Godlessness To Blame For Sandy Hook
Offline
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/ex-snl-star-victoria-jackson-links-massacre-to-abortion/story-e6frfmqi-122653801010...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline Meh, theism is partially or fully responsible for nearly every war in the last 5000 years. I think that beats out a few school shootings. Which are also at least partially the responsibility of theism, by the way.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since most soldiers wear clothes, clothing must be to blame for all the wars! Not.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since most soldiers wear clothes, clothing must be to blame for all the wars! Not.
LOL, I think ALL soldiers wear clothes...
However, people don't tend to kill each other over their differing beliefs about fashion.
- Login to post comments
Offline Since most soldiers wear clothes, clothing must be to blame for all the wars! Not.
- Login to post comments
Offline
So executing drug smugglers and dealers means what for gun control?
Uh okay. China is known around the world as a major humans rights violator.
For their own purposes they have quite logically deprived the people any means of resistance. ( Chairman Mao's quotation about the barrel of a gun ).
They deal with their criminals and even government critics with appalling brutality. Remember Tiananmen Square, 1989 ? Amnesty International's "conservative estimate" is that China executes three times as many people as the rest of the world combined.
But despite disarming their people and treating them like shit they still have Most Favored Nation Status with the US so I guess they must have some redeeming qualities, right ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Since most soldiers wear clothes, clothing must be to blame for all the wars! Not.
Fail.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:The primary purpose of protecting citizen ownership of arms is for the eventuality that when the government fails or becomes tyrannical the regular citizens have a method to fight.
Really? Is this valid?
1) who decides when to rise up against the government? When is that armed militia created? Who decides they are not a bunch of nut-jobs posing a direct danger to the general public? If all the Rapturists decided to take up arms to hasten the second coming, because some preacher said the current government was stopping it from happening (crazy example admittedly), would this be a valid uprising? What's tyrannical to some is standard operations to others. Do guns really help this, or just cause more problems?
2) In any situation of a tyrannical government where the public feel the need to rise up against it, this presupposes that the military would still be under the control of the government (otherwise, who are the rebels fighting?). Frankly, the US military against a bunch of individuals with peashooters (even the biggest privately owned guns are peashooters compared to helicopter gunships and fighter jets) would be a complete massacre. I fail to see how guns would help here. The only way to succeed in such a situation is to get the military on your side, which means swaying public opinion to the extent that a significant section of the military would desert and join the side of the rebels (Like what's happened in Egypt, Libya, Syria), or have international support and proper weaponry from other nations with vested interests.
Regarding your point about Heller, I agree that this is a grey area in current US law, and the supreme court has come down on the side of individual rights to bear arms in recent times. However, I do not believe this was the intention of those who wrote the second amendment originally- in my opinion this has happened because of the increased lobbying power of the NRA and associated groups who have managed to twist the intentions of the authors to suit their purposes. The original intention was the point I was trying to get at in my previous post.
1) The people who want to rebel decide, whether or not it is valid will depend on who the victor is. No doubt they will be portrayed as nuts, unless they win, just like the confederates are routinely portrayed as evil racist bastards and the British empire portrayed as a terrible tyranny. Winners write history.
2) Defeating the US military would be exceptionally hard, it is the strongest military the world has ever seen. In a revolt situation air power wouldn't matter much, no doubt dropping bombs domestically would be the fastest way to get people to side with the nuts. I imagine such a war would have to be fought using guerilla tactics and any hope would require help from within the military. Having an armed citizenry certainly improves your odds.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline
Defeating the US military would be exceptionally hard, it is the strongest military the world has ever seen. In a revolt situation air power wouldn't matter much, no doubt dropping bombs domestically would be the fastest way to get people to side with the nuts.
Yes, how ironic that perhaps thousands of pro-Obama citizens would themselves become collateral damage in a full scale war. Remember the Iraq war and all the unintended civilian deaths caused by the US military ? Great way to win "hearts and minds".
I imagine such a war would have to be fought using guerilla tactics and any hope would require help from within the military. Having an armed citizenry certainly improves your odds.
Not to mention that in MOUT style warfare the US military recognizes that the tactical advantage lies with the defenders. Military personnel who blindly enter the buildings to attack enemy combatants suffer a much higher rate of fatalities due to enemy ambushes and booby-traps.
- Login to post comments
Offline digitalbeachbum wrote:
So executing drug smugglers and dealers means what for gun control?
Uh okay. China is known around the world as a major humans rights violator.
For their own purposes they have quite logically deprived the people any means of resistance. ( Chairman Mao's quotation about the barrel of a gun ).
They deal with their criminals and even government critics with appalling brutality. Remember Tiananmen Square, 1989 ? Amnesty International's "conservative estimate" is that China executes three times as many people as the rest of the world combined.
But despite disarming their people and treating them like shit they still have Most Favored Nation Status with the US so I guess they must have some redeeming qualities, right ?
Never said I liked China.
Plenty of people within China have guns. They are the people with money and who are bribing the government to run illegal services, drugs and baby adoptions, etc. China is a corrupt capitalist tyrannical authoritarian government controlled by the rich. People with less money and power are tossed around like used rags or used as foot rests, there are extremely poor people in China who make poor people here in the US look like the middle class.
- Login to post comments
David defeats Goliath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare
Images can be found at this web-site: http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2009/06/mass-executions-how-china-celebrates.html or just do a Google search, "Chinese execution, drug dealers"
So executing drug smugglers and dealers means what for gun control?