Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True but I'm not advocating for government to become religious, just individuals. This country has always been non-secular, but in the past it was heavily relgious (morally anyway).
That's strange, I find that those countries with huge poverty typically is because of religion, or rather the ruling elite using religion to subdue the masses, keep everyone poor and "happy" while the ruling elite stays rich, becomes richer, and expands power. This is what has occured for thousands of years...and the subjugation through religion continues to this day.
But besides that, the simple question remains: Do you believe you are safer with every many/woman/child strapped with a fully loaded gun, or not? When you go to chilis to dinner, do you feel safer knowing every server, cook, manager, family, couples, bus boy, every customer is strapped with a loaded weapon, or not?
And to further that point, do you feel safer with every country having nuclear weapons, or none? The pro-gun lobby would have you believe arming every citizen with a gun makes the world a safe place...I guess it applies to nuclear weapons too then.
This order we live under now is a three headed monster. The ruling class needs all three to maintain sway. For one there is a juggernaut military, two a reserve currency and three is a kick ass social engineering machine that maintains social order and controls all the cultural choke points.
so to say that only region can be social control is folly. While Marx dubbed religion the ''opiate of the masses'' the current form of social control is like comparing Columbus' Santa Maria to a 747 freighter. The social control afforded by media, public schools and the workplace is tremendous. For 50 years people have spent up to 10 hours a day praying in front of their TVs with their guard down. Now the TV alter has expanded to include video games computers, phones and tablets. It is an around the clock orgy of media consumption. For one people voluntarily consume this form of social control without even realizing that their mind is under external control. Make no mistake this is the regimes present form of social control.
While this form of social control is outrageously effective it is also toxic to its subjects. The moral law that formally was used as an internal control has been jettisoned. The effect is the ravaging of the lower classes. Society is like a fruit a fruit that is rotting from the inside; eventually it will spread to the entire fruit.
Sexual liberation has preached by the media, schools and other ruling class outlets has destroyed the family in the working class which has lead to violence, crime, disease and hostility to authority among the poor. The only protection the poor will have is the moral law. The moral law is the locus of human dignity. The current social control of video games, tv shows and porn may keep the poor occupied and give the ruling class a handle on the minds of the masses but with the passions left to run wild and unchecked the rot that is now consuming the poor will soon spread to the whole of society as it descends into first decadence and then barbarism.
Last edited by samyn on the green; 09-07-2011 at 06:40 PM..
Sobro. You are a fool. Evidence (using game theory and Nash equilibrium) points to the fact that nuclear weapons have prevented wars, not led to them. Do you honestly believe, sans nuclear weapons, that the US and USSR would fight a proxy war in Vietnam and not fight directly on the plains of central Europe?
Or that the Sino-Soviet border skirmishes would not have escalated into a greater war if one side was without nuclear weapons? Or that a full scale war would not develop between India and Pakistan?
Human beings react most strongly to fear and self preservation. This goes for most criminals as well. If a stick up kid knows that 8 out 10 people are carrying, how many robberies can he commit before he gets killed?
Quote:
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
by Chuck Baldwin
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.
Large cities do not want a gun owning population because they're afraid of what might happen when (not if) the people turn on their corrupt government. This isn't about controlling crime. This is about protecting government from the people in the case of widespread riots and civil disobedience.
Last edited by wawaweewa; 09-07-2011 at 09:22 PM..
i would venture to say most wont qualify for legal permits in our city anyway so arguing about the fact that every citizen would be armed is silly.
by the time you weeded out those that have no interest and those that wont pass the background check there would be very few left anyway. right now we have about 35,000 permit holders out of 15 million people.
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-08-2011 at 03:52 AM..
Alright wawaee..so you recommend that all countries have nuclear weapons, and in turn we will all be "safe." Large cities are not afraid an armed population will turn on the gov't...it is afraid that the people will turn on eachother. To put is simply, would you feel more safe riding a jam packed train in the morning, knowing 1/2 the people have a fully loaded weapon, or less safe? I think the answer is clear.
I will never understand the need or perverse satisfaction people have in taking a fully loaded weapon to wal-mart "in case something happens." That tells me we are less safe, not moreso. We may be attacked by an alien civilization too...why not carry plutonium to make an impromptu bomb while you are eating at Denny's for breakfast.
Alright wawaee..so you recommend that all countries have nuclear weapons, and in turn we will all be "safe." Large cities are not afraid an armed population will turn on the gov't...it is afraid that the people will turn on eachother. To put is simply, would you feel more safe riding a jam packed train in the morning, knowing 1/2 the people have a fully loaded weapon, or less safe? I think the answer is clear.
I will never understand the need or perverse satisfaction people have in taking a fully loaded weapon to wal-mart "in case something happens." That tells me we are less safe, not moreso. We may be attacked by an alien civilization too...why not carry plutonium to make an impromptu bomb while you are eating at Denny's for breakfast.
on the other hand would you be safer on the subway with only the bad guys with guns or the fact good guys had some too?
i dont expect my house to burn down either but i have insurance .
no one ever sees a need for something until they need it and dont have it. thats true of anything in life.
hoping something doesnt happen to you isnt a plan or strategy.
whether or not self protection is part of your plan or counting on others to protect you is an individual issue.
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-08-2011 at 07:24 AM..
I would rather have 1 person shot on a train than a hail of 75 bullets from every idiot with a fully loaded gun who thinks he's Rambo. I also don't want every accidental shove on the train to escalate to a 10 person shootout..which is exactly what happens...all those "good guys" turn into bad ones when they are having a bad day.
I would rather have trained police officers, whose sole job it is to protect and serve, and a few thugs/criminals, with guns, than an armed population of people. As I said, those "good people" turn bad faster than you think.
If you believe that the chances are high enough that you need to take a fully loaded gun with you to check the mail, or to buy christmas ornaments at Target, then there are bigger issues here that your gun is not solving nor will ever solve. And simply arming everyone only exacerbates that problem, and does nothing to solve it.
Yes there is a chance that you may need a gun, but is it worth arming an entire population with some warped idea that it makes you safer? Look around....picture everyone on that train, those people you term "the good guys", carrying a fully loaded weapon. Feel safer? Tenants late on rent again...and you are going to demand rent again...do you feel safer knowing you are both fully loaded? Me neither...I feel a heck of alot less safe.
I would rather have 1 person shot on a train than a hail of 75 bullets from every idiot with a fully loaded gun who thinks he's Rambo. I also don't want every accidental shove on the train to escalate to a 10 person shootout..which is exactly what happens...all those "good guys" turn into bad ones when they are having a bad day.
I would rather have trained police officers, whose sole job it is to protect and serve, and a few thugs/criminals, with guns, than an armed population of people. As I said, those "good people" turn bad faster than you think.
If you believe that the chances are high enough that you need to take a fully loaded gun with you to check the mail, or to buy christmas ornaments at Target, then there are bigger issues here that your gun is not solving nor will ever solve. And simply arming everyone only exacerbates that problem, and does nothing to solve it.
Yes there is a chance that you may need a gun, but is it worth arming an entire population with some warped idea that it makes you safer? Look around....picture everyone on that train, those people you term "the good guys", carrying a fully loaded weapon. Feel safer? Tenants late on rent again...and you are going to demand rent again...do you feel safer knowing you are both fully loaded? Me neither...I feel a heck of alot less safe.
How many times do I/we have to spell it out for you before you stop defecating this nonsense out of that hole in your cranium?
How hard is it for you to understand that this notion that every citizen; man, woman, and child; is going to be walking around armed is nothing but complete absurdity. Especially in liberal NYC. Are you just typing these words for the sake of typing something, or do you truly believe this?
We may be attacked by an alien civilization too...why not carry plutonium to make an impromptu bomb while you are eating at Denny's for breakfast.
BIG LOL.......I'm one that can truly appreciate sarcastic humor/analogies. That one had me LITERALLY LOL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BIG LOL.......I'm one that can truly appreciate sarcastic humor/analogies. That one had me LITERALLY LOL.
