rehmwa 2 #101 February 1, 2006 Quoteit IS feasible to fight against a government without violence.......What you seem to be implying He stated it was done once, and it was in a vastly different culture. I don't think that means it's "feasible" in the general sense. Issues of government protest and change rarely take cost effectiveness into the formula. But we can always hope it's doable. I imply nothing. But I do conflict my normal statement that people are people everywhere vs the statement that USA and India are very different cultures. chew on that. I think Americans bluster a bit, but are just as desirous of peaceful solutions as the next guy. And even the bluster thing is typical of all people, not just us. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #102 February 1, 2006 QuoteHow many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Just to be sure- what is your definition of an illegal gun? Is a gun in the possesion of someone not legal to own one an illegal gun? That process can happen many ways. A owner gets a felony conviction for anything and those guns have changed status. I don't see it as the guns being illegal in that case however, as they could simply be given to someone else and they are legal again. Granted some guns are illegal and a few states have registration issues, but for the sake of your question could you please define "illegal guns" for everyone? ... That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #103 February 1, 2006 Quote He was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. Not only is it feasible, but it's a LOT more likely to succeed. One person stopped a tank in Tiannamen Square. With a gun woul've been fodder. One person refused to give up a seat on a bus, and started a process that ended segregation in America. No gun. One person gave a speach about one of his dreams, and continued the process that ended segregation in America. Ironically, it was a gun that ended his dream. One person led India through a peaceful revolution by praying and talking. I meet a lot of Americans who hold onto their guns in an idea that it somehow protects them from the government. I can't think of many recent examples of that actually working. Every example that I can think of, where a citizen arms himself against the government and stands up, it ends badly. Ruby Ridge, Waco, or even the Oklahoma bombing works as an example - standing up against the government while armed never works. Standing unarmed and inspring others seems to do a much better job. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #104 February 1, 2006 ssshhhh, don't tell anyone.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #105 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. Amd how come you don't mention how royally they got screwed in the partition that ensued of Pakistan-India by your beloved UK?. Of course we can assume that long memory can also fail, could it? Yes, no a single drop of blood.."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #106 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. Amd how come you don't mention how royally they got screwed in the partition that ensued of Pakistan-India by your beloved UK?. Of course we can assume that long memory can also fail, could it? Yes, no a single drop of blood.. So they would NOT have gotten fucked if they had started a war instead? NO resistence, violent or passive, comes without a cost. And I don't think the idea of "no blood" was mentioned in relation to passive resistence. You added that.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #107 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Most "guns" that started as "legal" weapons, are still "legal" weapons. Now, that is not to say that some criminals own "legal" guns illeagally! But, to follow your logic ( and twist it a bit) cars kill people too, they are stollen and are owned by crimials. (and that doen't make them illegal cars) Shouldn't we , by extention of your logic, make cars illegal too, and should be controlled then confiscated?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #108 February 1, 2006 NO resistence, violent or passive, comes without a cost. Quote Niether does freedom....real or percieved."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #109 February 1, 2006 alrighty.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #110 February 1, 2006 Do I need to point you the the war they actually started, which was a civil one (considering there was no Pakistan before that). Check on the first Kashimir war, 1947, during Gandhi's India. Yes, indeed I like your solution better, get fucked over 30 years and letting the colonialists kill/control your life in every way they want, is far better option.....It's great option!!!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #111 February 1, 2006 Its NOT my solution. But I am defending as an option. And one that actually has validity. War and fighting does not solve everything. And even if it does gain a final outcome that can be accepted, it does not mean the cost along the way was not just as bad or worse than a passive struggle. Or that the battle will not be just as protracted and painful. Sometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #112 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Most "guns" that started as "legal" weapons, are still "legal" weapons. Now, that is not to say that some criminals own "legal" guns illeagally! But, to follow your logic ( and twist it a bit) cars kill people too, they are stollen and are owned by crimials. (and that doen't make them illegal cars) Shouldn't we , by extention of your logic, make cars illegal too, and should be controlled then confiscated? Cars are already registered and illegal if not registered. However, to clarify my original question, there are many illegally owned guns in circulation (such as guns in the possession of felons). What is the process by which a legally owned gun becomes an illegally owned one, and I'll add, what should law abiding citizen gun owners do to prevent their guns from becoming illegally owned? Do you believe they have any responsibility in the matter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #113 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Just to be sure- what is your definition of an illegal gun? ... Will this do? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1213694#1213694... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #114 February 1, 2006 QuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #115 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? No, just eliminate your biases and think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #116 February 1, 2006 What the hell are you talking about Kallend. My Biases? You linked me to an old post by Chuck Blue talking about CCW? I simply asked you what you meant by "Illegal Gun" in YOUR question so that it could be answered properly. While I have never yet gotten a serious answer from you about anything, I actually thought you might this time. Why is it so difficult for you to answer questions. I feel so sorry for your students. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #117 February 1, 2006 QuoteHe was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. What you seem to be implying though is that Americans MUSt solve such problems with violence because we are incapable of such peaceful means. The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues. This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views. If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system. And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #118 February 1, 2006 QuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #119 February 1, 2006 QuoteThen you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Hell yes.....I support it completely BUT I want the REST of them supported equally Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #120 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Totally. Always have been. Always will beWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #121 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuote He was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. >>>>I agree. Violence should be a last resort. But let's just suppose a tyranical government doesn't give a rip if you don't like things. Suppose every time you stood up in front of a tank it smashed you flat. Suppose everytime you demonstrated against the government they marched you off to prison or secretly murdered your family. What would you do then...If things get bad enough violence may be the only option possible. - standing up against the government while armed never works. >>>>I almost have to laugh at this. You aren't looking very closely at history if you say that. Look at any successful revolution where one government replaced another, and I'll bet a whole lot of violence went along with it. Peaceful demonstration can be a powerful thing, but suppose it isn't allowed. Hell no, I'm not radical enough to think that violence is the answer for every situation, but sometimes it's the only option left. Ruby Ridge was not a rebellion. It was a man defending his family against over-zealous feds. Waco was a group of nut cases who burned themselves up in the name of their religion. Oklahoma city was a group of other nut cases setting off bombs. None of these qualify as a rebellion against the government in my mind. Surely there are better examples than these when looking back in history. But I guess these groups of crazies fit your argument better. I already mentioned Iraq, and Vietnam. Kallend mentioned Iran and the Russians. (And I know they were being resupplied by the Americans). These are just a very small number of revolutions where a revolution went on, often successfully, and involved a whole lot of violence. ( And I truly hope we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but I also have my doubts.) There's any number of 3rd world countries in South America or Africa who have revolted and overthrown the present government. I can't think of many who did it peacefully. So, my point is that standing up against the government using arms can and does work. Not in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort. But it has been done over and over again, successfully throughout history...Steve1 _Am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #122 February 1, 2006 QuoteNot in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort Can I be in charge of Booby traps??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 February 2, 2006 QuoteI have never owned a firearm so I can't have one confiscated. I am not so stupid as to think any weapon I can own would make me a match for the current US military. Fine, but why are you acting so stupid that you seem to believe it would be YOU with your PUNY WEAPON against the "current US military"? We are talking about multitudes. Each may have "only" a good quality hunting rifle. But do you need more than that to pick off a single soldier in the woods from a hidden vantage point? Are you saying that sniping is not an effective military tactic? No one said it had to be a single guy with his .308 to take on the entire military, kallend. You're an engineer, right? Do you design and build strawmen for a living? QuoteBy not owning a firearm there is NO chance that I can have a gun stolen and pass into criminal hands. Something you legal gun enthusiasts consistently ignore is the process by which you allow legal guns to become illegal guns. I have never "allowed" that to happen. Should I be punished (via confiscation of the guns I have never allowed criminals to get possession of) for never having provided a gun to a criminal? You'd better give up your car, kallend. Cars are stolen all the time, joyrided, and used to collide with and kill innocent people. YOU could be the next person who provides a lethal car to a criminal. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. The only time, it seems to me, that pacifists win against those who are capable and willing to use violence, is when the latter people decide of their own accord not to just kill the pacifists and be done with them. Is it possible that people who are so-called "pacifists" succeed in compelling the violence-doers to back down do so because there actually is a threat, implied in a larrrrrrge number of pacifists, that if the killing attacks started, the millions and millions of pacifists would just renounce pacifism and fight, with overwhelming numbers on their side? Maybe the pacifists won simply because the belligerents were afraid that if they initiated violence, the millions of pacifists would simply turn into combatants overnight. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? How many of them are stolen (or lost) from the cops or the military? Would you advocate against their having guns the way you do against civilians having guns, just because they could end up in criminals' hands? I was living on Long Island when, in the mid '90s, a parks police station was broken into and a few dozen GLOCK pistols were stolen -- sure to end up in criminal hands since one had to be a criminal to do the break-in in the first place. Kallend, you talk a line of shit, here. You say, on the one hand, that you "support the second amendment" (i.e. you support the right to keep and bear arms); but I suspect that you do so ONLY because it is the law of the land, and NOT because you actually believe it is an inherent right of humans to have the means to self defense. I suspect that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, you would be squarely on the side of, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." I wonder if you would be so cavalier if the right to free speech were suddenly written out of the Constitution... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 18 #108 February 1, 2006 NO resistence, violent or passive, comes without a cost. Quote Niether does freedom....real or percieved."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #109 February 1, 2006 alrighty.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #110 February 1, 2006 Do I need to point you the the war they actually started, which was a civil one (considering there was no Pakistan before that). Check on the first Kashimir war, 1947, during Gandhi's India. Yes, indeed I like your solution better, get fucked over 30 years and letting the colonialists kill/control your life in every way they want, is far better option.....It's great option!!!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #111 February 1, 2006 Its NOT my solution. But I am defending as an option. And one that actually has validity. War and fighting does not solve everything. And even if it does gain a final outcome that can be accepted, it does not mean the cost along the way was not just as bad or worse than a passive struggle. Or that the battle will not be just as protracted and painful. Sometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #112 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Most "guns" that started as "legal" weapons, are still "legal" weapons. Now, that is not to say that some criminals own "legal" guns illeagally! But, to follow your logic ( and twist it a bit) cars kill people too, they are stollen and are owned by crimials. (and that doen't make them illegal cars) Shouldn't we , by extention of your logic, make cars illegal too, and should be controlled then confiscated? Cars are already registered and illegal if not registered. However, to clarify my original question, there are many illegally owned guns in circulation (such as guns in the possession of felons). What is the process by which a legally owned gun becomes an illegally owned one, and I'll add, what should law abiding citizen gun owners do to prevent their guns from becoming illegally owned? Do you believe they have any responsibility in the matter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #113 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Just to be sure- what is your definition of an illegal gun? ... Will this do? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1213694#1213694... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #114 February 1, 2006 QuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #115 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? No, just eliminate your biases and think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #116 February 1, 2006 What the hell are you talking about Kallend. My Biases? You linked me to an old post by Chuck Blue talking about CCW? I simply asked you what you meant by "Illegal Gun" in YOUR question so that it could be answered properly. While I have never yet gotten a serious answer from you about anything, I actually thought you might this time. Why is it so difficult for you to answer questions. I feel so sorry for your students. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #117 February 1, 2006 QuoteHe was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. What you seem to be implying though is that Americans MUSt solve such problems with violence because we are incapable of such peaceful means. The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues. This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views. If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system. And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #118 February 1, 2006 QuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #119 February 1, 2006 QuoteThen you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Hell yes.....I support it completely BUT I want the REST of them supported equally Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #120 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Totally. Always have been. Always will beWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #121 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuote He was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. >>>>I agree. Violence should be a last resort. But let's just suppose a tyranical government doesn't give a rip if you don't like things. Suppose every time you stood up in front of a tank it smashed you flat. Suppose everytime you demonstrated against the government they marched you off to prison or secretly murdered your family. What would you do then...If things get bad enough violence may be the only option possible. - standing up against the government while armed never works. >>>>I almost have to laugh at this. You aren't looking very closely at history if you say that. Look at any successful revolution where one government replaced another, and I'll bet a whole lot of violence went along with it. Peaceful demonstration can be a powerful thing, but suppose it isn't allowed. Hell no, I'm not radical enough to think that violence is the answer for every situation, but sometimes it's the only option left. Ruby Ridge was not a rebellion. It was a man defending his family against over-zealous feds. Waco was a group of nut cases who burned themselves up in the name of their religion. Oklahoma city was a group of other nut cases setting off bombs. None of these qualify as a rebellion against the government in my mind. Surely there are better examples than these when looking back in history. But I guess these groups of crazies fit your argument better. I already mentioned Iraq, and Vietnam. Kallend mentioned Iran and the Russians. (And I know they were being resupplied by the Americans). These are just a very small number of revolutions where a revolution went on, often successfully, and involved a whole lot of violence. ( And I truly hope we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but I also have my doubts.) There's any number of 3rd world countries in South America or Africa who have revolted and overthrown the present government. I can't think of many who did it peacefully. So, my point is that standing up against the government using arms can and does work. Not in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort. But it has been done over and over again, successfully throughout history...Steve1 _Am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #122 February 1, 2006 QuoteNot in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort Can I be in charge of Booby traps??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 February 2, 2006 QuoteI have never owned a firearm so I can't have one confiscated. I am not so stupid as to think any weapon I can own would make me a match for the current US military. Fine, but why are you acting so stupid that you seem to believe it would be YOU with your PUNY WEAPON against the "current US military"? We are talking about multitudes. Each may have "only" a good quality hunting rifle. But do you need more than that to pick off a single soldier in the woods from a hidden vantage point? Are you saying that sniping is not an effective military tactic? No one said it had to be a single guy with his .308 to take on the entire military, kallend. You're an engineer, right? Do you design and build strawmen for a living? QuoteBy not owning a firearm there is NO chance that I can have a gun stolen and pass into criminal hands. Something you legal gun enthusiasts consistently ignore is the process by which you allow legal guns to become illegal guns. I have never "allowed" that to happen. Should I be punished (via confiscation of the guns I have never allowed criminals to get possession of) for never having provided a gun to a criminal? You'd better give up your car, kallend. Cars are stolen all the time, joyrided, and used to collide with and kill innocent people. YOU could be the next person who provides a lethal car to a criminal. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. The only time, it seems to me, that pacifists win against those who are capable and willing to use violence, is when the latter people decide of their own accord not to just kill the pacifists and be done with them. Is it possible that people who are so-called "pacifists" succeed in compelling the violence-doers to back down do so because there actually is a threat, implied in a larrrrrrge number of pacifists, that if the killing attacks started, the millions and millions of pacifists would just renounce pacifism and fight, with overwhelming numbers on their side? Maybe the pacifists won simply because the belligerents were afraid that if they initiated violence, the millions of pacifists would simply turn into combatants overnight. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? How many of them are stolen (or lost) from the cops or the military? Would you advocate against their having guns the way you do against civilians having guns, just because they could end up in criminals' hands? I was living on Long Island when, in the mid '90s, a parks police station was broken into and a few dozen GLOCK pistols were stolen -- sure to end up in criminal hands since one had to be a criminal to do the break-in in the first place. Kallend, you talk a line of shit, here. You say, on the one hand, that you "support the second amendment" (i.e. you support the right to keep and bear arms); but I suspect that you do so ONLY because it is the law of the land, and NOT because you actually believe it is an inherent right of humans to have the means to self defense. I suspect that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, you would be squarely on the side of, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." I wonder if you would be so cavalier if the right to free speech were suddenly written out of the Constitution... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GTAVercetti 0 #109 February 1, 2006 alrighty.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #110 February 1, 2006 Do I need to point you the the war they actually started, which was a civil one (considering there was no Pakistan before that). Check on the first Kashimir war, 1947, during Gandhi's India. Yes, indeed I like your solution better, get fucked over 30 years and letting the colonialists kill/control your life in every way they want, is far better option.....It's great option!!!"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #111 February 1, 2006 Its NOT my solution. But I am defending as an option. And one that actually has validity. War and fighting does not solve everything. And even if it does gain a final outcome that can be accepted, it does not mean the cost along the way was not just as bad or worse than a passive struggle. Or that the battle will not be just as protracted and painful. Sometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #112 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Most "guns" that started as "legal" weapons, are still "legal" weapons. Now, that is not to say that some criminals own "legal" guns illeagally! But, to follow your logic ( and twist it a bit) cars kill people too, they are stollen and are owned by crimials. (and that doen't make them illegal cars) Shouldn't we , by extention of your logic, make cars illegal too, and should be controlled then confiscated? Cars are already registered and illegal if not registered. However, to clarify my original question, there are many illegally owned guns in circulation (such as guns in the possession of felons). What is the process by which a legally owned gun becomes an illegally owned one, and I'll add, what should law abiding citizen gun owners do to prevent their guns from becoming illegally owned? Do you believe they have any responsibility in the matter?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #113 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Just to be sure- what is your definition of an illegal gun? ... Will this do? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1213694#1213694... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #114 February 1, 2006 QuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #115 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? No, just eliminate your biases and think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites craddock 0 #116 February 1, 2006 What the hell are you talking about Kallend. My Biases? You linked me to an old post by Chuck Blue talking about CCW? I simply asked you what you meant by "Illegal Gun" in YOUR question so that it could be answered properly. While I have never yet gotten a serious answer from you about anything, I actually thought you might this time. Why is it so difficult for you to answer questions. I feel so sorry for your students. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #117 February 1, 2006 QuoteHe was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. What you seem to be implying though is that Americans MUSt solve such problems with violence because we are incapable of such peaceful means. The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues. This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views. If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system. And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #118 February 1, 2006 QuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #119 February 1, 2006 QuoteThen you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Hell yes.....I support it completely BUT I want the REST of them supported equally Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #120 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Totally. Always have been. Always will beWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #121 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuote He was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. >>>>I agree. Violence should be a last resort. But let's just suppose a tyranical government doesn't give a rip if you don't like things. Suppose every time you stood up in front of a tank it smashed you flat. Suppose everytime you demonstrated against the government they marched you off to prison or secretly murdered your family. What would you do then...If things get bad enough violence may be the only option possible. - standing up against the government while armed never works. >>>>I almost have to laugh at this. You aren't looking very closely at history if you say that. Look at any successful revolution where one government replaced another, and I'll bet a whole lot of violence went along with it. Peaceful demonstration can be a powerful thing, but suppose it isn't allowed. Hell no, I'm not radical enough to think that violence is the answer for every situation, but sometimes it's the only option left. Ruby Ridge was not a rebellion. It was a man defending his family against over-zealous feds. Waco was a group of nut cases who burned themselves up in the name of their religion. Oklahoma city was a group of other nut cases setting off bombs. None of these qualify as a rebellion against the government in my mind. Surely there are better examples than these when looking back in history. But I guess these groups of crazies fit your argument better. I already mentioned Iraq, and Vietnam. Kallend mentioned Iran and the Russians. (And I know they were being resupplied by the Americans). These are just a very small number of revolutions where a revolution went on, often successfully, and involved a whole lot of violence. ( And I truly hope we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but I also have my doubts.) There's any number of 3rd world countries in South America or Africa who have revolted and overthrown the present government. I can't think of many who did it peacefully. So, my point is that standing up against the government using arms can and does work. Not in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort. But it has been done over and over again, successfully throughout history...Steve1 _Am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #122 February 1, 2006 QuoteNot in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort Can I be in charge of Booby traps??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 February 2, 2006 QuoteI have never owned a firearm so I can't have one confiscated. I am not so stupid as to think any weapon I can own would make me a match for the current US military. Fine, but why are you acting so stupid that you seem to believe it would be YOU with your PUNY WEAPON against the "current US military"? We are talking about multitudes. Each may have "only" a good quality hunting rifle. But do you need more than that to pick off a single soldier in the woods from a hidden vantage point? Are you saying that sniping is not an effective military tactic? No one said it had to be a single guy with his .308 to take on the entire military, kallend. You're an engineer, right? Do you design and build strawmen for a living? QuoteBy not owning a firearm there is NO chance that I can have a gun stolen and pass into criminal hands. Something you legal gun enthusiasts consistently ignore is the process by which you allow legal guns to become illegal guns. I have never "allowed" that to happen. Should I be punished (via confiscation of the guns I have never allowed criminals to get possession of) for never having provided a gun to a criminal? You'd better give up your car, kallend. Cars are stolen all the time, joyrided, and used to collide with and kill innocent people. YOU could be the next person who provides a lethal car to a criminal. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. The only time, it seems to me, that pacifists win against those who are capable and willing to use violence, is when the latter people decide of their own accord not to just kill the pacifists and be done with them. Is it possible that people who are so-called "pacifists" succeed in compelling the violence-doers to back down do so because there actually is a threat, implied in a larrrrrrge number of pacifists, that if the killing attacks started, the millions and millions of pacifists would just renounce pacifism and fight, with overwhelming numbers on their side? Maybe the pacifists won simply because the belligerents were afraid that if they initiated violence, the millions of pacifists would simply turn into combatants overnight. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? How many of them are stolen (or lost) from the cops or the military? Would you advocate against their having guns the way you do against civilians having guns, just because they could end up in criminals' hands? I was living on Long Island when, in the mid '90s, a parks police station was broken into and a few dozen GLOCK pistols were stolen -- sure to end up in criminal hands since one had to be a criminal to do the break-in in the first place. Kallend, you talk a line of shit, here. You say, on the one hand, that you "support the second amendment" (i.e. you support the right to keep and bear arms); but I suspect that you do so ONLY because it is the law of the land, and NOT because you actually believe it is an inherent right of humans to have the means to self defense. I suspect that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, you would be squarely on the side of, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." I wonder if you would be so cavalier if the right to free speech were suddenly written out of the Constitution... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,625 #113 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? Just to be sure- what is your definition of an illegal gun? ... Will this do? www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1213694#1213694... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #114 February 1, 2006 QuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #115 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteWill this do? No. I have no idea why you linked that. Do I need to read the whole thread to understand? No, just eliminate your biases and think about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #116 February 1, 2006 What the hell are you talking about Kallend. My Biases? You linked me to an old post by Chuck Blue talking about CCW? I simply asked you what you meant by "Illegal Gun" in YOUR question so that it could be answered properly. While I have never yet gotten a serious answer from you about anything, I actually thought you might this time. Why is it so difficult for you to answer questions. I feel so sorry for your students. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 February 1, 2006 QuoteHe was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. What you seem to be implying though is that Americans MUSt solve such problems with violence because we are incapable of such peaceful means. The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues. This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views. If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system. And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #118 February 1, 2006 QuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #119 February 1, 2006 QuoteThen you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Hell yes.....I support it completely BUT I want the REST of them supported equally Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #120 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteSometimes fighting is the best way. Sometimes not. I like to keep all options on the table. Then you're in favor of the 2nd Amendment? Totally. Always have been. Always will beWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #121 February 1, 2006 QuoteQuote He was not speaking of if it were EMOTIONALLY possible for Americans, but that it IS feasible to fight against a government without violence. >>>>I agree. Violence should be a last resort. But let's just suppose a tyranical government doesn't give a rip if you don't like things. Suppose every time you stood up in front of a tank it smashed you flat. Suppose everytime you demonstrated against the government they marched you off to prison or secretly murdered your family. What would you do then...If things get bad enough violence may be the only option possible. - standing up against the government while armed never works. >>>>I almost have to laugh at this. You aren't looking very closely at history if you say that. Look at any successful revolution where one government replaced another, and I'll bet a whole lot of violence went along with it. Peaceful demonstration can be a powerful thing, but suppose it isn't allowed. Hell no, I'm not radical enough to think that violence is the answer for every situation, but sometimes it's the only option left. Ruby Ridge was not a rebellion. It was a man defending his family against over-zealous feds. Waco was a group of nut cases who burned themselves up in the name of their religion. Oklahoma city was a group of other nut cases setting off bombs. None of these qualify as a rebellion against the government in my mind. Surely there are better examples than these when looking back in history. But I guess these groups of crazies fit your argument better. I already mentioned Iraq, and Vietnam. Kallend mentioned Iran and the Russians. (And I know they were being resupplied by the Americans). These are just a very small number of revolutions where a revolution went on, often successfully, and involved a whole lot of violence. ( And I truly hope we can defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but I also have my doubts.) There's any number of 3rd world countries in South America or Africa who have revolted and overthrown the present government. I can't think of many who did it peacefully. So, my point is that standing up against the government using arms can and does work. Not in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort. But it has been done over and over again, successfully throughout history...Steve1 _Am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #122 February 1, 2006 QuoteNot in every case. And I hope it's used only in a last resort Can I be in charge of Booby traps??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #123 February 2, 2006 QuoteI have never owned a firearm so I can't have one confiscated. I am not so stupid as to think any weapon I can own would make me a match for the current US military. Fine, but why are you acting so stupid that you seem to believe it would be YOU with your PUNY WEAPON against the "current US military"? We are talking about multitudes. Each may have "only" a good quality hunting rifle. But do you need more than that to pick off a single soldier in the woods from a hidden vantage point? Are you saying that sniping is not an effective military tactic? No one said it had to be a single guy with his .308 to take on the entire military, kallend. You're an engineer, right? Do you design and build strawmen for a living? QuoteBy not owning a firearm there is NO chance that I can have a gun stolen and pass into criminal hands. Something you legal gun enthusiasts consistently ignore is the process by which you allow legal guns to become illegal guns. I have never "allowed" that to happen. Should I be punished (via confiscation of the guns I have never allowed criminals to get possession of) for never having provided a gun to a criminal? You'd better give up your car, kallend. Cars are stolen all the time, joyrided, and used to collide with and kill innocent people. YOU could be the next person who provides a lethal car to a criminal. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #124 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotethey think they would be able to use FREE SPEECH to take down a tyrannical regime! Sticks and stone can break my bones, but WORDS those can REALLY hurt.... India, the worlds largest democratic nation, demonstrated that very nicely during its "fight" for independence. The only time, it seems to me, that pacifists win against those who are capable and willing to use violence, is when the latter people decide of their own accord not to just kill the pacifists and be done with them. Is it possible that people who are so-called "pacifists" succeed in compelling the violence-doers to back down do so because there actually is a threat, implied in a larrrrrrge number of pacifists, that if the killing attacks started, the millions and millions of pacifists would just renounce pacifism and fight, with overwhelming numbers on their side? Maybe the pacifists won simply because the belligerents were afraid that if they initiated violence, the millions of pacifists would simply turn into combatants overnight. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #125 February 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote[ Oh sure the system isn't perfect. Someone could always steal your gun. That is if you are fool hardy enough to let that happen....Steve1 How many illegal guns are in circulation? How did they get to be illegal? By what process did they change status from legal guns belonging to law abiding citizens? How many of them are stolen (or lost) from the cops or the military? Would you advocate against their having guns the way you do against civilians having guns, just because they could end up in criminals' hands? I was living on Long Island when, in the mid '90s, a parks police station was broken into and a few dozen GLOCK pistols were stolen -- sure to end up in criminal hands since one had to be a criminal to do the break-in in the first place. Kallend, you talk a line of shit, here. You say, on the one hand, that you "support the second amendment" (i.e. you support the right to keep and bear arms); but I suspect that you do so ONLY because it is the law of the land, and NOT because you actually believe it is an inherent right of humans to have the means to self defense. I suspect that if the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, you would be squarely on the side of, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." I wonder if you would be so cavalier if the right to free speech were suddenly written out of the Constitution... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
