1
   

The REAL Weapon ( BEHIND the SCENES )

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:08 pm
I 've never heard of any carpenter maliciously
hitting another carpenter with any of his tools:
hammer, screw driver, saw, drill.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:20 pm
Eorl wrote:
OmSig, what is your response to my question...and my stats?

Since the English prohibited possession of guns,
violent crime has gone up
like a skyrocket, especially burglaries in visibly OCCUPIED residencies,
because criminals know that their victims are helpless,
unless they are in violation of the gun prohibition.

The English police lied about statistics of crime
to support the prohibition, to cover up the fact that
gun banning has caused much MORE crime,
according to a police officer who was retiring from the force,
and was thus beyond their retaliation for his blowing the whistle.

The same story in Austrailia.

For SOME reason,
criminals are not willing to obey gun control laws;
only their law abiding victims do.


If criminals are willing to ignor the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard laws against MURDER,
HOW
can u get them to obey gun control laws ?
David
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:40 pm
ah, they lied.

So instead of 33 killed in the UK, you think it was probably closer to the 13000 in the US? You'd think someone woulda noticed.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 09:53 pm
David seems to have one thing and one thing lnly on his mind--guns. Guns, guns, guns, always and ever only guns. If he starts a topic it's about guns. If there's a thread about health insurance, his post says "Guns are health insurance" (yes, he did post that).


This is obsession.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 10:01 pm
Eorl wrote:
ah, they lied.

So instead of 33 killed in the UK, you think it was probably closer to the 13000 in the US? You'd think someone woulda noticed.

They DID notice the upsurge in violent crime since the gun prohibition.
Its been a scandal in the English press.

Its not ALL the police who lied,
just the leaders who were cooking the books,
according to police who revealed the perfidy.

For instance,
if multiple fenonies were perpetrated against
several victims in the same place,
they were counted as one event, one crime,
and
victims were pressured by police to alter their stories
to make it sound as lesser crime.


I wish to add,
that even if a DIFFERENT state of affairs existed,
that overall crime declined with gun control,
society has no authority to command any individual
to lay down his life
,
or to permit the slaughter of his loved one,
in the general interests of society.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 10:08 pm
username wrote:
David seems to have one thing and one thing lnly on his mind--guns. Guns, guns, guns, always and ever only guns. If he starts a topic it's about guns. If there's a thread about health insurance, his post says "Guns are health insurance" (yes, he did post that).


This is obsession.


Y have u so much interest in MY mind ?

R u obsessed with it ?
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 10:20 pm
Nonplussed, yes. Bemused, yes. Obsession is startling when one sees it. The kids at Columbine were obsessed with guns. People who are obsessed with guns , who seemingly think about them all the time, are among the last people a sane society wants to actually have access to guns.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2006 10:21 pm
And David's avatar certainly does nothing to contradict that impression.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 02:41 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I wish to add,
that even if a DIFFERENT state of affairs existed,
that overall crime declined with gun control,
society has no authority to command any individual
to lay down his life
,
or to permit the slaughter of his loved one,
in the general interests of society.


Society may not have the authority to permit the slaughters of loved ones, but it can do what it can to prevent them. You seem to think that since we can't abolish gun crimes completely, it's not worth trying to prevent them even partially. The all-or-none approach is not surprising, since you've stated that even if gun control laws worked, cutting down on crime would still not be worth the violation of this (vague) doctrine. But the all-or-none approach is not very helpful when it comes to creating legislation to live by.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 03:52 am
Shapeless wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I wish to add,
that even if a DIFFERENT state of affairs existed,
that overall crime declined with gun control,
society has no authority to command any individual
to lay down his life
,
or to permit the slaughter of his loved one,
in the general interests of society.


Society may not have the authority to permit the slaughters of loved ones, but it can do what it can to prevent them. You seem to think that since we can't abolish gun crimes completely, it's not worth trying to prevent them even partially. The all-or-none approach is not surprising, since you've stated that even if gun control laws worked, cutting down on crime would still not be worth the violation of this (vague) doctrine. But the all-or-none approach is not very helpful when it comes to creating legislation to live by.

U advocate government by USURPATION.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 03:59 am
Well OmSigDAVID,

How far would you suggest we relax this prohibition:

Fully Automatic?
Grenades?
Mortars?
Bazookas?
What maximum caliber and number of grains per shot?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 04:01 am
username wrote:
Nonplussed, yes. Bemused, yes. Obsession is startling when one sees it. The kids at Columbine were obsessed with guns. People who are obsessed with guns , who seemingly think about them all the time, are among the last people a sane society wants to actually have access to guns.

On the same day,
there were millions of Americans obsessed by guns
who did nothing violent.

It is SAD that the victims of Columbine were so
perfectly in compliance with all gun control laws.


It proves that the penalty for obeying gun control laws
is DEATH, with no appeal, in the DISCRETION of a criminal predator.

Several decades ago, I took a gun to school
( and everywhere else ), peacefully n uneventfully.

If I had the power to change history,
I 'd have the VICTIMS armed in their own defense
when the bad guys came calling, at Columbine.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:24 am
I think username nailed it. Ever since the early days, Om Sig has been obsessed about guns.
Eorl, I own a few guns so Im just being a bit contrarian . I always wished that there was a font that allowed the posting of entire words that looked like they were clipped from a newspaper. Thats what I feel about Om Sig's entire outlook on life. Poor guy is one dimensional.
(eg--"80% of gun victims survive"- Now theres a statistic that fills me with hope for our future)

Om Sig advocates the arming of all the students at Columbine, then there wouldnt have been so much bloodshed. Now I know hes off his feed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 04:16 pm
farmerman wrote:
I think username nailed it.
Ever since the early days, Om Sig has been obsessed about guns.

So what ?

I 'm into old gold coins, too; is that a problem ?
Lots of people have their own interests; big deal.
Mine is personal FREEDOM,
of which a pivital focus is a society based upon INDIVIDUALISM,
an interesting facit of which was, in the vu of the Founders,
having the citizens always having more physical power
than their hireling government.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has justly been considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation
and arbitrary power of the rulers;
and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."


Quote:

Om Sig advocates the arming of all the students at Columbine,
then there wouldnt have been so much bloodshed.
Now I know hes off his feed.

I did not advocate arming them,
any more than I advocated dressing them.
They can provide their own chosen armament,
as I did, some decades ago.

If only a couple of the good students had been well armed,
they 'd have been able to actively interfere against the murderers.
The police were cowards, giving the victims
only false promises of forthcoming assistance, on the fone.

There were students hiding in a closet,
preparing to fight back by swinging folded metal chairs,
but I suspect that they 'd have preferred guns instead of chairs.
Do u agree or disagree ?

If I understand u correctly, Farmer, u approve of the victims
in the school being helpless ( by operation of law )
in the face of deadly criminal depredation.

What is your reasoning, on this point ?

Please put yourself in the place of one of the victims, Farmer:
would u choose to be armed with one of your guns,
or
to live or die in a state of helplessness,
in the discretion of one of the criminals ??


Explain to me, Farmer:
is it better to fight back like a man, like an AMERICAN

or

to grovel and beg for the criminal 's mercy ?

Tell me.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 04:18 pm
Well OmSigDAVID,

How far would you suggest we relax this prohibition:

Fully Automatic?
Grenades?
Mortars?
Bazookas?
What maximum caliber and number of grains per shot?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 04:33 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
farmerman wrote:
I think username nailed it.
Ever since the early days, Om Sig has been obsessed about guns.

So what ?

I 'm into old gold coins, too; is that a problem ?
Lots of people have their own interests; big deal.
Mine is personal FREEDOM,
of which a pivital focus is a society based upon INDIVIDUALISM,
an interesting facit of which was, in the vu of the Founders,
having the citizens always having more physical power
than their hireling government.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has justly been considered as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic
since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation
and arbitrary power of the rulers;
and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."


Quote:

Om Sig advocates the arming of all the students at Columbine,
then there wouldnt have been so much bloodshed.
Now I know hes off his feed.

I did not advocate arming them,
any more than I advocated dressing them.
They can provide their own chosen armament,
as I did, some decades ago.

If only a couple of the good students had been well armed,
they 'd have been able to actively interfere against the murderers,
in that they were right there, together.
The police were cowards, giving the victims
only false promises of forthcoming assistance, on the fone,
while some of the victims were bleeding to death on the floor.
U 'd prefer to rely on them, on the community Farmer ??

There were students hiding in a closet,
preparing to fight back by swinging folded metal chairs,
but I suspect that they 'd have preferred guns instead of chairs.
Do u agree or disagree ?

If I understand u correctly, Farmer, u approve of the victims
in the school being helpless ( by operation of law )
in the face of deadly criminal depredation.

What is your reasoning, on this point ?

Please put yourself in the place of one of the victims, Farmer:
would u choose to be armed with one of your guns,
or
to live or die in a state of helplessness,
in the discretion of one of the criminals ??


Explain to me, Farmer:
is it better to fight back like a man, like an AMERICAN

or

to grovel and beg for the criminal 's mercy ?

Tell me.


Maybe I 'm incorrect, being just one-dimensional,
but I believe that instead of grovelling n begging,
its better to shoot the criminal in the face
( at close range ) with hollowpointed .44 special ammo.

U may disagree, preferring the other approach
to the situation; I respect your right to choose, in American Freedom.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 04:52 pm
Chumly wrote:
Well OmSigDAVID,

How far would you suggest we relax this prohibition:

Fully Automatic?
Grenades?
Mortars?
Bazookas?
What maximum caliber and number of grains per shot?

Your question is not clear as to whether u refer to America or England.
I 'll answer as to both:

Concerning America, guns were put beyond the reach of government ;
hence, government has no more jurisdiction to control guns
than it has to make a citizen go to church on time.

Regarding England or Scotland,
I do not pretend to be equally well informed.
Correct me if I am historically inaccurate,
but I believe that English gun control began in the early 20th Century
( around WW I ?? ). I know of no difficulties arising in the 1800s
concerning Englishmen causing trouble with Grenades, Mortars,
Bazookas, nor fully automatic weapons.

I recommend a return to the state of the law
and the law of the State, before gun control began there.

Its NOT a question of * RELAXING * a prohibition;
its a matter of repudiating, rejecting and fully repealling it.
David
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 05:56 am
A most convenient solution. By allowing every individual to carry arms,
you neatly bypass such institutions as police, judge, jury. Of course, OmSig David advocates that completely free access to guns will lead to a decline in violent crime, since criminals are likely to be shot should they try to perpetrate a crime.
And punishment is easy. The same penalty applies to pickpockets and murderers: Death. Of course, there could be problems in social institutions, such as schools. For instance, how to resolve bullying if kids have access to guns? And even if they don't, it won't be hard to get them if their parents and other adults are free to use them.
But, let's skip that issue and only focus on adults and guns. Suppose Eve walks on the sidewalk, on her way to work, when two guys on a scooter pass her and one grabs her handbag. In righteous anger, she pulls her gun out of the holster, and shoots.
Two situations
1) She misses and hits an innocent bystander instead. Oops! Well, that is the risk of walking on the streets, huh?
2) She hits her target in the back, and he falls of the scooter. Now, his buddy is pissed off, so he grabs his uzi and drives back, shooting at the woman but not caring what he hits. As long as he gets the bitch that shot his buddy!
Or should I assume that in your society all Americans are not only immediately expert marksmen, but also that there is no such thing as retaliation?

Society at large would disintegrate if people could use bullets instead of words to solve their issues.

Najmelliw
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 06:01 am
Very well stated . . . thanks, Boss . . .
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 07:29 am
Which reminds me, I have to go shoot my gardener. He didn't mow my lawn last week and that just cries out for retribution!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 11:03:46