[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not really. We are talking about an unlikely eventuality. Also the US plays a big part in helping other nations stay free, why shouldn't you rely on your allies to reciprocate if needed? Thats what friends are for.

I don't believe they're capable.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

When voting no longer works?

Of course.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course.

How big of a concern is this to you? Are you more concerned about this than, say, a natural environmental disaster such as a flood or draught?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

why shouldn't you rely on your allies to reciprocate if needed?

We would if you pansies had some guns to come save us with.

[Waragainstsleep]

And to think I left out a line that read something like: "I know you believe that in a fight between the US and the rest of the world that the US would win, but that isn't the case at all."

If anything, your gun-enthusiast militia would probably take offence at being helped and turn on us, since we'd have to invade America in order to help liberate you if it came down to it.

[subego]

The irony being the only reason you can imagine the world doing something like banding together is because we keep you barbarians from kicking the shit out of each other.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Also the US plays a big part in helping other nations stay free, why shouldn't you rely on your allies to reciprocate if needed? Thats what friends are for.

Think about this for a second... the current US, the good guys, are "playing a big part" in helping other nations stay free. If the US is no longer the good guys, then that big part goes away. So why should we rely on those allies staying free in that circumstance? If they're no longer free, how are they going to help us if they can't even help themselves?

A safety net can't prop you up if you're the one propping it up. Yeah, friends lean on each other, but you don't choose to rely on them if you don't have to. You do it when you have no other choice.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Think about this for a second... the current US, the good guys, are "playing a big part" in helping other nations stay free. If the US is no longer the good guys, then that big part goes away. So why should we rely on those allies staying free in that circumstance? If they're no longer free, how are they going to help us if they can't even help themselves?

A safety net can't prop you up if you're the one propping it up. Yeah, friends lean on each other, but you don't choose to rely on them if you don't have to. You do it when you have no other choice.

If the US government becomes tyrannical, where is the causal link to Europe and the rest of the developed world? I didn't mean that the US helps us stay free, I talking about the less developed world. Europe & co will help prevent your government from tyranny in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If the US government becomes tyrannical, where is the causal link to Europe and the rest of the developed world? I didn't mean that the US helps us stay free, I talking about the less developed world. Europe & co will help prevent your government from tyranny in the first place.

It doesn't really matter if the tyrannousness of the US and other 1st world countries are correlated or not, neither way does that constitute a good long-term safety net. Even if they were anti-correlated (and our current status argues against that possibility), it would still be quite a big gamble to bet our last-ditch protections on.

Remember, the premise is that our own government could do a complete 180, turning from democracy to anything-but. If we accept that premise, then how can you possibly think we would reject the premise that other 1st world countries could do the same thing in the same time-frame?

Edit: I should say yes, I did misunderstand your previous post about "other countries" referring to the same participants as "friends." Although I also think my confused reading has as much merit as your intended one, seeing as how we did put in a rather large effort some 70 years ago, specifically to "help those friends stay free."

Edit squared: How about a simpler distillation of this sub-thread. Suppose you win us over, and we disarm the citizenry. How many friendly nations need to fall (to tyranny or simply bow out or become unfriendly) before it invalidates your claim and we should re-arm the citizens? One of them? Half of them? I'm only partly making a point, and partly trying to understand your reasoning better.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How big of a concern is this to you? Are you more concerned about this than, say, a natural environmental disaster such as a flood or draught?

I'm more concerned now than I was 15 years ago.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm more concerned now than I was 15 years ago.

Natch. Concern about the imbalance of power favoring government should correlate with the size of government. Since government tends to only grow not shrink, the concern should continually grow as well.

I don't know about you, but I worry more the larger our military too.

[aristotles]

I cried when i heard about the deaths. I cried even more when I uncovered the truth.

Do you guys remember Windows ME? It crashed down so much that you needed your meds. It causes a syntax error when you think of the tools of choice and the calibre uncovered nearby the troubled. Out of the mouth of babes comes the truth. It seem that the smoke obscured the vista and the principals cried out for not for all to hear with hands held high.

Get it?

*Edit* I really hope I don't get told about another "car bomb" dream that someone had about me when I get to work tomorrow. I think I need to find a way to retire soon.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Get it?

No. Very very no.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. Very very no.

Wow, seriously? Are you really that thick? Let me guess, you buy the official story without even examining it for consistency?

The medical examiner at the scene stated that the bodies he examined had wounds from a long gun. He seemed very uncomfortable when he said it as he was surrounded by police officers. He said under his breath that he hoped this would not :come down crashing on us". One of the reporters brought up an earlier report that a long gun assault rifle was discovered in the car Adam Lanza drove to the school but one of the police said "that's not correct". Later, that was the official story again.

The official story is that Adam Lanza entered into the school and the first victim was the principal at the "office" and then he proceeded down the hall to the kindergarten class to allegedly shoot his other victims before shooting himself.

Here is where their story begins to fall apart:
1. Adam Lanza was supposedly found dead with "handguns" and not a single "long gun" on him.
2. The medical examiner, when prodded by the reporters stated that the wounds in the victims were caused by a long gun and there were between 2 to 7 shots per victim.
3. None of the children interviewed heard gunshots before the SWAT team arrived.
4. The children consistently reported seeing SWAT outside of the school, coming from the roof and entering the class rooms.
5. The children reported seeing "smoke" and were tearing up which is consistent with tear gas.
6. The children reported seeing officers enter class rooms asking if "he" was there and hearing loud bangs throughout the school.
7. Some of the students reported hearing crying over the PA (which is in the office), then officers yelling put your hands up followed by loud bangs over the speakers. Remember that the principle was supposed to be the first victim and was in the office where the PA was.
8. One of the students reported that they saw the SWAT look in the room, they heard bangs and then they stated that their teacher was dead.
9. Some of them reported hearing more shooting following yelling to "put your hands up".
10. One of the students being escorted out of the school reported seeing a man on the ground lying face down and he let a freudian slip out calling him the "victim" before correcting himself.

Why would there be someone handcuffed at the scene if Lanza was the shooter and he was dead by his own hand soon after the police arrived at the scene but before the SWAT entered the building according to the official story? Why would they handcuff a corpse?

Why were no assault rifles recovered at the scene? Who, beside the SWAT had assault rifles at the scene?

Who were they shooting at? Who were they yelling to surrender if Lanza was already dead?

This was a false flag operation to get the majority to buy in on more government regulation and a bunch of innocent children were killed to accomplish that goal.

I don't expect everyone to believe me but I hope that some of you at least start to question what really happened.

Stop believing everything you hear in the media. Maintain a healthy skepticism and trust your common sense.

I really don't know what will happen when I get to work today. Maybe it will be a relief as I have had moral reservations about the work that I do for "them" for several years now.

PS. If I am never heard from again, remember this: Don't accept the mark.

[The Final Dakar]

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

You are incorrect in your statement about causes. D.C. was used as a "model" for "sensible" gun laws at a time when there was only a very small level of crime in most of the city (more in the very poor sections - imagine that!). An effective ban on citizens having firearms DID lead to an incredible increase in the crime rate (all types), which can be correlated to the criminals knowing that the citizens were unarmed. This was substantiated by a number of studies, at least one focused on D.C. itself, where convicted criminals agreed that knowing their intended victims had to be defenseless was a strong motivator for them to victimize more people.

Your flat wrong. correlation does not imply causation. Even if there was no additional firearm laws enacted in D.C. chances are the crime rates that went up there would have occurred regardless. The lack of guns do not cause crime. Poverty, desperation, drugs do. And the ban on guns had no effect on the causes that lead to increased crime. This idea that a ban on citizens having firearms affects crime rates is as laughable as the music industry asserting that every downloaded MP3 is a lost sale under the assumption the person downloading would have actually paid money for that song had it not been possible to download. The D.C. Myth has been proven and dis proven over and over again with studies, biased studies that always came to a conclusion favorable to the group paying for the study. Since it has been proven both ways, I choose to ignore all studies for and against and just use common sense.

You can remove every gun in Seattle today and it wont have a affect on crime rates. The crime rates will have gone up or down based on the factors that cause crime rates in the first place. The same for any city.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I agree with all but the bold section. Deposing a corrupt and tyrannical government, with force if needs be, isn't just a right it's an obligation.

Some would Argue that is the case now. Some still argue that Obama was not even born in the USofA. Those that feel this to be fact even though its not, would it be there obligation to try and kill Obama?

Who decides a government is corrupt and tyrannical. The argument by Hitler was that the German government of the day was corrupt and was to blame for the failure of world war 1. He used this to gain power and become the tyrannical government.

Governments are never popular but who gets to decide its time to full fill a obligation to go against a government that had been elected by the people regardless of what unpopular actions said government does. As long as the system is in place to fairly elect a government its hard to say anyone has the right or obligation to take up arms of a legitimate government. Now when that government removes that ability then I agree it becomes the best interest of the citizens to remove said government. I still wouldn't call it a right.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Bloodier at the time of rebellion yes, but your way is bloodier the rest of the time. Hence 10,000 gun deaths a year, most of which are unnecessary.

If it isn't by gun it will be by knife or by bat. The problem is the violence period in American society and culture. Additional the problems of poverty and desperation that leads to crimes. Those 10k gun deaths could easily be 10k bat and clubbing deaths if the gun was removed. In Canada the number one method of murder is the knife, do we ban the knife? I believe in the UK it is also the Knife?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Wow, seriously? Are you really that thick? Let me guess, you buy the official story without even examining it for consistency?

Blah blah blah and a lot more blah blah

I am officially ashamed to be Canadian because of this post. Please accept my humble apologies on behalf of my nation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I am officially ashamed to be Canadian because of this post. Please accept my humble apologies on behalf of my nation.

I accept your apology for being canadian, but not because of this post

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I accept your apology for being canadian, but not because of this post

Any one that ignores that facts and continues to call what happened at Sandy Hook as a hoax, false flag operation and so on does not deserve any respect from me. Its garbage, period. Almost every inconsistency has been explained and most not all but most to a point there should be no doubt yet idiots with no brains still continue on the government conspiracy theories. It really bugs me and it really angers me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Any one that ignores that facts and continues to call what happened at Sandy Hook as a hoax, false flag operation and so on does not deserve any respect from me. Its garbage, period. Almost every inconsistency has been explained and most not all but most to a point there should be no doubt yet idiots with no brains still continue on the government conspiracy theories. It really bugs me and it really angers me.

No doubt its just a distraction from the real issues we are facing.

What's Canadian for rubbish?

[Athens]

American

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Some would Argue that is the case now. Some still argue that Obama was not even born in the USofA. Those that feel this to be fact even though its not, would it be there obligation to try and kill Obama?

Who decides a government is corrupt and tyrannical. The argument by Hitler was that the German government of the day was corrupt and was to blame for the failure of world war 1. He used this to gain power and become the tyrannical government.

Governments are never popular but who gets to decide its time to full fill a obligation to go against a government that had been elected by the people regardless of what unpopular actions said government does. As long as the system is in place to fairly elect a government its hard to say anyone has the right or obligation to take up arms of a legitimate government. Now when that government removes that ability then I agree it becomes the best interest of the citizens to remove said government. I still wouldn't call it a right.

Dorothy, what is that you have there, standing between the Lion and the Tin Man?

By the time the government removes that ability, it's far too late.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Dorothy, what is that you have there, standing between the Lion and the Tin Man?

A flying monkey? I thought they were extinct