Please, let us stay mature here and not discard the opinions of one, simply because they are supposedly "deceptive" or "work for the CIA". Perhaps I am, perhaps I am not, but your argument is supposed to be able to stand against mine at any time,
if indeed that argument is true.
Please note how I am not discarding
your opinions. I know better than to do that without regard.
[KMA]Avenger wrote:and as for the Neo comparison i'll just say that Neo knew something was not right with the world and morpheus gave Neo the tools to find out for himself, all Morpheus did was fill in the missing bits, Neo did the rest...kinda similar to what i'm trying to do. dont take my word for anything thats said about all of this, PLEASE go and find out for yourselves, you have been given all the info you need to go do your own research and see for yourselves that there is a real threat to you and your loved ones and its not islam or the muslims because they are being sold the same lie you are.
You raise an interesting point.
By your own words (paraphrase is mine): You have given us "all the information we need to go do our own research".
Now, if we were to reach our own, perfectly true resolution of all past, present and future events, we should not have been given your prior obtained information. You create an environment in which we will certainly have an "aha-erlebnis" whenever we see something that congrues with our current idea. I would like to illustrate this by describing the mind of a healthy, Western child, some 8 years old ("A"). Walking down the street, A sees the traffic lights are red. Now, 4 years of guided education and 8 years of parenting have taught little A that his response to this is supposed to be: "Stop. Press button. Wait until Light = Green. Look both left and right. Walk." A executes steps 1 and 2, and while waiting says "Green, Green, Green". After 30 seconds, the lights turn green. A is confirmed in his belief that his "Green, Green, Green" had a positive effect on the traffic lights.
Aside from A's potential technopathic abilities, the relation between his saying "Green, Green, Green" and the traffic lights turning green is nonexistent.
Now, when A approaches B (another 8 year old, same condition as A), he informs B of how he could influence the lights by saying "Green, Green, Green". B is convinced this is nonsense and goes to do his own research. "Green, Green, Green", 20 seconds this time! "Whoa! I have more magical powers than A has! Win for me!" The belief in this lie continues to grow exponentially as more and more people (still within the population of 8 year olds) are told that "Green, Green, Green" affects the traffic lights.
Bear with me.
The more complex the lie, the more people will believe it. In our example above, if A would find an sufficiently incomprehensible reason why his "Green, Green, Green" would affect the traffic lights, he would have little difficulty convincing his parents. The research they can do primarily involves looking at traffic lights and saying "Green, Green, Green", as all other arguments to support A's theory are not understood, make it sound real, and cannot be tested by A's parents. They have to follow up and accept A's theory to be true. After all, there is the undeniable truth that traffic lights do turn green.
The fact that a complex (yet not overly complex) argument convinces more people, does not mean that the actual truth is ultimately complex, nor ultimately plain: "There are more things between Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, my dear Horatio."
Summarising; you provide us with the information we need to go and do our own research. What you fail to mention is that when we do this research, we should forget everything you have said, in order to reach our own, and purely our own, perception of the truth.
You have, by providing certain information that may or may not be true, spoiled our chance at ever finding the honest truth. Regretfully I look upon this observation, for I am certain you did not intend to do so. Unfortunately.. you did.
Ifrit wrote:I love how deceptive you are and try twisting persective. good job, nice way to change thr thoughts, your words make me believe you work for the CIA.. Guns are made to protect people, just because a few people have gone crazy, that does not constitute removing everyone elses right to bear arm, and YES it is a RIGHT to arm and protect yourself.
Who made you and your co-thinkers the echoing panel for the Gun Manufacturers?
No offense, but this is the literal argument these companies bring forth to further their trade permits.
You are familiar with US law. With such a background, how can you say the right to bear arms is individual? The reason for my seemingly-traitorous comments regarding the Founding Fathers and the Constitution lies in the whole fact that the Constitution is first and foremost a manifesto, telling people that whatever hardship may come, there will always be a People. The People mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is, amusingly, NOT the people, but the People's Militia also known as "the People". It remains plural in all references so far. Yes, there is a debate going on in Supreme Court in regards to that phrase, debating whether or not the People are the Militia (which is no more) or the people of the United States of America, which is all her voting citizens.
Again, yes, this debate is currently going on. But how is this debate "taking the guns from the people"? It is not, even though it can be argued that doing so would be better for the people. That is, however, not our current debate and needs no further discussion.
[KMA]Avenger wrote:crime is being manufactured to instill fear in the people to make them want to get rid of this fear, thats when they will tell you "if you want to live without fear you will need to give up your right to bare arms and then and only then will gun crime go away"....EXCUSE ME???...we in the UK and many other country's have no right to use a kitchen knife (never mind a gun) on an intruder into your home so please, all you bleeding hearts can stop with the "get rid of the guns" reterick (i think thats how its spelt).
theres not a person alive that can make me believe that with all this technology they cant identify criminals.
think about it, you fail to pay a bill and they know where to find you in minutes if needs be but, you go kill someone and you get "well will get him sooner or later" attitude.
(rhetoric, but it's clear what you mean)
1. "Crime is being manufactured."
What are you suggesting? Are you saying there is no crime, only what resemblance of crime the government allows you to experience?
Rape, homicide, pet killings, carjacking.. You're telling me it's all manufactured by the Shadowy Overlords of the Nation?
Seriously.
You say guns are needed to protect yourself. This is Gun Manufacturer propaganda, fed to you by the money-hungry corporations you so desperately seek to have unveiled.
Of course, there have been a few instances where guns have been used to defend individuals. The Gun Lobby loves to take and trumpet these few people who use their guns for self defense, while blatantly ignoring the fact that gun violence is a clear and present danger. (Which would enable the Constitution to ban them.. but that's another issue, I won't go into that again now.)
"If more guns made America safer, we'd be the safest nation in the world." Are we? No, quite the contrary.. we're right up there in the list of dangerous countries to live, with Iraq, Afghanistan, Chad, and so on.
Devid Hemenway, a former teacher of mine, Professor of Health Policy at Harvard, and Director of same Injury Control Research Center (to provide his credentials), did a study into how common self-defense gun use really is. A stunning result:
[spoiler]Chapter 4: Self-Defense Use of Guns, p. 66 - 67.
HOW COMMON IS SELF-DEFENSE GUNS USE?
Much discussion about the protective benefits of guns has focused on the incidence of self-defense gun use. Proponents of such putative benefits often claim that 2.5 million Americans use guns in self-defense against criminal attackers each year (Kleck and Gertz 1995).
This estimate is not plausible has been nominated as the "most outrageous number mentioned in a policy discussion by an elected official" (Cook, Ludwig, and Hemenway 1997, 463).
The estimate comes from a national telephone survey in which respondents reported their own behavior. All attempts at external validation reveal it to be a huge overestimate (Hemenway 1997b).
For example, in 34 percent of the cases in which respondents stated that they used guns for self-defense, they said they used guns to protect themselves during burglaries. If true, this would translate into guns being used in self-defense in approximately 845,000 burglaries each year.
From sophisticated victimization surveys (the NCVS), however, we know that there were fewer than 6,000,000 burglaries in the year of the survey, and in only 1,300,000of those cases was someone certainly at home.
Since only 41 percent of U.S. households owned firearms, and since the victims in two-thirds of the occupied dwellings remained asleep, the 2.5 million figure requires us to believe that burglar victims used their guns in self-defense more than 100 percent of the time.
A more reasonable estimate of self-defense gun use during burglary comes from a retrospective analysis of Atlanta police department reports. Examining home invasion crimes during a four-month period, researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into single-family dwellings when someone was at home (Kellermann et al. 1995). In only three cases (less than 2 percent) did a victim use a firearm in self-defense.
If this figure were extrapolated nationally for the year the survey covers, it would suggest approximately twenty thousand gun uses against burglary.
If it were true, the estimate of 2.5 million self-defense gun uses per year would lead to many other absurd conclusions. There just aren't enough serious crimes for victims to use guns so many times.
For example, the number of respondents who claim to have used a gun against rape and robbery attempts suggests that victims of these attempted crimes are more likely to use a gun against the offender than the attackers are to use a gun against the victim -- even though the criminal chooses the time and place for the attack, most citizens do not own guns, and very few people carry guns.
Similarly, the number of people who claim to use guns in self-defense and report the incident to police (64 percent in the Kleck survey) often exceeds the total number of such crimes reported to police, including all the crimes when the victim did not have a gun (Ludwig 2000).
From "Private Guns, Pubic Health" by Professor David Hemenway[/spoiler]
I'll close with an article, illustrating my earlier statement that you are indeed clouding the truth by giving us this 'information' which you claim will help us find the truth.
[spoiler]NRA’s Lawsuit Postponed Over Guns Seized After Hurricane Katrina
Ah yes, the NRA is still so concerned about the ravages of Hurricane Katrina that it is still suing the City of New Orleans for trying to protect the citizens of the city.
According to a January 2nd article, the NRA and the so-called "Second Amendment Foundation" want more time to prepare their "case." Are they in need of more donations to help Katrina survivors rebuild their homes? Or job trainers to help the unemployed? Or food and clothes to help those still without means of support?
No, the NRA is still angry that in the midst of the mayhem following Katrina, New Orleans felt it was in the interest of public safety to remove guns from unoccupied homes or from the pockets of people boarding evacuation buses. That would make common sense to most of us, but not to the National Rifle Association, which is sort of a religious/business organization that believes the rights of guns supersede the right of people to be safe.
According to the article, "Last week, NRA attorneys said the lobbying group needs more time to search for hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were confiscated by New Orleans police following the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane."
So, even though the New Orleans police have the guns to return to owners who have proper identification papers, they haven't shown up.
In short, if these guys were as concerned as the NRA about their guns, where are they?
The NRA is so desperate to stand up for these "violated citizens" that it pleaded with the court because it needed to hunt down these "outraged" gun owners.
This little courtroom farce is indicative of how bankrupt the gun lobby is when it comes to claiming "Second Amendment" rights.
They are reduced, in the wake of the Katrina tragedy, to filing a lawsuit on behalf of ghosts.[/spoiler]
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
