War unleashed...

[Darth Mandarb]

Andail - I'm not arguing the statistic.  I've seen it too.  I'm not arguing that there is a gun problem in the U.S.  But there is strict legislation on what guns are legal to own.

But do any of you honestly believe that if the gun laws in America were changed that the gang bangers and mobsters would just suddenly have a change of heart and drop their guns?  It's just not going to happen.  I know (or have to believe) that American politicians, especially the President, want to solve the problem.  However, they are also aware that whatever legislation they pass, the problem isn't going to just go away.

So what's the solution?  I've always thought it should be, right away, a long term jailable offense to be illegally carrying a gun, but then we've already got severe over crowding in the jails, so then it's just another problem.  It's like the drug problem.  If people want drugs, they get them.  If people want guns, they're going to get them.  Especially after the fall of the soviet union.  There's so much surplus weaponry floating around on the black market it's scary.

The weapons laws aren't rediculous, the ability to get guns so easily is.  I don't consider these the same things.  It's illegal to obtain them, just easy to do so.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to make a change, but it's a political fact that those politicians who don't show results, don't stay in office.  I wish it were different.

dm

[TheYak]

On that point I agree with you.  I disapprove of firearms (although I've fired around 15 different types) but outlawing weapons or making them harder to get will only cause impediment to honest citizens.  Those who use them for illegal purposes seldom acquire them legally.  The only real good it might do is to prevent accidental deaths (or deaths caused by ignorance of repercussions or ignorance of firearm safety). We could find a better solution in education and proper caution taken by owners.  Again, I have to say that I dislike firearms being in the hands of the populace (which are comprised mainly of idiots) but don't see a solution to the nation's problems in further restricting them.

[evenwolf]

Andail, you are right on that- but that is not the message Bowling For Columbine expresses. Of course if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths- just as if there were no cars, there would be no car accidents.  However, the thesis of Michael's movie isn't that Americans own the most guns aand therefore etc etc- but WHY they in particular are so gun crazy- so paranoid- than any other country.  I don't believe its the presence of guns or violent movies.  It's the feeling that you are never safe, there is really no sense of community anymore.  There are too many risks to be so trusting, lock your doors, keep you pets indoors, don't let your kids go trick or treating, don't walk alone at night. etc etc etc etc...  

[Las Naranjas]

Canada also has lots of guns, but few gun homicides.

It's soething deeply wrong with American society sadly, and something that Alan jones and the like would like to see replciated downunder.

[Trapezoid]

There aren't any gun nuts where I live.
It's regional. Some communities are just bad communities.

[Darth Mandarb]

Las Naranjas - I don't think it's something deeply wrong with American society.  But parts of American society.  The area I live in now is very peaceful and quite full of community spirit.  

All of America isn't one cess pool of evil people who are paranoid of one another, though there are some places here that are.  I should think most of the world is that way.

dm

[evenwolf]

Sure, you live in your bubble and you believe that there exist evil people and evil places out in the world. That's exactly what the hell I'm talking about!  It's purity- you think your little chunk of the world is pure and good, and therefore there must be some evil forces out there threatening it- black men in allies, serial killers, burglars, robbers, ghetto dwellers  etc.   Their exists this idea in people's minds that the world ends as soon as one dark figure approaches them in a parking garage- or when they hear a strange noise in the house at night. Then on the news the next day- some parking attendent or some young child has been shot and killed,  and the shooter is supremely confused, uttering "but I thought the worst things - I didn't mean.... It was only an accident!" And that's where all these handguns come into play, most which exist in suburban communities solely for protection or sport (later stolen and resold on the streets of course).

The idea that your community is immune supports what I am saying- no one with the choice lives in a place full of crime. The fact that we all live in the "last bastion of hope" in our towns gives us the motivation to defend our homes and communities. Everyone  believes  "well there are some shady places in this town- but I'll be damned if my neighborhood becomes one!"

I used to live in a beautiful community, very little crime- but my dad used to see unfamiliar cars creeping down the street at night and he'd hop into his car and chase them down with a spot light- not that he had any authority or any balls to do so. He was just scared, suspicious. And he never caught anyone or exposed any great conspiracy, he played vigilante for the nieghborhood "just in case."

But the question I have for my dad is "What exactly are you protecting? Are you protecting this lifestyle of paranoia where you are free to fear whatever you want?"


Why spend so much of your life in these "just in case" scenarios - when you can choose to live a more fulfilling life without the worry? Do humans honestly seek that kind of adversity?  Lord, please don't let me follow in dad's paranoid footsteps...

[TheYak]

Sure, you live in your bubble and you believe that there exist evil people and evil places out in the world.

this might be out of context but I'm gonna use something you said for my own purposes.  I think this view is totally right and this is the problem I have with most of the opinions I hear bounced around the net and from the ignorant.  There seems to be a popular opinion that there exists only good and evil, that anything not Democracy is the bane of goodness in the world.  That any leader not practicing democracy is the prince of darkness.  WTF?  

      Humanity realized long ago that it required government in order to allow large groups of people to co-exist and to solve disputes.  People tried many different methods.  They tried monarchies and democracies.  They've tried many forms of government.  Some work better than others and some are more fair than others.  Some allow for tyrants to rule unchecked ... others allow tyrants to start wars.  Americans, in particular, seem to regard Communism as an evil that needs to be weeded out. Despite what many may think, it was designed to create a utopian society wherein everybody, regardless of status, has an equal share.  Granted, it doesn't seem to work as planned, but then again, what government does?  Americans like to think that we're living in a democracy where everybody has a say in how this place is run.  It's just not the case.  We don't even practice democracy (although it has elements of it) ... we practice Federalism.  I know this has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand but due to events of my crappy day I feel the need to rant about the self-righteous.

[Andail]

You're right, Evenwolf, and surely I also noticed that the main point of his movie was the fear for everything...
But I just wanted to pin-point some facts...the paranoia is after all just a hypothesis, albeit a highly plausible one.

Consider it...fear is actually the biggest reason for any kind of hatred or controversities...if people weren't so scared all the time, there wouldn't really be much problems

[evenwolf]

I think the day to day lives of individuals is somewhat a representation of what you're talking about exactly.  

black man in alley = communism  for instance

Through the news or gossip, we hear stories about terrible things that are happening, and because we ourselves are not witnessing them, we stereotype simply because it's the easiest thing to do.

The majority rules, and is never questioned.

If a Christian man kills a another man- to the Christian audience the fact that he is Christian is not relevent. However, if a Muslim man kills another man- surely it must be terrorism or some blood ritual (see Malamud's "The Fixer") at hand.

Communities, countries- same difference.  Bad things happen all throughout the world, but we exaggerate their frequency and causes.   "Oh my God, another Black man killed a white man! THEY are going to revolt!"

[Darth Mandarb]

Evenwolf

I'm responding to something you wrote about earlier in this post that I just missed in all my other posts ...

Actually, I'm pretty sure Hitler's intentions were just to "liberate Europe."

So do you think this made what he did better?  Or were you just trying to differentiate Hitler and Hussein?  Because the fact that Hitler's intentions might have been different (and his ideology) I hate to think you were defending him?

As for your comment about living in a bubble?  I don't live in a bubble, I'm aware that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods.  I used to live in what could only be called a questionable neighborhood.  It's not a black and white issue, it's just some areas are okay, and some aren't.  It's just a fact.  Don't you live in America?  You should know this.

Are you saying there aren't evil forces/people out there?  I can't really see how you can think that.  If there aren't ... why are there problems in the first place?  Because good people over react and kill other good people?  Is that why gang-bangers kill each other off in record numbers (before any of you jump down my back for that last statement - gangbangers can be black, white, asian, mexican, etc.)  Is that what you're saying?  Because that's ignorant.

Do you also think that the right to bear arms should be removed from the constitution?

[MrColossal]

what's with all this good and evil stuff?

good people, evil people, evil forces!?

if you tell me skeletor was evil i'd believe that, lex luthor, he was an evil genious

they are also fake, if you believe in evil and good then i think one has to define what is evil and what makes someone good

[Darth Mandarb]

Okay people ... this has gotten WAY off topic here.

War Unleashed ...

So you're all for the war right?



For those of you who are Anti-War (or even pro-war 'cause this is great!!!)
Anti-War Protester talks vs. Iraqi Immigrant

dm

[evenwolf]

"Actually, I'm pretty sure Hitler's intentions were just to 'liberate Europe.'"

One of Bush's many and ill-qualified excuses for this war is that he is liberating Iraq.  Hell, the name of the stupid war is Operation: Iraqi Freedom.  Despite Bush being "good or evil" is irrelevent as he doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people- no matter how many disclaimers he uses.  Hell, 1000 missiles- we've used more than 1,000 missiles since this war has begun several days ago and have killed countless civilian casualties. We still have not, and will not find those biological weapons.  But it doesn't matter, the american people will forget all about these little details soon. Bush will be regarded as a hero because he accomplished his warmongering goal- and God himself will fly down from the Heavens to pour the ceremonial Gatorade on him. (shout out to Dave Rees, my man)

I, in no way, sympathise with Hitler.  


And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles

Want my definition of Good/Evil?

Ok, take two clones and set them loose in two EXACT replicas of the same environment.   If one injures things or people- he may be considered more "evil" than the other."

So, in this scenario you see that a person's background is highly relevent. I cannot speak for gangsters- I imagine if I was raised in their same living conditons and with the same biases and limitations against me- I would resort to such behavior.  Yes, and so would you if you had little else choice and you would be just as justified in your own mind as you are now.  So don't bring up the topic of good and evil with me anymore, as the concept does not exist.

[TheYak]

Well, if we were to vote...  hmm..   :

I won't discredit your belief system as much of it is based upon upbringing, religion, location, etc.   But since I am still on Active-Reserve status and can be called back to fight for a cause I don't believe in, I find it absolutely surreal that this discussion is involving Good Vs. Evil.    I'll be certain to pound that thought into my head if I go to the middle east.  That man I just shot.. he was frickin' evil.  He had a bad soul.  He had to die.  He had to die by my hand.  Why?  Because I serve righteousness.   Sorry, it's all just too biblically Old Testament for my taste.

edit - since Even snuck his post in before I completed mine I'll note that this was directed toward Darth's last post.  

[Darth Mandarb]

Evenwolf

And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles

You just discredited everything you've ever said in these forums and will ever say here again.  How old are you?  I was asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer.  Thanks for proving my point.  (I know ... I know ... I use 'sarcasm' ... ooh the horror!)

Why are you so convinced that President Bush doesn't like or care for the Iraqi people?  Do you know him personally and he told you this?  Or are you just guessing 'cause you don't like him?  Even if he doesn't like them ... does this matter?  He's still going to be responsible for their liberation and they will love him for it.  (Now you can make your comments about that's what he wants)

Perhaps there's more fun stuff you can find at conspiracy.com ... I hear it's a great site!

We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof.

As some in here are bound to ask, YES I heard about the scuds on CNN.  But I guess all the live footage is being faked right?  You probably think the moon landing was a scam too.

dm

edit Yak - I truely hope you don't have to go over there.  I wouldn't wish that on anybody!  I feel really bad for those Iraqi troops who are surrendering in big numbers.  I don't know if I could bring myself to shoot somebody like that.  I hope you never have to make that choice man.end edit

[TheYak]

"We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof."

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

As far as the whole weapons search thing goes.  They might find something, they might not.  However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.  I didn't even feel very strongly at the time about Bush or the issue at hand when I guessed at that one.  

You can defend your points of view.  You can defend our country and what it stands for.  Don't bother defending Mr. Bush.  Give him up as a lost cause.  Whether or not you agree with his actions at present is irrelevant.  The man's an idiot.  That's not name-calling, it's statistical-classification.  

[evenwolf]

"Why are you so convinced that President Bush doesn't like or care for the Iraqi people?  Do you know him personally and he told you this?  Or are you just guessing 'cause you don't like him?  Even if he doesn't like them ... does this matter?  He's still going to be responsible for their liberation and they will love him for it.  (Now you can make your comments about that's what he wants)"

Thank you for allowing me to post my own comments, I will.  This is incredible that in your mind- you also think that knowing a person face to face = reading that person's mind.  If that was the only way to judge character in this world, then I would easily throw it back to you- Have you met Saddam?   No, but you do have evidence of his actions, of his character- you have documents and celebrity TV anchormen telling you what to think. Simply because I perceive Bush differently than you do- I personally must know him first before making any judgements?  How did you bypass this vital step- or are you sitting next to him right now?  "Do you KNOW him?"; such argument is so basic.

We are NOT killing as few casualties as possible. Prove that point to me, and how a thousand missiles enters into the peaceful equation, and I may agree with you that Bush cares for the Iraqi people.

And it doesnt even matter if he does?

So, if and when your leader lies to you- you are convinced such an instance is isolated from all the other fancy things he claims but never adheres to?

Secondary gain is so beautiful in the land of responsibility.  If only I could tell myself I was a good person and then simply become one without doing things associated..

[TheYak]

Oh, no I change my mind!

Freakin' hypocrite.    

Edit: That quote was made before Mr. Collosal helped EvenWolf go back in time to edit his post and make it one of length.  

Now: Even... do you really attest to greater knowledge of the Being of Pure Righteous Light that is Bush just because you're from the same state?  You can only judge a person's character upon their actions.  Saddam has undisputedly horrific actions attributed to him while Bush has only Kindergarten antics and ignorance attributed to his.  Therefore Saddam does = Evil ... but G.W. = Militant Ignorant.

[Darth Mandarb]

Wolf - relax bro!  Take it easy.  We can't all be as smart as me!

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

After the Gulf War (1991 that is!) Iraq was, as the loser, given certain military restrictions.  One of these restrictions was that they couldn't have weapons of mass destruction.  These include (forgive my spelling) Scud missles, Al Sammoud 2 missles, and Al Abheer (sp??) missles.  Also, chemical and biological weapons of any kind.

First Saddam wouldn't even let the UN weapons inspectors in, then when they finally got in they found the Al Sammouds (and caught them trying to sneak them out the back).  Then Saddam forbid the inspectors from entering.  He was forced to let them back in (I think it was 1998) and then wouldn't let them privately interview anybody.  He gave them the run-around from the start and he's been doing this for years.  They even found proof of experiements with a nuclear reactor.

However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.

The weapons inspectors were ordered in years before (the current) Bush was elected into office.  And they were UN sanctioned (shocking).  So it's not like Bush Jr. came in and said "I'm going to invade Iraq"  Well ... I suppose he might have  But he didn't start the inspections.  He was just the one who said "It's been 12 years, we know he's got weapons he shouldn't have, this is rediculous!"