wanted to deal with the problem, feel free to get the UN mandate to do so. The British leaving Palestine is like what the many Democrats and some Republicans are calling on Bush to do with Iraq.

So, on the one hand, Christianity has sort of provided the leadership in how to really use religion for evil, but it is neither the first nor last to do so.

On the other hand, Christianity has sort of provided the leadership in how to think about liberty and how to promote good, but its is neither the first nor last to do so, with founding of the US growing out of a enlightenment that might not have been as vibrant without the fruits of an Islamic enlightenment in Iberia (think Spain) that was brought to an end by both the conflict between The Church and Protestants and between the barbarian hordes sweeping across a Europe plaqued with plagues. Interesting the line between the two enlightenments is marked by the "discovery" of the Americas, as the Jew Columbus explored the oceans and on his discoveries provided an outlet for many Jews to flee the Inqusition and settle in the Americas, including a very early settlement in what was Mexico for generations until US imperialism invaded and conquered it - we call it Texas these days.

Oh, yeah, we have the cases of Christians killing Mormons, and then the Mormons retaliating and killing Christians.....

You can say that these acts done in the name of Christianity aren't the acts of real Christians, but that implies that Jews killing Christians or Muslims killing Christians or Mormans killing Christians are somehow done by true believing Jews, Muslims, and Mormons.

And religion isn't the only thing that people use to justify political action and especially hatred and denial of liberty. Jefferson attempted to rationalize over the remainder of his life the denial of liberty that he helped create in the Constitution. He and others ended up creating a science that rationalized slavery and racism.

But let's return to Jefferson who, liberal that he was, tried to work through the issues by thinking and writing about them, putting out ideas that captured his thoughts, and that more than anything inspired my writing the original essay

Jefferson wrote that comment on liberty and a number of others prompted by the Shay's Rebellion, and I wrote mine prompted by yet another mass murder on a university campus.

We are talking about christianity in America, just because they claim christianity over there does not mean they are not doing unchristian things if they are mass murdering in the name of god does not mean god is telling them to kill.

cat's meow · #**129** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:54 PM

This is 13 pages and I keep seeing this one thing...that more guns in a Mall or school would have stopped this guy from killing 5 before someone would have taken him out.

Have any of you that want more guns really read the account at NIU? This guy came in and started firing before ANYONE knew what was going on. He took out five before anyone blinked. Tell me guns being allowed on campus would have stopped this clown? Everyone was taking notes and focused on that in the last ten minutes of class. I have a class where I rehearse a group that even if all twenty of us had guns...if a guy like this came in the middle of rehearsal he could easliy take us all out in about 3 seconds with an AK 47. Nobody would even have chance to grap a gun because their musical instruments in their hands and are very pre-occupied. All these kids in this NIU class were focused on taking notes and trying to pass a class. This f*ckhead did not show up thinking it was 'free gun zone'...he showed up because he could find money people condensed into a confined area. Malls are like this too, it has zero to do with whether it is a 'free gun zone' or not.

I can't tell you the exact answer but for all you Rambos that don't have a clue, more guns would HAVE NOT stopped this guy...no way, no how.

36shadow · #**130** (**permalink**) 02-15-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

So, you are arguing, and I am finding it a bit difficult to understand your argument filled with all your obsession with sexual activity, that the reason for the gun violence isn't the liberty to own guns, but is instead the liberty to think certain things like, gays are natural, or the liberty to express one's self with short skirts, or the liberty to break the bounds of reality using things other than alcohol?

In short, you are saying that liberty to own and use guns is good, but the liberty to think and express and enjoy one's self without causing physical harm to anyone is too dangerous and should be restricted?

So you see nothing wrong with little girls wearing these pants that the waist is so low that they have to shave there pubic hair so it don't show out the top. You think a kid can't express themselves through there personality and acomplishments so you are saying that kids are to shallow to express themselves no other way but to go around half naked in public. You think that a kid has a right to say what is best for them over what there parents say? Then you are part of the problem, Kids are taught by there parents the parents lay down the rules kids don't have to like them they only need to know that it is for good reason and we are trying to teach them something. More important than what hollywood says is important to be a great person yada yada yada wich is only so they can push and sell there shit to them.