PDA

View Full Version : Aussie comedian goes to town on the 2nd amendment.



Napping
4th December 2014, 18:28
Aussie comedian Jim Jeffries shows how effective comedy can be at encouraging individuals and groups to take a step back and question their attitudes and beliefs surrounding gun ownership in the US.

I personally stand against gun ownership, as stated in the 2nd amendment. I've heard the passionate arguments from Alex Jones et al, and it'll never gain traction in my mind.

This fella finds a beautiful way to articulate my thoughts. Enjoy!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

TargeT
4th December 2014, 19:13
he does a great job of polarizing this topic and stereotyping.

He cites the 1996 massacre (port author) what a GREAT WAY to show what gun control really is and how it's implemented
Read more on the Port Author false flag here (http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/conspiracy_fact.html)
And here (http://www.conspiracy-cafe.com/apps/blog/show/21453279-the-port-arthur-massacre-was-martin-bryant-framed-)
some interesting stuff here (http://atruthsoldier.com/2014/06/12/port-arthur-massacre-staged-to-take-guns-rights-away-from-australians/)

Anyway, a clever phrase or two that is well delivered does not make ideas valid.

Then he sites Sandy Hook... which very probably didn't even happen. (read TONS of stuff about that on this very forum (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?53271-The-Sandy-Hook-Massacre--the-MAJOR-DISCREPANCIES-LIST&highlight=sandyhook))

So he's citing known (or very probable) false flag attacks to remove guns.

He says the only argument for owning a gun is "I like guns".

Then he says "protection" is not a valid use for a gun... and yet they are almost always used for that... he then uses the fake "assault rifle" (a made up term) for a joke.

There's a lot of logical fallacy and very good comedic delivery; but that's about it.

if you know anything about crime statistics this is actually an insulting video and very


Just think about it:

ever example he uses are probably or known false flags.....

A Voice from the Mountains
4th December 2014, 19:23
Maybe it's not right for Aussies but you won't have any more luck getting Americans to get rid of guns than our own government has.

The reason we're allowed to have guns is to protect from domestic tyranny. It also requires someone to be almost insane to try to invade and occupy the US militarily against the will of its citizens, even if this is done by our own government. It's part of culture here just as it's part of the culture in Switzerland, even if the rules aren't exactly the same. Switzerland is another country that hasn't seem many foreign occupations.



ever example he uses are probably or known false flags.....

My thoughts exactly. When your agenda is the same as that of the US Federal Government then I submit that it's time to review the real logic and morality of your position. Even when the feds act like they have everyone's best interest at heart (like passing "Obamacare") it always turns out to have the exact opposite effect (about 50% increase in healthcare costs since 2007).

Guns actually suppress violent crime where they're known to be legally carried and this has been shown over and over again, while places that have banned handguns like Washington DC and New York City have only seen increased violence. A town in Georgia passed a law making it MANDATORY for every household to own a handgun and break-ins went down to almost zero virtually overnight. Here in Virginia anyone could be carrying a firearm in public and you'd never know it because we have concealed carry permits. My girlfriend is from Brazil where this kind of thing isn't allowed, yet she remarks all the time how much safer it is here than in Brazil. You can't even stop at a redlight in Rio without risk of being robbed, and buses are pulled over at gunpoint all the time down there. Why? Because no law-abiding citizens there have a gun to defend themselves.

Napping
4th December 2014, 19:27
If I was convinced re Port Arthur and Sandy Hook I'd 100% agree with those points Target. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I'm still not convinced. To suggest all of the mass killings in recent years are false flags for me is a stretch. To suggest all of the mass shootings pre Port Arthur in Australia were false flags is a stretch. That's just my humble opinion.

I'm not suggesting for a minute there aren't some surprising facts re pro gun ownership if they are to be believed. Like anything it's far from a black and white issue, there's plenty of shades of grey.

However, take the potential false flag scenarios that you're referring to away, and I bet Jim had you self reflecting a couple of times thinking, "yep, you've got a point". That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonising.

Cheers,

Matt

Nasu
4th December 2014, 19:27
He is funny, thanks for posting this. According to his analysis I fall into the ten percent of people who disagree with him. It's all good, he can have his opinion, I just disagree is all. In the past twenty years ish I have witnessed a huge coincidence, the crown countries have been disarmed on a scale unprecedented, outside of dictatorial dinning circles. England, Ireland, Scotland, wales, Canada, Austrailia, et al of the commonwealth.. Talk is now to remove "pointed" knives from the UK, whatever that means..

Maybe it's a coming of age, a time of enlightenment if you will, among those countries? Maybe, but we dont see it in their respective foreign policies though, do we?

America's constitution is the essence and core of the idea that is America. It is a revolutionary document that holds the government accountable to the people. Not to say things have not gone astray for the federal government since, but it is a dream, a codified set of rights for the people, to protect it from the extremes of despotism.

Crown countries have constitutions, as corpoarions have articles of incorporation, but they do not give them rights over and above the crown. People in those countries have no rights, only privileges, or more exactly they have the right to pay taxes and die. Please let's not mention the magna carta, it's purpose was simply to say that the law was above the crown, it benefited the baronies, not the comon man and was soon made defunct and obsolete by the actions of subsequent royals through history..

America is the only country that has this legal document backstop against a future tyrannical government, the question as I see it is when will the US masses realize that and that its time has long since passed... N

NancyV
4th December 2014, 19:28
That was funny!! I appreciate it even though I am firmly in the camp that says "EFF you! You're not taking my guns!" But don't worry, most of us who are true believers in keeping guns are older, so when we're dead it will probably be easier for the US government to get rid of guns, like they did in Australia. Then you can ALL be powerless slaves when the government comes after you with their guns.

I suppose you could go back to using knives and swords against those who have guns but eventually they'll take those too. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That's why we need to hold on to our ability to keep the government in check with weapons of equal or close to equal power.

Of course there are many conflicting statistics but in the countries with the strictest gun control laws violent crimes are most often higher than in the US, with our less strict gun laws. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. So those who do not want guns have a perfect right to not own them, but it really irritates me that because THEY are against owning guns they want to impose those views on others. I wouldn't think of telling someone they SHOULD own a gun. (although I might subtly hint that they are stupid if they don't) :p

If we have a zombie apocalypse you can be the food while I'm busy shooting zombies.

:fencing:

A Voice from the Mountains
4th December 2014, 19:37
In the past twenty years ish I have witnessed a huge coincidence, the crown countries have been disarmed on a scale unprecedented, outside of dictatorial dinning circles. England, Ireland, Scotland, wales, Canada, Austrailia, et al of the commonwealth.. Talk is now to remove "pointed" knives from the UK, whatever that means..

I was (negatively) impressed when I saw that you have to be 18 years old to buy a butterknife in Britain. I mean really, you could kill someone with a rock if you were that pissed off.

After they take away all your pointy, sharp objects, they'll be cooking all your food for you so you won't need knives for that, and then maybe they'll tell you that you can't have biceps any larger than a certain size, either. For your own protection of course. :P

The future government of the part of humanity still with the misfortune living under a baby-eating monarch. I'm not joking about baby-eating, it's more or less what I really think of these people. These monarchies are satanic.

TargeT
4th December 2014, 19:37
That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonizing.

Cheers,

Matt

Did you know that comedy was originally viewed as a negative thing? its seen as subversive and a great way to undermine ideas.


For you this wasn't antagonizing because you agree with him, for me it was very antagonizing; all the twisted facts and downplaying of important ideas and topping it off with hanging all of it on what I am very certain (90%, as high as I'll commit to anything) was a completely made up event with no casualties (Sandy Hook).

What I see here is reveling in the stupidity of the masses and leveraging tools of the state to push an agenda (And I don't think that he is "a part of some conspiracy" or an "Illuminati"; this is just how we humans work when we are cleverly manipulated by those that know the inner workings of our minds FAR better than we do).

I can, at a very shallow level, appreciate this piece of comedy. But I know the power of words, I recognize that this is a form of mind control and a great reminder of "what we are up against".

I know that none of this really matters to you, unfortunately no one can change your mind until you are ready to change it for your self.

You want to see what I find entertaining and fascinating.. Learning:
dbh5l0b2-0o
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us and how powerful "mind control" is when performed by those who understand this videos contents and its meanings.

Nasu
4th December 2014, 19:43
A member of my family was there at the massacre in tasmania, they ran up the hill and hid in the church with some others. It was a shocking thing, like the hungerford massacre or the dunblain massacre of those little children. Or in fact any massacre since. My point is that the constitution is not about those who like guns, or home defense, or hunting, it protects the people from their rulers. In crown countries this is so anathema to conventional thought that you think America is crazy with all their gun crime etc, what you don't see, because your in a crown controlled zone, is the freedom to be self determined and self governing, from the bottom up.. N

Napping
4th December 2014, 19:52
Great vid Target and interesting perspective re comedy. To be honest I wouldn't be here of I wasn't trying to challenge my own hard wired beliefs. The pursuit of truth is indeed is about as noble a goal one can have imo.

My perspective on guns is a sheltered one I admit. That's why I'm here : )

barneythez
4th December 2014, 20:06
That's the best part of being a comedian.....you don't have to be politically correct.....just funny.

NancyV
4th December 2014, 20:24
You're so right, TargeT, it was funny to me but in the sort of pathetic way where I see the humor but I also see the brainwashing. So I automatically think thoughts like "this comedian is funny but clueless, a real moron who doesn't know his you-know-what from a hole in the ground" and other equally judgmental thoughts. I agree that this type of comedy can be dangerous because it can be effective as a tool to shape opinions in a more subtle way. There are many mainstream comedians who use their "humor" to influence the masses against things like guns and other natural freedoms that they think should be controlled by the liberals (mostly) in government. Of course conservatives are also in the control business but not much in the area of gun control because they would lose half their voters if they promote gun control.

I see how we are all indoctrinated from an early age by our parents, peers, experiences, television and what we read on the internet. I've been trying to identify my programming for decades or at least understand how many of my preferences are merely programmed responses. If I KNOW that pretty much all my responses are deeply indoctrinated habits, it's at least easier to choose to keep the ones I think I like and attempt to overcome the ones that logic tells me are not productive in my life.

It takes concerted effort to overcome habits that have become strong neuron pathways. I have found that it takes at least 21 days of reprogramming my mind, usually by replacing one habit (addiction/opinion) with another. I think replacing an opinion or habit is easier than just attempting to get rid of it.

I like the video you posted and agree with it. It demonstrates how difficult it is really is to go against the norm. One must be okay with not being praised, supported and accepted, with not fitting in. I seem to have brainwashed myself from an early age that it was COOL to not be in agreement with the masses. I figured that if MOST people were impressed with something, I probably wouldn't like it. So I never needed social validation throughout my childhood and as an adult. Of course I know this is also programming, but if we are destined to have programmed minds I would rather be in charge of my own programming....or at least THINK I am! LOL....

As much as I like debating/arguing I do know that attempting to change someone else's programmed belief systems is futile. It's difficult enough to change your own even when you are diligently working on it.



That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonizing.

Cheers,

Matt

Did you know that comedy was originally viewed as a negative thing? its seen as subversive and a great way to undermine ideas.


For you this wasn't antagonizing because you agree with him, for me it was very antagonizing; all the twisted facts and downplaying of important ideas and topping it off with hanging all of it on what I am very certain (90%, as high as I'll commit to anything) was a completely made up event with no casualties (Sandy Hook).

What I see here is reveling in the stupidity of the masses and leveraging tools of the state to push an agenda (And I don't think that he is "a part of some conspiracy" or an "Illuminati"; this is just how we humans work when we are cleverly manipulated by those that know the inner workings of our minds FAR better than we do).

I can, at a very shallow level, appreciate this piece of comedy. But I know the power of words, I recognize that this is a form of mind control and a great reminder of "what we are up against".

I know that none of this really matters to you, unfortunately no one can change your mind until you are ready to change it for your self.

You want to see what I find entertaining and fascinating.. Learning:
dbh5l0b2-0o
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us and how powerful "mind control" is when performed by those who understand this videos contents and its meanings.

Cidersomerset
4th December 2014, 20:35
I keep away from this debate as its a cultural quirk of how America has evolved over
the last 400 years and could well change in the future. There are arguments from
all sides and as Targe said above this is not a black and white issue with false flags
and a creeping police state encroaching many areas , as the federal government
gave out excess military equipment and having just watched Mocking Jay pt 1 some
response teams now resemble 'storm troopers'.....

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpIr4z5lg_P-qI1ZkHtspPao-QLeHUgDjKnNq-Ya0FQ-r06q9i



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LC4pTvCk2Sk/Tsvhpq31ESI/AAAAAAAAAJg/LkY5lEPBeUQ/s400/OWS_PDX_cops_guarding_Chase_bank_via_OccupyRichmon d_400px_60pcnt.jpeg

Amongst this there are many with words of reason , that need to be heard,
Ron Paul is one , but more are needed. The two incidents that 'triggered'
gun control in the UK . The Hungerford massacre and Dunblane school
shootings, both evocative names and very suspicious and probably some
sort of early gun false flags. Although compared to elsewhere there
were very few guns in circulation. But its the precedence that counts. Guns are not
part of the UK culture in the same way as the US, apart from farmers using shot
guns and criminal gangs , that always get access . Also It did not stop the IRA or
loyalists from acquiring weapons , and there are many ways to hurt people if you
are inclined.


Ron Paul On Gun Control - The Tonight Show With Jay Leno

ied5bh2PV1Q

Published on 26 Sep 2013


Ron Paul on background checks and federal government's role.


==============================================


http://s3.amazonaws.com/posttv-thumbnails/thumbnails/null/20140814_ferguson_police.jpg


===========================================

I don't know if this is genuine ? or from a movie ? but scary.....


Peru Swat Armor


http://www.tierraunica.com/.a/6a00e551962103883300e553e9177e8834-800wi

http://www.therpf.com/f24/peru-swat-armor-186778/

mpennery
4th December 2014, 21:38
Lots of great comments here.
I have a simpler take I guess. This comedian, while very funny, is simply still very much submerged in the fake reality control matrix. That is his reality as he believes it and it's very different than mine. If your mind has been freed, you see him very differently than if your mind hasn't been. My view towards him is very close to TargeT. Our controllers love anything that reinforces their manipulations and I don't. I see it for what it is which makes it hard to enjoy.

Matt

[edit: I should have clarified: I am not a gun person, though I grew up with lots of guns and shooting, but I am darn glad lots of my neighbors are]

Ellisa
4th December 2014, 23:05
With so many of the posters supporting gun ownership, could you tell me how you people feel in countries in which it is very unlikely that the people you meet have access to guns. Do you assume that what I just wrote is wrong, and everyone really, in fact, does have guns? Would you be very worried for your safety because there are so few armed people about the place? Would you feel frightened? Would you you feel safer in the US where the woman or man next to you may have a gun in their pocket?

Have you, in fact, ever actually travelled to a country in which personal gun ownership is uncommon (not illegal, farmers are usually allowed to have simple rifles)? Did you feel any different regarding personal safety there?

Switzerland, by the way, where gun ownership is encouraged, has the highest gun murder rate in the EU, and their rate is also high on the world scale. I think it is common sense to assume that easy access to guns would allow the death toll from gunshot to be high- for example there often seem to be tragic accidents involving the family gun.

belljoshua565
4th December 2014, 23:18
TargetT Would you like to tell me how many gun shootings happen in Europe as compared to the U.S.?
I agree that his arguements are spurious but do you really need guns? They have only one purpose, that is to kill, is that the solution to anything?

Tyy1907
4th December 2014, 23:49
"It's not a want of drugs it's a want of personal freedom." Bill Hicks

Take out drugs and put in guns. To me thats the core issue here. That being said i laughed at that guys jokes as like Target said he polarized the issue into absurdity.

As far as the false flage in the US and Europe, there is overwhelming evidence that some if not ALL mass shootings are staged events. One cannot overlook that crucial fact.

Snowflower
4th December 2014, 23:52
I have not read the entire thread, but really need to bring in another fact that I think might be being overlooked.

Napping, 100% of all mass killings are not false flags. But...

100% of all mass killings - at least in the United States - involve psychotropic drugs.

And those psychotropic drugs have been pushed on the populace by the pharmaceutical mafia. Which is owned, ultimately, by the Rothschilds et al. And who are ultimately responsible for the false flags.

My position on the subject mirrors many others in this thread. Guns don't kill. People kill. If they can't get guns and they want to kill, they will do it with knives. If they can't get knives, they will do it with rocks. So, the suggested bill to ban all rocks on the planet - makes as much sense to me as a bill to ban guns. And about those rocks. Someone that gets mad is less likely to throw rocks if they know their target is armed to the teeth with a pile of rocks. But if they know their target is sitting there defenseless - they will throw the rocks. Consequences. That's what it's all about. The consequences in Brazil, or Australia, or England, or Haiti, aren't likely to cause a killer or robber much of a problem if they stick a gun into someone's face. But, in the United States, they just might get blown away by the target's gun.

A Voice from the Mountains
4th December 2014, 23:58
With so many of the posters supporting gun ownership, could you tell me how you people feel in countries in which it is very unlikely that the people you meet have access to guns. Do you assume that what I just wrote is wrong, and everyone really, in fact, does have guns? Would you be very worried for your safety because there are so few armed people about the place? Would you feel frightened? Would you you feel safer in the US where the woman or man next to you may have a gun in their pocket?

Like I posted before, my girlfriend is from Brazil. In Brazil it's nearly impossible to get a permit to legally carry a gun. She is afraid even to go to Rio, in her own country, because of how often people are robbed there, including at gunpoint. She says people who live in Rio have lots of sayings about how they have to "live smart," just to avoid these situations. Buses gets pulled over forcibly by people wielding illegal firearms, and cars stopping at traffic lights are regularly held up at gun point. This, again, in a country where it's nearly impossible for a civilian to be able to carry a gun legally.

She's now staying here in the US, in a state where it's legal and easy to get a permit to carry a handgun in public, even concealed under your shirt. You can go into a Wal Mart here and they have gun racks behind a counter where you can buy a gun. I was even joking with her that she can buy one if she wants, and they even have a pink shotgun she might like. :P

She feels completely safe here and it took time just for her to realize that it's totally safe here to stop at traffic lights. That buses are safe to ride. That there's no risk of anyone running around lawlessly in the streets robbing or shooting people, because criminals don't have a monopoly on guns.




They have only one purpose, that is to kill, is that the solution to anything?

Tell me how this type of argument works for you the next time a murderer starts busting down your door. I have a feeling if a murderer could be stopped this easily someone would have figured it out by now.

In a situation like this, if you can't reason with an attacker and stop him, or jump out of a window to get away, you might wish you had a gun. If you lived in the US, you would have the right to own one if you had so chosen, and many people really do successfully defend themselves and their families in this way. But as mentioned already, this isn't the main protection offered by an armed populace. It helps prevent tyrannical government (though we would consider a dictator or an outright monarch tyrannical in the US so this self-sovereign mentality may have a lot to do with it, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread) and also prevents any successful foreign occupation. The idea that someone who has a gun is going to shoot everyone as soon as they get angry (as I notice foreigners tend to think) is also not realistic. We grow up around guns and when we are grown up, most of us have a grown-up respect for them and understand the basics, like never point a gun at a person even if you think it's not loaded, never leave it where children could access it, only use it for self-defense in a life-and-death situation.... This is how we have guns and aren't really in total chaos here after all.

Zamolxe
5th December 2014, 00:17
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us

Very interesting video, though I did not quite like the way he tried to explain consciousness.

So, are you trying to say that the first 15 mins of the video describe why you might BOTH not see the other's side of the argument or just why Napping might not see YOUR side of the argument?

I'm asking because my first impression (and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) is that you don't "practice what you preach", that you are only taking in the possibility that he is wrong and not that also you might be wrong. Couldn't the same mechanism be triggered in your brain, "acting on a neural level as if you're being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that you may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with"? - quoted from the video -

If so, that would make your post seem condescending to say the least.

Only because the comedian doesn't know that many of these massacres might have been false flags, does that actually invalidate his arguments? Aren't the massacres still possible? Wouldn't there be a higher probability for these events to take place in a country where children/adults have a far greater ease to get hold of weapons?

You say that guns bring lower crime rates. Most probably true, but is this how we want to solve problems? With fear? Instead of solving the underlying causes that lead to crime/war?

I do understand that I might be wrong and this mechanism inside my brain would prevent me to rationally see this, but still I hold my beliefs.

I don't believe you solve fear with fear.
I don't believe violence and war are an answer to anything,
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter other nations from invading, I think no country should invade or wage war on another country ever, period.
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter a government from sending its soldiers against the people. I think armed citizens would actually be an excuse/tool for the soldiers to be coerced into viewing the people as enemies ("terrorists")
I believe guns and violence will only sow confusion and fear in any revolution and I think a peaceful stand will always be the best solution for protest against a government.

I don't believe in "banning" in general but I also don't agree with tools for killing. I think killing is objectively wrong so... shouldn't this be banned? It just feels that guns shouldn't actually exist in the first place, even if this sounds really extreme.

If x people out of a population have thoughts of killing someone only a percentage of them will actually do it (why society has put those thoughts in their head is a different discussion). I trully and objectively believe that the percentage would be higher if the x people would have access to guns - it's just easier, a way to just pull a trigger and poof - than if those people would have to brutally do the killing (with knives/axes/rocks).
In my country almost nobody has guns, we have practically no gun deaths and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Zamolxe
5th December 2014, 00:25
If the leaders would really want to solve Brazil's issues they could in a heartbeat, and not by arming everyone. Wouldn't that just be sweeping the issues under the rug?
Solve the poverty, education, housing and social inequality issues and crime would disappear. Also, decriminalize drugs as most violence and corruption is related to drug trafficking in Rio.

A Voice from the Mountains
5th December 2014, 00:43
Those are good ideas Zamolxe, but they don't protect innocent people in the short term and neither do the police there apparently.


The police even in countries where guns are totally outlawed are still probably going to have access to guns, even if they don't always carry them. An of course militaries are going to have guns, and I don't hear people too often calling for their militaries to get rid of all their guns. So maybe the idea coming out of Europe is simply that not everyone is qualified enough to have a gun. Is that it?

Shezbeth
5th December 2014, 01:12
Oh my, I see a whole lot of refusal of one another's viewpoints,... except one side has guns.

Just sayin'! Xp

I know which side the zombies prefer,....

Snowflower
5th December 2014, 01:15
Well, Shezbeth, if I disagree, are you suggesting that I say I agree instead?

Shezbeth
5th December 2014, 01:17
Whatever would make you suggest that? O_o

I'm saying there are those who are firm in their perception of validity and purpose in both gun ownership and the right to,... and there are those who are firm in their lack of perception of.

And there are those who are preferable to zombies.

citsym
5th December 2014, 01:34
It seems to me that the whole idea of this "gun control" or "no guns" in US is simply to have the US citizens unarmed and NOT dangerous towards DHS.
After all, seems to me DHS is getting ready to control US citizens even further:


The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”…

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

... Looking at what's happened with "mind control" who is to say that the Aussie comedian Jim Jeffries has not been "planted" with this sketch to weaken people's resolve to maintain firearms... seems plausible to me.

In fact, the use of the Port Author false flag and Sandy Hook indecent, indicates to me, he's either knowingly or unwittingly in the TPTB's pocket.

And this isn't just happening in US... The two incidents that 'triggered' gun control in the UK . The Hungerford massacre and Dunblane school shootings, both evocative names and very suspicious and probably some sort of early gun false flags.

Arguments over the second amendment just keep us divided and not focused on the real problem...


http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/2011-04-05-ice-training-using-armored-vehicles.JPG?itok=fmMSA_1q

Shezbeth
5th December 2014, 01:50
Has anyone forgotten the 1.6 billion hollow-point? This ninja hasn't,....

TargeT
5th December 2014, 02:03
With so many of the posters supporting gun ownership, could you tell me how you people feel in countries in which it is very unlikely that the people you meet have access to guns. Do you assume that what I just wrote is wrong, and everyone really, in fact, does have guns? Would you be very worried for your safety because there are so few armed people about the place? Would you feel frightened? Would you you feel safer in the US where the woman or man next to you may have a gun in their pocket?

Have you, in fact, ever actually travelled to a country in which personal gun ownership is uncommon (not illegal, farmers are usually allowed to have simple rifles)? Did you feel any different regarding personal safety there?

Switzerland, by the way, where gun ownership is encouraged, has the highest gun murder rate in the EU, and their rate is also high on the world scale. I think it is common sense to assume that easy access to guns would allow the death toll from gunshot to be high- for example there often seem to be tragic accidents involving the family gun.

I currently live somewhere that gun ownership is very uncommon, it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain a fire arm; we have the #3 highest death rate per 100,000 people IN THE WORLD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate). Gun crimes are heavily punished here and there are signs on busy street corners trying to dissuade gun crimes. I've lived her 2 years now.

This is a very complex issue (violence, not the TOOL used) Violence will exist regardless of what tool there is, and in gun shootings or stabbings the numbers of victims are often similar enough that the lack of freedom by gun restriction is not justified. Focusing on just the tool is not helpful, especially when that tool can prevent murder and cause an environment that self-polices due to the "un known factor".... Is that person carrying? Are they able to defend them selves or are they just unarmed easy victims (the latter reflects where I currently live).

I've been to the EU several times, (western mostly) traveled the country...(BIASED AMERICAN POINT OF VIEW WARNING!!!!)... the peoples there are for the most part, compliant. The freedoms they lack are not overly missed, I consider EU the NWO's experimental success program; even the "punks" are mostly harmless vrs the government (though that seems to be changing a bit lately).



TargetT Would you like to tell me how many gun shootings happen in Europe as compared to the U.S.?
I agree that his arguements are spurious but do you really need guns? They have only one purpose, that is to kill, is that the solution to anything?

Shootings? How about intentional homicide? the EU has very low numbers of homicide in general.

The UK is in the EU though right?

The EU has 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000

The US has 466 violent crimes per 100,000, the US has 88 guns per 100 people, we are BY FAR (FAR FAR FARRRRRRR) the highest gun owners per capita

N9efqhGBHZI

Guns aren't always the issue.. Violence is the issue, not the tool and preventing tools, especially ones that are particularly good at saving lives will not help violent culture.





in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us

Very interesting video, though I did not quite like the way he tried to explain consciousness.

So, are you trying to say that the first 15 mins of the video describe why you might BOTH not see the other's side of the argument or just why Napping might not see YOUR side of the argument?
I'm asking because my first impression (and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) is that you don't "practice what you preach", that you are only taking in the possibility that he is wrong and not that also you might be wrong. Couldn't the same mechanism be triggered in your brain, "acting on a neural level as if you're being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that you may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with"? - quoted from the video -

If so, that would make your post seem condescending to say the least.

I have a fundamental understanding that prohibition never works, when you look at an issue and pick out one small piece while ignoring the holistic system you will not solve the issue at hand.

Guns are not the issue, violence is the issue. I do not believe this, I know it to be true. I am aware of the reaction provoked by a challenged strongly held belief, I used to be victim to it quite often. I don't think that I am reacting in a fight/flight/freeze manor to this (this is called couching (in linguistics) I do leave the door open that its possible I am wrong, but only if you assume humans need babysitters constantly) ; though there is a bit of exasperation present for sure (I have run into this "prohibition will save us" nonsense many times before, the basic premise of which is that humans are too stupid to make decisions for them selves so an authority figure (who is also human) must make it for them (and be exempt from said decision) which is always disastrous; historically.)




Only because the comedian doesn't know that many of these massacres might have been false flags, does that actually invalidate his arguments? Aren't the massacres still possible? Wouldn't there be a higher probability for these events to take place in a country where children/adults have a far greater ease to get hold of weapons?

Since his argument does not include any valid examples, yes it is completely invalidated.

The USA has 88 guns per 100 people.......... where are the massacres that equate to those numbers (do NOT ignore SSRI influenced shootings, those are special case and almost don't count)?



You say that guns bring lower crime rates. Most probably true, but is this how we want to solve problems? With fear? Instead of solving the underlying causes that lead to crime/war?

I do understand that I might be wrong and this mechanism inside my brain would prevent me to rationally see this, but still I hold my beliefs.


I did not say that, but I do agree.

We do not solve problems with restrictions, ever (restrictions are purely fear based); that only exacerbates problems and this has been shown repeatedly "ad nasium".


I don't believe you solve fear with fear.
I don't believe violence and war are an answer to anything,
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter other nations from invading, I think no country should invade or wage war on another country ever, period.
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter a government from sending its soldiers against the people. I think armed citizens would actually be an excuse/tool for the soldiers to be coerced into viewing the people as enemies ("terrorists")
I believe guns and violence will only sow confusion and fear in any revolution and I think a peaceful stand will always be the best solution for protest against a government.


You need to review history a bit more, we are not up against just governments here, we are not even up against just "people" here (at least not as the common term is understood). and "a peaceful stand" has never worked, there MUST be a transition period and that includes allowing people to defend themselves from those who do not transition as quickly as the rest.



I don't believe in "banning" in general but I also don't agree with tools for killing. I think killing is objectively wrong so... shouldn't this be banned? It just feels that guns shouldn't actually exist in the first place, even if this sounds really extreme.

If x people out of a population have thoughts of killing someone only a percentage of them will actually do it (why society has put those thoughts in their head is a different discussion). I trully and objectively believe that the percentage would be higher if the x people would have access to guns - it's just easier, a way to just pull a trigger and poof - than if those people would have to brutally do the killing (with knives/axes/rocks).
In my country almost nobody has guns, we have practically no gun deaths and I wouldn't want it any other way.

The number of deaths per shooting incident vrs the number of deaths per stabbing is nearly identical, the tool is not the problem; the mentality is.

your focus is being wasted on a tool when it should be aimed more at the mentality, and worse than that; you would wish to prevent people from protecting themselves with the best protection tool available.

Guns are not meant "only for killing" they are a tool and can be used for many many things, the majority of which (in modern form) is food gathering, sports/competition, and protection; killing barely rates on the scale in comparison to those.

Even most military members use their guns for protection, not aggression (while in war zones) the number of "killers" is very small, we found this out in the civil war, Vietnam, many many times.

Shezbeth
5th December 2014, 02:07
What he said. ^^^ :hail:

gittarpikk
5th December 2014, 02:10
My position on the subject mirrors many others in this thread. Guns don't kill. People kill. If they can't get guns and they want to kill, they will do it with knives. If they can't get knives, they will do it with rocks. So, the suggested bill to ban all rocks on the planet - makes as much sense to me as a bill to ban guns. And about those rocks. Someone that gets mad is less likely to throw rocks if they know their target is armed to the teeth with a pile of rocks. But if they know their target is sitting there defenseless - they will throw the rocks. Consequences. That's what it's all about.

I can see it now..Aussie comedian piss*e off one of audience and is beaten to death by limp noodle... well... the maybe the lil ole lady swinging her umbrella had a bit to do with it ;)

Guns are sorta like a parachute.... not really needed until you real DO need it....but if you didn't have one...you wont ever need one again....

I do call BS of all the different 'areas' that 'have guns' as opposed to the ones where they are 'outlawed'
..seems you can pretty much find same areas that prove a point or prove it false depending only how you look at (skew) the data.... so for as many 'results' you wish to post...there are that many , if not more, that can be brought up nixing those results.

IMO Ron Paul nailed it when he mentioned you might not want to try home invasion in Texas..

Operator
5th December 2014, 02:27
---
Then he says "protection" is not a valid use for a gun...
---


We always forget to follow up with a confronting counter question:


So why then do law-enforcement officers wear them? :madgrin:
(I was tempted to type law-enfarcement ... :rolleyes:)

gripreaper
5th December 2014, 04:31
Well, let’s take an example. Waco, Branch Davidian’s, April 19, 1993. A sovereign group of individuals, who had rescinded their corporate citizenship of slavery and retained their rights to allodial land patent title, their sovereign rights to believe as they wished and to maintain their own community without contracts of adhesion to the state, were summarily burned alive and slaughtered by the US corporate government, who did not and does not like those who step outside their mandated slavery.

And the Branch Davidian’s had guns. The government went in there with tanks and blow torches, so not a very even match when it comes to fighting tyranny.

http://www.thewacoincident.com/graphics/waco_tanks_fire.jpg

You know how most of the people responded? Oh what a shame… that 82 men, women and children were burned alive by our government...well I guess tyranny has fully arrived and is greater than our ability to withstand it so I guess I’ll comply and follow all their rules and be a good slave. By the way, what else is on TV tonight and do we have any more of that fried chicken?

To couch the debate as a “gun control” issue misses the point of tyranny and why the second amendment was included by those who were not died in the wool masons tied to the crown, who saw an opportunity for self determination, self responsibility and self actualization, with ONE RULE. Do no harm to your fellow man.

America is now a failed experiment, the global elite banksters took control and run their statutory slave system, and we acquiesce to it and support it every day with our energy. Yes we do, admit it. WE built their military industrial complex and their sophisticated state sponsored draconian police force, and we did it by commercial use of debt. More debt, more raping and pillaging of this planet to service the usury on more and more debt, and more screwing your fellow man to "get ahead" of this slave system, which is impossible to get ahead in.

Small wonder people are losing it and violence is escalating. The system of usury and slavery has run its course. Its time for a whole new paradigm.

Ellisa
5th December 2014, 05:54
I still don't know if US citizens feel safer in an American state with virtually unrestricted gun laws or in a country where guns are banned or restricted to only soldiers, farmers and possibly police.

A gun has only one function. It is built to kill something. Modern guns can kill multiple targets in seconds. I just don't think that makes anyone safer.

A Voice from the Mountains
5th December 2014, 06:34
Thanks for posting that video, Targe. I'm going to be sharing that one.


IMO Ron Paul nailed it when he mentioned you might not want to try home invasion in Texas..

Yes, Ron Paul is from Texas and he should know about the "Castle Law" there. A man's home is his castle and he is legally entitled to defend it lethally, whether that's with a gun or a crossbow or a rock. If someone doesn't like that, then they can simply find another state to break into someone's house. Many or most states in the south have similar laws though. I know Virginia has these kinds of laws. And there are actually more machine guns registered in Virginia than even in Texas. And our violent crime rate is 1.9 out of 1000 people, below the national median of 3.9.




FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/129/01/129-0115083915-gun-deaths-2011-chart.png


Gives a new meaning to the phrase "ban hammers." As in, legislation to ban hammers, anyone? A hammer has one purpose: to smash something. Unless it has those prongs on the end, then it could also pull things I suppose...

Mike Gorman
5th December 2014, 07:16
I know this topic is divisive, and the apparent logic is that if people don't have easy access to guns you don't get these awful civilian massacres - BUT, is this necessarily true?
It is fine for a wisacre comedian to deliver an ironic word game to get people to think in different ways , but remember the Port Arthur shootings in Tasmania, in a country that
restricts gun ownership strictly, there have been other instances of 'out of control' people shooting in the U.K, Australia, New Zealand - and criminals will always be able to get guns
on the black market. The point remains very strongly that governments are kept in check by an armed citizenry, they have a much harder job to be tyrannical - and if you think they have nothing to gain
from being 'Tyrants', think again. I am with Ron Paul, I think we have the right to bear arms and to defend ourselves from all manner of threats, not least governments.

Operator
5th December 2014, 10:53
I know this topic is divisive, and the apparent logic is that if people don't have easy access to guns you don't get these awful civilian massacres
---


We should take the massacres out of the equation. They are only there as means for the division.
What should be on the agenda is "Is it a good idea if authorities have a monopoly on access to weaponry ?"

mpennery
5th December 2014, 12:20
We must always remember that we are shooting with less than a fully loaded weapon here because of the control of information. Mass media purposefully prevents almost ALL stories of when firearms are used to stop or prevent crime. Media only reports incidents of when guns are used in ways that make people think they are the problem. If we were all armed with ALL the ammunition about guns, I suspect this would be a very different conversation.

Matt

TargeT
5th December 2014, 12:54
I still don't know if US citizens feel safer in an American state with virtually unrestricted gun laws or in a country where guns are banned or restricted to only soldiers, farmers and possibly police.

A gun has only one function. It is built to kill something. Modern guns can kill multiple targets in seconds. I just don't think that makes anyone safer.

I did answer your question.

I moved to the US Virgin Islands from Alaska.

I moved from one extreme to another (in many ways) Alaska allows anyone 18 and over to carry a fire arm concealed anywhere the public is permitted (schools, bars, and federal buildings are exempt) I used to carry a fire arm almost every day and it was routine to see 1 out of 5 people in public with an openly carried pistol on their hip.

I now live in the US Virgin Islands where gun ownership is basically illegal, we are the #3 murder capitol IN THE WORLD... Do I wish I had a gun with me at all times? yes, do I feel safer? HELL THE **** NO!!!

I guess you also missed my statistics on England (the UK) and it's OUTRAGEOUS violent crime statistics, when I was last in England I did not feel safe walking the streets, stab wounds are just as deadly as gun wounds.

Perhaps you looked at my previous post and pulled a TL;DR... this post should be of a more consumable size.

observer
5th December 2014, 13:20
The last thing I wish to be characterized as, is the member who resorted to ad hominem in reply to this thread. Sometimes you just have to call them like you see them - rules be damned.

I'm old, I'm cranky, I'm about fed-up with all the naysaying to the legitimate exposé concerning the tyranny of the Global Elite at this website, and when I see an apparent shill pushing an agenda.... well, it just pisses me off.

"Napping".... such an appropriate nic for someone with such little understanding of what they are advocating.

The first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was disarm all the "undesirables". Next, they rounded-up all those "undesirables", and summarily exterminated them. Do we learn anything from history?

I agree with everything each member articulated who has expressed their distaste for what was promoted in the OP.

Wind
5th December 2014, 16:58
Indeed guns don't kill people, people kill people... But that being said, I hope that one day we won't have the need for guns.

A Voice from the Mountains
5th December 2014, 19:27
The day when everyone is telepathic and has the ability to kill with their mind, or dial up a laser beam on their spacesuits, or some other technology replaces them, is when I think we won't need guns anymore.

Until then, like someone else was saying, if you just give all the governments a monopoly on firearms then all you're doing is setting up for another round of fascist mass murder.

Tyy1907
5th December 2014, 19:57
Well, let’s take an example. Waco, Branch Davidian’s, April 19, 1993. A sovereign group of individuals, who had rescinded their corporate citizenship of slavery and retained their rights to allodial land patent title, their sovereign rights to believe as they wished and to maintain their own community without contracts of adhesion to the state, were summarily burned alive and slaughtered by the US corporate government, who did not and does not like those who step outside their mandated slavery.

And the Branch Davidian’s had guns. The government went in there with tanks and blow torches, so not a very even match when it comes to fighting tyranny.

http://www.thewacoincident.com/graphics/waco_tanks_fire.jpg

You know how most of the people responded? Oh what a shame… that 82 men, women and children were burned alive by our government...well I guess tyranny has fully arrived and is greater than our ability to withstand it so I guess I’ll comply and follow all their rules and be a good slave. By the way, what else is on TV tonight and do we have any more of that fried chicken?

To couch the debate as a “gun control” issue misses the point of tyranny and why the second amendment was included by those who were not died in the wool masons tied to the crown, who saw an opportunity for self determination, self responsibility and self actualization, with ONE RULE. Do no harm to your fellow man.

America is now a failed experiment, the global elite banksters took control and run their statutory slave system, and we acquiesce to it and support it every day with our energy. Yes we do, admit it. WE built their military industrial complex and their sophisticated state sponsored draconian police force, and we did it by commercial use of debt. More debt, more raping and pillaging of this planet to service the usury on more and more debt, and more screwing your fellow man to "get ahead" of this slave system, which is impossible to get ahead in.

Small wonder people are losing it and violence is escalating. The system of usury and slavery has run its course. Its time for a whole new paradigm.

You said it so well. Yes we have been supporting their machine by paying taxes, etc. However the alphabet agencies have been far from transparent with regards to what they actually do/did with our funds. If everyone was aware of the unthinkable ways they treat people (ie MK Ultra, Satanic sacrifices) there would be total outrage.

Wind
5th December 2014, 20:27
The day when everyone is telepathic and has the ability to kill with their mind, or dial up a laser beam on their spacesuits, or some other technology replaces them, is when I think we won't need guns anymore.

As long as we have the need to kill anything we won't have much hope as a species. We will have the need for guns as long as we have the current mindset and paradigm, a paradigm of primitive species...

Napping
5th December 2014, 23:42
That's alright Observer, rip in. You'll feel better for minute or two. I take your point re the arming against a tyrannical elite, I just happen to disagree and think it's as laughable as the comedian. We're not talking guns vs guns anymore. If "they" want you/us wiped off the place of this planet, do you honestly think defending yourself with guns is going to hold them back? It might have worked against the Brits in yesteryear but I'm sure you're aware that goal posts have changed regarding what "they" have in their possession to several decades back.

So no, I don't buy that argument at all, in fact in my mind it's ridiculous. There's some other valid points others have made re justifying guns, and that's worth mulling over.

The thing I that I find a little bemusing about many of you on this issue and other issues for that matter, is your unwillingness to see the shades of grey. It's just black or white and whoever is on the other side are just unawakened mainstream loving sheep. That's where you'll lose many/most people you are trying to "awaken". It's actually the middle road where I think the best answer to many an issues lies, the problem is both sides are too busy advocating that it's their way or the highway that much progress gets stunted.

This comedian is doing a good job of encouraging people to step back and reassess their own opinion. Some interesting points re Target's post on comedy nonetheless.




The last thing I wish to be characterized as, is the member who resorted to ad hominem in reply to this thread. Sometimes you just have to call them like you see them - rules be damned.

I'm old, I'm cranky, I'm about fed-up with all the naysaying to the legitimate exposé concerning the tyranny of the Global Elite at this website, and when I see an apparent shill pushing an agenda.... well, it just pisses me off.

"Napping".... such an appropriate nic for someone with such little understanding of what they are advocating.

The first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was disarm all the "undesirables". Next, they rounded-up all those "undesirables", and summarily exterminated them. Do we learn anything from history?

I agree with everything each member articulated who has expressed their distaste for what was promoted in the OP.

observer
6th December 2014, 00:04
Thanks for taking it so lightly, Napping.

Does anyone really think, when the $hit hits the fan, and the storm-troopers come jack-booting down your street, you will have any chance to survive that holocaust?

My debate regarding personal gun ownership is all about drawing a line in the sand and making a stand.

I have no intentions of being marched down into an excavated pit, huddled among a hundred, or so people, begging for mercy. They will have to take me fighting - superior weapons notwithstanding.

Shezbeth
6th December 2014, 00:37
If "they" want you/us wiped off the place of this planet, do you honestly think defending yourself with guns is going to hold them back? It might have worked against the Brits in yesteryear but I'm sure you're aware that goal posts have changed regarding what "they" have in their possession to several decades back.

I think you are putting the ideas in the wrong context. As an example (a fictitious one, as I don't own a gun) if the dynamic was "Me vs. the government" you're right that I would lose, gun or no. That's not what gun ownership was originally intended for. Gun ownership in the US was intended to make the dynamic one of "The People (and their guns) vs. the government".

Ellisa
6th December 2014, 01:52
Port Arthur in Tasmania was only one of a series of massacres in Australia. There previously was a shooter on a busy arterial road who picked off people in their cars before surrendering to police. This is rare as most people committing mass murder either kill themselves or are killed by police. He is still alive, in prison. Then there was a shooting in a high-rise building of offices by a disgruntled customer. He killed a number of people. I know all about that one as my daughter was evacuated from the building. This guy died at the time, I think shot by police. Guns were often used in crime. They were easy to obtain. There was a gun shop in the town where I live--- there isn't now. Port Arthur seemed like the last straw, and the Prime Minister of the day promised much welcome reform with huge support. Since that time there has not been a massacre or multiple gun incident in Australia, and the death rate from guns is very low by international standards. I don't think think that is coincidental, but is a deliberate and successful attempt to reduce one way of killing people.

Whilst this topic has been debated here, another unarmed citizen of the US has been shot, by police. As an observer I find it hard to see why it is so difficult to understand that the fear of harm will become toxic for everyone, and so all the frightened people carry guns, law officers and criminals alike, and they will use them, even on people who are not armed at all. Doesn't this seem wrong?-- it does to me.

NancyV
6th December 2014, 04:06
Port Arthur in Tasmania was only one of a series of massacres in Australia. There previously was a shooter on a busy arterial road who picked off people in their cars before surrendering to police. This is rare as most people committing mass murder either kill themselves or are killed by police. He is still alive, in prison. Then there was a shooting in a high-rise building of offices by a disgruntled customer. He killed a number of people. I know all about that one as my daughter was evacuated from the building. This guy died at the time, I think shot by police. Guns were often used in crime. They were easy to obtain. There was a gun shop in the town where I live--- there isn't now. Port Arthur seemed like the last straw, and the Prime Minister of the day promised much welcome reform with huge support. Since that time there has not been a massacre or multiple gun incident in Australia, and the death rate from guns is very low by international standards. I don't think think that is coincidental, but is a deliberate and successful attempt to reduce one way of killing people.

Whilst this topic has been debated here, another unarmed citizen of the US has been shot, by police. As an observer I find it hard to see why it is so difficult to understand that the fear of harm will become toxic for everyone, and so all the frightened people carry guns, law officers and criminals alike, and they will use them, even on people who are not armed at all. Doesn't this seem wrong?-- it does to me.

No, it doesn't seem "wrong" to me. How can it be wrong that people are fearful when they have always been fearful throughout the entire history of the human race? How can it be wrong to want to protect yourself and your loved ones with the best tools you can find when we humans have done this all throughout our entire history? What seems very wrong to me is when people cannot look at the reality of human nature, when they actually think that humans can become peaceful and loving in some illusionary future, when they totally ignore all the killing that is going on all over the world and still persist in denying that humans are, have always been and will always be a rather violent species.

Even if you reduce gun violence through confiscation of guns it is a proven fact that there will still be as much or more violence using different tools besides guns. I want to have the BEST tool at my disposal to defend myself and my loved ones against anyone or any government that would like to attack me, steal from me or take away my freedom. Taking our guns is attempting to take our freedom and leave us more defenseless against aggressors, including possibly our government at some point. That's what it's all about.... FREEDOM. There is no middle ground and we will not compromise.


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.

Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)

They mean, “Come and get them!” They live on today as the most notable quote in military history.

We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms.

It signifies our determination to not strike the first blow, but also to not stand mute and allow our loved ones, and all that we believe in and stand for, to be trampled by men who would deprive us of our God-given – or natural, if you will – rights to suit their own ends.

http://thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm



My husband put a couple of Molon Labe stickers on our car. Most people don't know what it means but it's a defiant flipping off of the government or anyone who would attempt to take our guns, our freedom. Remember....There is no middle ground and we will not compromise.

Most of us who have guns are NOT fearful, in fact we are not fearful whether we have guns or not, but we do believe in having the best tool for any potential problems and guns are a great tool for stopping bad people quickly. Probably most of the people who are fearful don't want others to have guns because they live in fear of not only guns but likely fear many things in life. They also have some mistaken idea that fewer guns means fewer deaths. They crow about the fact there are fewer "gun" deaths but conveniently leave out how many people are killed by knives, baseball bats, and other creative ways to rob or kill which always increase when guns are outlawed. In fact gun crimes often increase too....after guns are banned. For example:


Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.
Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
Home invasions increased by 21%.
Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/#jpHqyMx8lSCDhJDz.99

What IS wrong is to think that we Americans who cherish our natural right to bear arms, which is confirmed in the Constitution, will ever let anyone take that away. There is no middle ground and we will not compromise. Molon Labe!

observer
6th December 2014, 10:58
I'm not prone to posting large volumes of text. I prefer to post the links and let the membership do the research on their own.

Over the years, here at Avalon, I've come to realize few of the members ever actually go to the links I offer in my comments. I'm a stickler for posting documentation relevant to my comments, so I see the fact that few ever really do the research is their loss, not mine.

In this case, I'm going to make an exception to my rule of not posting large volumes of text. The quote is from Jim Marrs' book, "Rise Of The Fourth Reich":


Jim Marrs -

"Hitler realized that he needed the support of his wealthy conservative followers, so he directed much of his public statements to them, particularly in the areas of rearmament and foreign policy. But his social programs in many cases were a liberal’s dream come true.

For example, gun control was already widespread in a pre-Nazi Europe unaccustomed to the freedom to bear arms. Anti–gun control advocates have long pointed out that it was an unarmed population that allowed the Nazis to both gain and maintain power. Ironically, the Nazis used the Weimar Republic’s gun-control laws - intended to restrict private armies such as Hitler’s SA - to keep the population disarmed.

Hitler and his ilk were against keeping arms in the hands of citizens, especially conquered peoples.

Hitler once declared:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”

Still, the Nazis were not content with the stringent gun laws already on the books. In 1938, they strengthened these laws by asserting that only loyal Nazis could own weapons. This was codified in the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938.

A group opposed to gun control, called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. (JPFO), has made the shocking but well-supported argument that U.S. gun-control legislation is based on this Nazi law.

“JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68),” stated the group on its Web site.

“The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb ‘gang activity,’ violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? ‘Gun control’ did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals - the Nazis - prevailed.”

JPFO literature noted:

“The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not ‘reliable.’ Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.”

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy precipitated a cry for gun control in the United States, and the corporate media went into high gear promoting this agenda.

Yet, resistance was strong and the idea languished until after the 1968 murders of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4 and Robert F. Kennedy on June 6. Following these shocking deaths, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed in October of that year, after strenuous debate and compromise. Some conspiracy researchers see this as a classic example of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution, and settling for a compromise that still fulfills the original agenda.

The gun legislation of 1968 stated only licensed dealers could send and receive firearms across state lines, thus ending mail-order sales. It also allowed bureaucrats in Washington to decide what types of firearms Americans could own.

The term “sporting” guns was not clearly defined, allowing whole classes of firearms to be banned.

“Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA ’68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA ’68 - lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law-abiding Americans - drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938,” stated JPFO literature.

There seems to be some support for this argument, because the architect of the 1968 Gun Control Act was Connecticut senator Thomas J. Dodd, a Democrat who lost to Republican Prescott Bush in a 1956 Senate election but gained the state’s other Senate seat two years later.

Dodd had served as a special agent for the FBI in the 1930s and as executive trial counsel for the Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality at the Nuremberg war crimes trials at the end of the war. It may have been during his time in Nuremberg that he became familiar with the Nazi gun laws.

A letter from the Library of Congress to Dodd in July 1968 showed that four months prior to his gun-control legislation being passed, he received an English translation of the Nazi Weapons Law based on the original German law document he supplied to the library.

Dodd died of a heart attack in 1971. In 1980, his son, Christopher J. Dodd, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, won his father’s seat in the Senate. The younger Dodd, a liberal, nevertheless took money from and lent considerable support to corporate miscreants like Enron and Arthur Andersen, indicating his willingness to support the globalists."

Read more at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/threatamerica/ss_threatamerica03a.htm The part quoted here came out of the section on, "GUNS, DRUGS, AND EUGENICS", about half way down. The entire Third Part of Jim's book is an excellent read for those who still have the ability to give a critical thought to this Gun Control issue.

From my perspective on this issue, everyone who is in favor of disarming private citizens has been brain washed by those Globalists bent on controlling the world, and you're all simply feeding the machine.

heyokah
6th December 2014, 12:20
If you want to own a gun, buy a gun. If it's that easy in a country. If you don't want one in the house, well don't buy one.

Here in Europe one can't buy arms just like that and it's not in our culture either. At least I've never felt that I missed one, on the contrary, I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry :wink:

I think one of the reasons that Americans cling to their arms is that people fear their Government.

In France, it is the government who is afraid of the people, because the people make it known when they are pissed off.
These people know how to have their voices heard, as they will riot TOGETHER against the government, or they're up for going on strike.

It's about coming together as a people and making the government more responsible and accountable.
The government needs you, but you don't need the government. This is why people have true power.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Oz99yPbWSs


It could be argued that the United States started the new age of the protest during the 1960's, however has the US lost its voice? People in France are taking to the streets rioting in mass protest against the potential new law which would raise the minimum age for retirement. Brian Becker with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition predicts next year frustrated Americans may take to the streets to reclaim their rights

Mike Gorman
6th December 2014, 13:54
I know this topic is divisive, and the apparent logic is that if people don't have easy access to guns you don't get these awful civilian massacres
---


We should take the massacres out of the equation. They are only there as means for the division.
What should be on the agenda is "Is it a good idea if authorities have a monopoly on access to weaponry ?"

Yes, I agree - this is the essence of the whole matter really. But the firepower of the bankster backed cabal (so to speak) is almost limitless
can we picture limited nukes being used in civil unrest for instance.? 'Rebel strongholds' being bombed. We need to beat them with more subtle tactics -BUT bearing arms is at least a measure of
deterrent

Shezbeth
6th December 2014, 14:37
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry

I hope you'll pardon me for singling this statement (and subsequently, you) out on this but,....

Really? You don't practice rationality or calm reservation? You couldn't,... oh I don't know,... not kill someone 'by accident'? Take me for example, I've owned a blade (in some capacity) since I was 8,... somehow I have managed to not stab anyone (even 'accidentally', despite having experienced apprehension, threats, violence, etc.). I suppose that's one of those 'not yet' statements though right? :rolleyes:

jerry
6th December 2014, 14:59
If I was convinced re Port Arthur and Sandy Hook I'd 100% agree with those points Target. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I'm still not convinced. To suggest all of the mass killings in recent years are false flags for me is a stretch. To suggest all of the mass shootings pre Port Arthur in Australia were false flags is a stretch. That's just my humble opinion.

I'm not suggesting for a minute there aren't some surprising facts re pro gun ownership if they are to be believed. Like anything it's far from a black and white issue, there's plenty of shades of grey.

However, take the potential false flag scenarios that you're referring to away, and I bet Jim had you self reflecting a couple of times thinking, "yep, you've got a point". That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonising.

Cheers,

Matt Matt do yourself a big favor and watch this well done documentary .....please ...if this doesn't convince you ....then nothing will
http://www.mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html

heyokah
6th December 2014, 15:06
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry :wink:

I hope you'll pardon me for singling this statement (and subsequently, you) out on this but,....

Really? You don't practice rationality or calm reservation? You couldn't,... oh I don't know,... not kill someone 'by accident'? Take me for example, I've owned a blade (in some capacity) since I was 8,... somehow I have managed to not stab anyone (even 'accidentally', despite having experienced apprehension, threats, violence, etc.). I suppose that's one of those 'not yet' statements though right? :rolleyes:

Well, I could kill myself while cleaning it, or a burglar, or someone who seems a burglar (my husband pottering round the house at night LOL). One of my grandchildren could find it and get an accident.... Don't tell me these things never occur.
The angry part was with a wink of course. I never felt the urge to take a knife either, don't worry . ;)
As I said, it's a cultural thing. I'm simply not used to arms. Have actually never seen a real one in my life.....
Ooops, am I 'not of this world' to you now? :rolleyes:

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:11
That's alright Observer, rip in. You'll feel better for minute or two. I take your point re the arming against a tyrannical elite, I just happen to disagree and think it's as laughable as the comedian. We're not talking guns vs guns anymore. If "they" want you/us wiped off the place of this planet, do you honestly think defending yourself with guns is going to hold them back? It might have worked against the Brits in yesteryear but I'm sure you're aware that goal posts have changed regarding what "they" have in their possession to several decades back.

So no, I don't buy that argument at all, in fact in my mind it's ridiculous. There's some other valid points others have made re justifying guns, and that's worth mulling over.

The thing I that I find a little bemusing about many of you on this issue and other issues for that matter, is your unwillingness to see the shades of grey. It's just black or white and whoever is on the other side are just unawakened mainstream loving sheep. That's where you'll lose many/most people you are trying to "awaken". It's actually the middle road where I think the best answer to many an issues lies, the problem is both sides are too busy advocating that it's their way or the highway that much progress gets stunted.

This comedian is doing a good job of encouraging people to step back and reassess their own opinion. Some interesting points re Target's post on comedy nonetheless.




The last thing I wish to be characterized as, is the member who resorted to ad hominem in reply to this thread. Sometimes you just have to call them like you see them - rules be damned.

I'm old, I'm cranky, I'm about fed-up with all the naysaying to the legitimate exposé concerning the tyranny of the Global Elite at this website, and when I see an apparent shill pushing an agenda.... well, it just pisses me off.

"Napping".... such an appropriate nic for someone with such little understanding of what they are advocating.

The first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was disarm all the "undesirables". Next, they rounded-up all those "undesirables", and summarily exterminated them. Do we learn anything from history?

I agree with everything each member articulated who has expressed their distaste for what was promoted in the OP. Mao took the guns Stalin took the guns, Hitler took the guns, They all took the guns , then what happened ? they took your freedom to defend yourself against a tyrannical State. It makes no sense to take the guns for reasons they portray. Sandy Hook is the best and most recent example of the lengths they will go to , ask yourself Why? Its not about protecting the children.

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:15
Port Arthur in Tasmania was only one of a series of massacres in Australia. There previously was a shooter on a busy arterial road who picked off people in their cars before surrendering to police. This is rare as most people committing mass murder either kill themselves or are killed by police. He is still alive, in prison. Then there was a shooting in a high-rise building of offices by a disgruntled customer. He killed a number of people. I know all about that one as my daughter was evacuated from the building. This guy died at the time, I think shot by police. Guns were often used in crime. They were easy to obtain. There was a gun shop in the town where I live--- there isn't now. Port Arthur seemed like the last straw, and the Prime Minister of the day promised much welcome reform with huge support. Since that time there has not been a massacre or multiple gun incident in Australia, and the death rate from guns is very low by international standards. I don't think think that is coincidental, but is a deliberate and successful attempt to reduce one way of killing people.

Whilst this topic has been debated here, another unarmed citizen of the US has been shot, by police. As an observer I find it hard to see why it is so difficult to understand that the fear of harm will become toxic for everyone, and so all the frightened people carry guns, law officers and criminals alike, and they will use them, even on people who are not armed at all. Doesn't this seem wrong?-- it does to me. the key phrase in your compelling argument is "Since that time". and to that I say YET

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:22
If the leaders would really want to solve Brazil's issues they could in a heartbeat, and not by arming everyone. Wouldn't that just be sweeping the issues under the rug?
Solve the poverty, education, housing and social inequality issues and crime would disappear. Also, decriminalize drugs as most violence and corruption is related to drug trafficking in Rio. And I can agree with this on the terms of that we take the states guns as well, as the real statistics prove that it is the State, so called officials whom kill 100,000,000,s MORE with guns than citizens do. So your comment is well taken I just hope the fact of the matter , for you sinks in.

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:30
I still don't know if US citizens feel safer in an American state with virtually unrestricted gun laws or in a country where guns are banned or restricted to only soldiers, farmers and possibly police.

A gun has only one function. It is built to kill something. Modern guns can kill multiple targets in seconds. I just don't think that makes anyone safer. As much as I agree I must counter , that yes guns are made to kill, but remember they are made to protect. A point that you seem to be over looking. Ask yourself why every alphabet agency in the US now carries one. Yet your of the mind set I cant.

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:36
Those are good ideas Zamolxe, but they don't protect innocent people in the short term and neither do the police there apparently.


The police even in countries where guns are totally outlawed are still probably going to have access to guns, even if they don't always carry them. An of course militaries are going to have guns, and I don't hear people too often calling for their militaries to get rid of all their guns. So maybe the idea coming out of Europe is simply that not everyone is qualified enough to have a gun. Is that it?
Posse Comitatus there was good a reason for it. things have changed

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:46
With so many of the posters supporting gun ownership, could you tell me how you people feel in countries in which it is very unlikely that the people you meet have access to guns. Do you assume that what I just wrote is wrong, and everyone really, in fact, does have guns? Would you be very worried for your safety because there are so few armed people about the place? Would you feel frightened? Would you you feel safer in the US where the woman or man next to you may have a gun in their pocket?

Have you, in fact, ever actually travelled to a country in which personal gun ownership is uncommon (not illegal, farmers are usually allowed to have simple rifles)? Did you feel any different regarding personal safety there?
Switzerland, by the way, where gun ownership is encouraged, has the highest gun murder rate in the EU, and their rate is also high on the world scale. I think it is common sense to assume that easy access to guns would allow the death toll from gunshot to be high- for example there often seem to be tragic accidents involving the family gun.
Im really not clear on Swiss stats but I would wager many people die at the hands of people wanting to harm them as much as those done with guns, where there's a will there's a way, taking guns will not solve the issue . So lets ban cars, trains, and planes too

jerry
6th December 2014, 15:49
in the first 15 min this video describes why you will not see my side of the argument, why most people live their entire lives with out changing their opinions on strongly held beliefs; this video shows us (with proof to back it up) the mental workings that trap us

Very interesting video, though I did not quite like the way he tried to explain consciousness.

So, are you trying to say that the first 15 mins of the video describe why you might BOTH not see the other's side of the argument or just why Napping might not see YOUR side of the argument?

I'm asking because my first impression (and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken) is that you don't "practice what you preach", that you are only taking in the possibility that he is wrong and not that also you might be wrong. Couldn't the same mechanism be triggered in your brain, "acting on a neural level as if you're being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that you may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with"? - quoted from the video -

If so, that would make your post seem condescending to say the least.

Only because the comedian doesn't know that many of these massacres might have been false flags, does that actually invalidate his arguments? Aren't the massacres still possible? Wouldn't there be a higher probability for these events to take place in a country where children/adults have a far greater ease to get hold of weapons?

You say that guns bring lower crime rates. Most probably true, but is this how we want to solve problems? With fear? Instead of solving the underlying causes that lead to crime/war?

I do understand that I might be wrong and this mechanism inside my brain would prevent me to rationally see this, but still I hold my beliefs.

I don't believe you solve fear with fear.
I don't believe violence and war are an answer to anything,
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter other nations from invading, I think no country should invade or wage war on another country ever, period.
I don't believe armed citizens are a way to deter a government from sending its soldiers against the people. I think armed citizens would actually be an excuse/tool for the soldiers to be coerced into viewing the people as enemies ("terrorists")
I believe guns and violence will only sow confusion and fear in any revolution and I think a peaceful stand will always be the best solution for protest against a government.

I don't believe in "banning" in general but I also don't agree with tools for killing. I think killing is objectively wrong so... shouldn't this be banned? It just feels that guns shouldn't actually exist in the first place, even if this sounds really extreme.

If x people out of a population have thoughts of killing someone only a percentage of them will actually do it (why society has put those thoughts in their head is a different discussion). I trully and objectively believe that the percentage would be higher if the x people would have access to guns - it's just easier, a way to just pull a trigger and poof - than if those people would have to brutally do the killing (with knives/axes/rocks).
In my country almost nobody has guns, we have practically no gun deaths and I wouldn't want it any other way.
Big ifs in this response ,was it the chicken or the egg?

observer
6th December 2014, 17:38
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry :wink:

Well, I could kill myself while cleaning it, or a burglar, or someone who seems a burglar (my husband pottering round the house at night LOL). One of my grandchildren could find it and get an accident.... Don't tell me these things never occur.
The angry part was with a wink of course. I never felt the urge to take a knife either, don't worry . ;)
As I said, it's a cultural thing. I'm simply not used to arms. Have actually never seen a real one in my life.....
Ooops, am I 'not of this world' to you now? :rolleyes:

Yes heyokah,

All of these things are an issue, and can I reply:

If one is inexperienced with the tool, any reasonable individual should not attempt to use that tool. No one would expect someone inexperienced in the operation of an hydraulic excavator to hop into the machine and attempt to operate it around men working on the ground.

It's the same thing with a fire arm.

Any well trained fire arms handler will tell you to learn all the basics first. There are textbooks written on the proper handling, maintenance, and storage of these tools.

No one is suggesting every adult should have one, only those responsible adults.

Disarming the responsible, law abiding adult community is the real crime.

As an example, my fire arms are locked in a safe, until I come home each night. I take one specific weapon out of the safe and place it next to my position in bed before I go to sleep. The last thing I do, before going out of the house, is put it back into the safe. No other individual is permitted to touch the fire arm, because it is never out of my sight.

Operator
6th December 2014, 22:08
--
I would feel uncomfortable with a weapon in my house. I might kill someone 'by accident' when in fear, or angry
---


Interesting remark ...
I think it all revolves around 'power'. Guns give you fire-power. If you buy a gun you are then in the
possession of such power. But can you control it? ;)

If someone loses control (or in other words power) they might (accidentally) abuse it.
I think the whole issue in general is that common people are totally not used to access to power
anymore. They are alienated from it and would not know what to do with it.
Reminds me of the movie "Bruce almighty (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/)" :eyebrows:

A Voice from the Mountains
7th December 2014, 01:31
A lot of people in this thread seem to keep wanting to go down the road that guns are the reason people kill each other and if we got rid of guns people would stop killing each other, or kill each other less. I don't agree with this entire philosophy but let's pretend that it's true.

American civilians themselves wouldn't be anywhere near the biggest problem, if this philosophy were correct. We could start with national militaries. So what you people should demand first, is that your own militaries disarm, and then your domestic police forces as well. Then after you lobby for this long enough you can start talking about lobbying foreign civilian populations to give up their guns too. So start at home and start with the real killers: soldiers in your military. They don't need guns either.

Operator
7th December 2014, 03:13
A lot of people in this thread seem to keep wanting to go down the road that guns are the reason people kill each other and if we got rid of guns people would stop killing each other, or kill each other less. I don't agree with this entire philosophy but let's pretend that it's true.

American civilians themselves wouldn't be anywhere near the biggest problem, if this philosophy were correct. We could start with national militaries. So what you people should demand first, is that your own militaries disarm, and then your domestic police forces as well. Then after you lobby for this long enough you can start talking about lobbying foreign civilian populations to give up their guns too. So start at home and start with the real killers: soldiers in your military. They don't need guns either.

In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ... ;)

A Voice from the Mountains
7th December 2014, 05:04
In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ... ;)

I bet when someone is shot to death with a gun (and there still are shooting deaths in the UK) the police aren't just going to show up with billy clubs. If they do then I have even less hope in their system.

But if you catch my point I was talking about disarming your military too. Why not take their guns away too if guns are so evil?

Operator
7th December 2014, 11:18
In the UK the policemen do not carry any guns ... (if nothing has changed in the meanwhile).
So I wonder how figures compare or differ with those of the US ... especially deadly shootings by the police ... ;)

I bet when someone is shot to death with a gun (and there still are shooting deaths in the UK) the police aren't just going to show up with billy clubs. If they do then I have even less hope in their system.


No of course not. They have armed 'SWAT' like teams too. And in more complex cases, like terrorism and high profile hostage cases, there is
always still the SAS which can operate in different capacities. But I gave it just as an example that a situation exists which we can use for
comparison purposes.



But if you catch my point I was talking about disarming your military too. Why not take their guns away too if guns are so evil?


Yep, but it would rather mean to abolish the military. Without guns (or other weaponry) there is no reason for it to exist. And of
course it is a strange concept that authorities can order you (e.g. in case of draft) to fight a war for them and implicitly
order you to kill other people.

jerry
11th December 2014, 06:31
If I was convinced re Port Arthur and Sandy Hook I'd 100% agree with those points Target. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I'm still not convinced. To suggest all of the mass killings in recent years are false flags for me is a stretch. To suggest all of the mass shootings pre Port Arthur in Australia were false flags is a stretch. That's just my humble opinion.

I'm not suggesting for a minute there aren't some surprising facts re pro gun ownership if they are to be believed. Like anything it's far from a black and white issue, there's plenty of shades of grey.

However, take the potential false flag scenarios that you're referring to away, and I bet Jim had you self reflecting a couple of times thinking, "yep, you've got a point". That's what I loved most about the video, the power comedy can have in tackling controversial issues and enabling individuals to question their beliefs without immediately antagonising.

Cheers,

Matt Matt do yourself a big favor and watch this well done documentary .....please ...if this doesn't convince you ....then nothing will
http://www.mediasolidarity.com/watch_video.html They have repeatedly taken this one down. But so many have hard copied it and are putting back up just as fast. This link may or may not work it is the site where it originated some media outlets have blocked the site itself...in case there is a problem you can do a you tube specific search using "We Need To Talk Sandy Hook" and you will find it. Many of the media outlets are blocking it but they cant stop it, for now.

Napping
11th December 2014, 09:37
I was gonna say Jerry, I've not had any luck with this link after a couple of attempts. I'll have another crack. I'm far from closed on the issue. There's two sides, the problem is one rarely considers the other….same as most things (vaccines to mention just one…..there's another hornet's nest)….that's why "divide and conquer" is child's play. I'm on the same side as most people on this thread, but geez you'd be easily convinced otherwise.

My intent was largely around the use of comedy for some introspection. In hindsight, it was always gonna be a guns vs no guns thread. It's run it's course… I'll get back to you post that vid though Jerry….you obviously hold some value in it.

jerry
11th December 2014, 19:14
I was gonna say Jerry, I've not had any luck with this link after a couple of attempts. I'll have another crack. I'm far from closed on the issue. There's two sides, the problem is one rarely considers the other….same as most things (vaccines to mention just one…..there's another hornet's nest)….that's why "divide and conquer" is child's play. I'm on the same side as most people on this thread, but geez you'd be easily convinced otherwise.

My intent was largely around the use of comedy for some introspection. In hindsight, it was always gonna be a guns vs no guns thread. It's run it's course… I'll get back to you post that vid though Jerry….you obviously hold some value in it.

We know your on our side
Bill put this up on the Avalon server today in case your still not having any luck . TPTB have an all out assault on this one which makes it that much more important we get it out there
http://projectavalon.net/We_need_to_talk_about_Sandy_Hook.mp4

jerry
15th December 2014, 06:11
Port Arthur in Tasmania was only one of a series of massacres in Australia. There previously was a shooter on a busy arterial road who picked off people in their cars before surrendering to police. This is rare as most people committing mass murder either kill themselves or are killed by police. He is still alive, in prison. Then there was a shooting in a high-rise building of offices by a disgruntled customer. He killed a number of people. I know all about that one as my daughter was evacuated from the building. This guy died at the time, I think shot by police. Guns were often used in crime. They were easy to obtain. There was a gun shop in the town where I live--- there isn't now. Port Arthur seemed like the last straw, and the Prime Minister of the day promised much welcome reform with huge support. Since that time there has not been a massacre or multiple gun incident in Australia, and the death rate from guns is very low by international standards. I don't think think that is coincidental, but is a deliberate and successful attempt to reduce one way of killing people.

Whilst this topic has been debated here, another unarmed citizen of the US has been shot, by police. As an observer I find it hard to see why it is so difficult to understand that the fear of harm will become toxic for everyone, and so all the frightened people carry guns, law officers and criminals alike, and they will use them, even on people who are not armed at all. Doesn't this seem wrong?-- it does to me. the key phrase in your compelling argument is "Since that time". and to that I say YEThow ironic that "since that time" as yet has come