Hezbollah vs Israel. Hezbollah only had infantry and small arms. Israel had a modern army with proper weapons. Why did Israel fail?

In which particular conflict? Seems in most cases, Israel's biggest barrier in that conflict isn't the Hezbollah, but the UN.

The Iraqi insurgents. While you may argue that they lose 90% of direct battles with US forces, why aren't they completely controlled yet?

Mostly because the US wants Iraq to handle it's own problems. We aren't actively seeking out the insurgents and are instead trying to build an independent police force in Iraq so they can take care of these problems without the help of the US military. That's why so many people want us out of Iraq. All our forces do is wait around for the Iraqi forces to call us up for help.

An armed population CANNOT BE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED.

Iraq under Saddam had pretty lax gun control, but he had fairly tight control of his country until we showed up, so that isn't entirely true.

Now who is talking about martial law?

Not him. Watch the video again. He's saying martial law is a ludicrous idea and the term is being thrown out there in an effort to generate fear and push the House into rushing into a decision. He's saying, DON'T believe the hype, these worst case scenarios are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I'm surprised you didn't throw up the quote from Michael Burgess which better supports your argument, but is still just sensationalizing the situation. It's actually a pretty common Republican tactic.

If I'm a crook and I know that that house is disarmed. I'd be more motivated to break and enter it. But if I know that I'd be SHOT DEAD the moment I break in, I'd think twice before doing it.

First of all, you can never tell if you will be shot dead the moment you enter a house. You can't require every citizen to own a gun, that would be stupid and irresponsible. Second, if I were a criminal with a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to rob the house in either situation and I would probably be more likely to kill the people inside if there was a risk of being shot, myself.

Criminals aquire guns through ILLEGAL means. Banning them wont do a thing. A criminal would always find a way to get guns.

There it is. That same old tired argument again. Most illegally aquired firearms in the US are stolen from people who bought them legally. There would be far fewer guns to aquire illegally if so many people did not already have them legally. This all plays into that fantasy of the criminal underground. The problem with that fantasy is that in the real world, criminals are not that organized and do not have the level of foresight to plan out what they do. Most of your violent crimes are acts of desperation, not mafia hits or well-planned conspiracies to lash out at society.

And ask yourself why these things happen despite the opposition of majority of the people against it?

Actually in some of those cases the majority were for the action until after the fact. As for why things happen that aren't always supported by the majority, that's a factor of our government being a republic and not a democracy. A lot of people seem to forget that. While we vote for people to represent us, they are still individuals with their own views and agendas. They are not always going to act as the majority wants them to. There is a reason the US is not a democracy. Pure democracy does not work. People do not think in terms of society, but in terms of self and as a group, people tend to make poor decisions. This is why we try to avoid this pitfall with a representative government rather than letting the majority call the shots. Representatives don't ALWAYS make the right choices, but that's why we can change our minds and go with someone else every two to six years. It may not be a perfect system, but it isn't a failure by a long shot.

- The continued fluoridation of water.

And you wonder why people think you're a conspiracy nut. I have to wonder at times if you don't do this on purpose.

I agree with Isukun, I think Kyupol is being silly for the sake of arguement.
Floridation of water is part of an evil conspiracy now? Come on!
To your specific points regarding armed societies-
Hezbollah did not fight israel using hand guns and shot guns.
Nor do the iraqi insurgents fight america using such weapons.
They fight them using machine guns, rocket launchers and massive quantities of high explosive to build roadside bombs!
Roadside bombs are the most effective weapon for insurgents these days.
So if an armed populace is the only thing that keeps tyranny away, we must equip all people with large quantities of C4 and detonators so they will stand a chance.

Also I find it interesting that the "free armed populations" you point too are iraqis and hezbollah! Those are the free societies we get when we arm everyone? Fantastic!

And finally, have you ever been to any country other then america? I mean EVER?
How do you explain all the countries where everyone is disarmed but they are not tyrannical? Or the one that are much better armed then america but have total tyranny (taliban?)
How do you explain that america (with its guns keeping people safe and scaring away criminals) has such a high violent, gun related murder rate? If not giving people guns means criminals still have them, why do criminals in countries without access to fire arms HAVE LESS GUNS!

Anyway, I am 70% sure you are just being silly with your arguments to get a reaction so I will move on. Oh no! Floride in my water! And you know the microchips in credit cards? They let the government spy on you with a tiny camera!

With regard to abortion, if we want to decrease the number of abortions (which I think is a reasonable thing to seek) we need more education about and access to contraception, morning after pill and sex education generally. But also making the foster/adoption system actually function properly. Unfortunately these are all things that the "social conservatives" either oppose or dont care about.

Ok. I get called a nut for mentioning the fluoride.

Its SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to do bad things to you.

http://www.wholywater.com/fluoride.html
http://www.historyofwaterfilters.com/fluoride-2.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html [fluoridealert.org]


There's articles even in the daily newspaper. Mainstream media admits that fluoride is bad for you.

And interestingly enough, I saw an article somewhere in one of those "how-to-setup-an-aquarium" websites that you have to filter the water before putting it in the fish tank. Because the FLUORIDE KILLS THE FISH.

But it doesnt matter. Because human life has no value, its fine to drink fluoride and die.

Also I find it interesting that the "free armed populations" you point too are iraqis and hezbollah! Those are the free societies we get when we arm everyone? Fantastic!

How do you explain all the countries where everyone is disarmed but they are not tyrannical? Or the one that are much better armed then america but have total tyranny (taliban?)

I did not say they are free. I don't wanna live in a place under control by some Islamic (or any religion for that matter) crazies. And if by any chance the Shiites and Kurds successfully kicked out Saddam without US help, they'd only replace his tyranny with another one (under the guise of "Islam").

Under Saddam's rule, Saddam was only able to project power in the major cities. In the Shiite and Kurd areas, the local militias weren't completely stamped out.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned, their enemies are Israel and the Lebanese government. Both forces cannot really project power into their controlled areas. Because there is a balance of power.

Under the Taliban, the Taliban failed to project power in the areas controlled by the opposing forces. Mainly the Northern Alliance and the local warlords.


The point is, a balance of power is WHAT BRINGS PEACE AND FREEDOM (to a certain extent). What if in those scenarios... lets say that there's no such thing as Shiite and Kurd militias in Saddam's Iraq. Lets say there's no such thing as an armed resistance against the Taliban. What would be stopping those tyrannies from projecting power and oppressing the people?

And if you honestly think that Western Society is a "free society", think again. Your freedoms are under attack in the name of fighting "terrorism". If the American public is a disarmed public, God knows where the New World Order will be at this point. It would probably be a more nightmarish scenario than anything I could think of.

Because humans by nature are species that seek to dominate and control others. Therefore a balance of power is necessary for world peace. As we aren't a spiritually evolved species. We are decadent, materialistic, corrupt, and seek to dominate and control others. That is why separation and balance of power (as brought about by firearms) is IMPORTANT.

And by the way I'm not a warfreak. I'm a peaceful person who even finds it difficult to kill an insect (unless it poses a threat). However, I love freedom and I think that freedom is under attack and it needs to be protected.

That same old tired argument again. Most illegally aquired firearms in the US are stolen from people who bought them legally.

In Toronto where guns are banned, the gangstas still manage to smuggle ASSAULT RIFLES.

Even with so-called "police patrols" in the gang-infested areas, that doesn't do shit. As those cops are just for show and only go after those who do a rolling stop at the stop sign. The cops don't do anything as far as gangs are concerned. Because most of these cops are really big bully cowards who can only pick on the disarmed law-abiding citizens.

God knows what could happen in a breakdown of society. There'd be roving gangs FEEDING ON THE UNARMED DOMESTICATED public. I pray to God it wont happen.

Kyupol... Fluoride in water, the way it's added for drinking does nothing but help your teeth. :)
That's been proven: people who drink nothing but bottled water or other sources of non-fluoridated drinking water have more cavities. FACT.
Adding it to water is like adding chlorine to drinking water: it protects us against bacteria and things. I think that's rather responsible.

In other contexts lots of things are harmful to you, you silly fellow, that doesn't mean they're harmful in ALL forms. ;)

For example: Fluoride in Hydrofluoric acid is fatal to yo. it kills very painfully by replacing the calcium in your bones...
But then, pure calcium is fatal to you as well: if you were to eat some crunchy lumps of that metal it would literally blow your head off. lol!
------------------------

I like your balance of power arguments though, those are an interesting take on the things and really rather clever. :)

ozoneocean
Kyupol... Fluoride in water, the way it's added for drinking does nothing but help your teeth. :)
That's been proven: people who drink nothing but bottled water or other sources of non-fluoridated drinking water have more cavities. FACT.
Adding it to water is like adding chlorine to drinking water: it protects us against bacteria and things. I think that's rather responsible.

I don't think its a conspiracy but, Fluoride has been shown to be more harmful than beneficial with long-term exposure from public water systems causing many health conditions. Conditions such as dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, dimensia, mild Alzheimer's, weakened/inactive thyroid glands (common cause of obesity), arthritis, chronic insomnia, aluminum toxicity, low IQ and mental retardation in children, hormonal imbalance, and others. (information courtesy of professional publications from the IAACN [iaacn.org]) Chlorine also has its downsides.
;)

isukun

Guns are tools and thus personal property. Just like any property my right to own my weapons should be protected. Legal or illegal if a person has a desire to utilize a weapon against themselves or others they are going to. Even if you could successfully deplete the availability of dangerous items like guns an alternative weapon would be used instead.

I also can't agree with this argument. The guns which are of the most issue to me are the ones with a single design and function, TO KILL PEOPLE. By their very design they do not "promote general safety and prevent behaviors that are detrimental to the rights and health of others." Their existance in society puts people at risk.

As for the idea that people will find an alternative if guns aren't around, that's fine. I would rather someone held me up with a knife than a gun. At least I know I have a much better chance of walking away alive from the first scenario. Plus, there are ways people can protect themselves in that situation, while the only advice you ever hear when it comes to what you do when you're at gunpoint, is to do whatever the person with the gun tells you. Taking any sort of counter-action, even pulling out another gun, holds a sever risk upon your life.

I personally don't think a person should be restricted from living their lives however they want unless their decisions restrict the freedom of others. I don't feel free around someone who has a gun. Its only function is to harm or kill other people and people only carry them for two reasons: to shoot people and because of the psychological effect (intimidation) it has on others, both of which are serious restrictions on the freedoms of others.

I do not object to guns used for hunting, in fact, I fully support the idea. We tend to throw things out of balance in the natural world and hunting can help us to keep tabs on rapid population growth. Even sport shooting is fine by me. Some people find it rewarding and others may just get a boost of self confidence from the feel of a firearm going off in their hands. Neither of those require you to carry a gun on the streets, though.

I can see the validity of this argument, and mostly agree. But if intimidation or possibility of threat is grounds for taking things away there is no end to the loss of property we'd suffer. Where does it end? my guns? my swords? my baseball bat? my kitchen knives? my screwdrivers? My doorstops? (they ARE pretty wedgy).

IF nothing else its the principle. My POSSESSION of a gun does not inhibit your rights or freedom. Anything could be a lethal weapon if applied. It doesn't take a genius to make them just as effective as guns. Somebody could kill you with a knife cut to the neck, or a pipe smack to the head. We can't restrict people based on what they MIGHT or COULD do with something. We may as well all wear straitjackets at that point, and any law no matter how well written can be abused or twisted out of its original intent to hamper my well-being.

You could be intimidated by military or martial arts training. You could be intimidated by a motorcycle and riding chaps if a biker was standing next to you. Does the biker need to lose the biceps and fuel-efficient transportation? Anybody who wasn't popular in high school may not have felt free. This doesn't mean you get to make people shed the practices that make them happy just because they exist nearby in your universe and it makes YOU unhappy, anymore than a gay couple has to leave a neighborhood because they have a bigoted neighbor who is uncomfortable with their presence.

Note: I live in a bad area. I've been robbed and mugged more than once. Guns hurt, but in the hands of an untrained novice they are no more deadly than the knifes that ruined my liver and nicked my heart. A 9mm left me needing leg surgery. My own table lamp was used to beat me into a pulp. Yet the one time I pointed a shotgun at the guys trying to carry the TV out of my apartment was the time they went to jail and I didn't go to the hospital. Since then I've slept like a baby and the neighborhood gangs drive right past my complex. I cannot be talked into thinking guns are a bad idea, not even after I've been at the receiving end. Because I KNOW that my having one makes my survivability a lot higher than when my attacker is the only one armed.

Those are conspiracies. Basically fringe science. Especially if you're bringing up obesity, dimensia, mild Alzheimers etc, God man, don't tell me you could take that seriously.

The danger sign is when people use the scatter-gun approach. lol!
I can show you various products that use fish oil to cure everything from cancer to hives.

-----------------
I have to say I'm disturbed that you've been taken in by this. Disturbed and saddened. I took you for someone a little more rational and sceptical than that.

ozoneocean
Those are conspiracies. Basically fringe science. Especially if you're bringing up obesity, dimensia, mild Alzheimers etc, God man, don't tell me you could take that seriously.

The danger sign is when people use the scatter-gun approach. lol!
I can show you various products that use fish oil to cure everything from cancer to hives.

-----------------
I have to say I'm disturbed that you've been taken in by this. Disturbed and saddened. I took you for someone a little more rational and sceptical than that.

Taken in? No I'm not disillusioned or believing in shadow governments. I've simply seen reasonable evidence from credible sources and accepted the rational conclusion. Fluoride does bad things to you.

Instead of simply REJECTING an idea outright because I used to think it was ridiculous I looked up the validated studies from the Centers for Disease control and consulted the credible woman I know who holds advanced degrees in the subject. Yes scatter-gun or not, all those things have been attributed to fluoride exposure by mainstream medical science. Fluoride is even used by doctor's to treat overactive thyroids because of its proven effects. 12 first-world nations recalled their water fluoridation policies after reviewing its effects.

Even mad-men speak true on occasion and idiots can speak wisdom. I am a very rational and skeptical person. But those same qualities work both ways, even if that means I don't fit in with a one group of opinions or another. In this case I believe that fluoride belongs in my toothpaste not my water. I mean it IS good for my teeth, I still use it on my toothbrush. I just don't want it weakening my bones and depositing excess aluminum in my tissues by ingesting mass quantities of it.

Edit: I wouldn't touch fish-oil with a meter-stick. Too much mercury in it and its nothing you can't get with a good steak and a Caesar salad.

Well, just something else you might like to consider: aluminium has nothing to do with Alzheimers.
THAT is something that has been proved. In fact the origin of the claim was a seller of stainless steel cookware. The idea originated as a form of early corporate propaganda and turned into an old wives tale.

And the rest... well, generally you get these arguments thrown up against municipal authorities in charge of water purification by wild and angry people who've read about some studies from 40 years ago in a book, but the science just doesn't support it. I think the problem lies in the area of concentration- the concentration in the water supply isn't enough to affect the bones, whereas the concentrations in most of those studies have been quite different... But details like that don't matter to the sorts of people who get angry about it.
-I'm NOT saying that you are one of those people.

It's like the immunisation debates: Immunisation against things like Rubella helps to wipe out the disease. A disease which can have severe effects on young babies. But the fringe crowd hue and cry about the sorts of imaginary things Kyupol usually cites as well as the one in two hundred thousand chances that something will go terribly wrong with their particular child... whereby By refusing the immunisation THEY become vectors for this disease to spread to others making the chances rather more certain that other young children WILL suffer terrible consequences, as well as actively preventing this disease from being wiped out.

In Toronto where guns are banned, the gangstas still manage to smuggle ASSAULT RIFLES.

And I'm sure global positioning has NOTHING to do with that.

Therefore a balance of power is necessary for world peace.

While on paper that may seem to make sense, we've seen situations arise like the Cold where where the effort to maintain a balance of power brings about more problems than it solves. On the smaller scale, this sort of scenario is more about living in fear and less about living in peace. If people are happy, there isn't any need for them to force that balance of power through arms.

My POSSESSION of a gun does not inhibit your rights or freedom.

Actually, my point before was that it does. Just the very presence of a firearm is enough to inhibit my freedom. If I don't know you and you have a gun, just the fact that you have a device designed with the sole purpose of injuring or killing another human being is very intimidating. It doesn't even have to be pointed at me, the very fact that you possess the gun tells me you're willing to use it.

Anything could be a lethal weapon if applied.

True, but not everything has the sole design and purpose of being a lethal weapon. For instance, many swords these days are purely collector's items or for decorative purposes. They aren't built, designed, or maintained like swords in the past and are not nearly as efficient when it comes to fighting.

It doesn't take a genius to make them just as effective as guns.

Sorry, but your average household objects aren't as effective as guns. Even your alternative weapon types, such as swords and knives are not as effective as guns. There are common defenses for most of your gun alternatives. There is no defense against a firearm, though, short of giving the person what they want.

You could be intimidated by military or martial arts training. You could be intimidated by a motorcycle and riding chaps if a biker was standing next to you. Does the biker need to lose the biceps and fuel-efficient transportation?

Not the same situation at all. Training for the military is done to serve one's country. Martial arts are often used as a sports alternative and neither is a physical thing. These are things that can be misinterpreted and misunderstood or abused. Guns only have two functions, use as a deadly weapon, and intimidation on account of their status as a deadly weapon. Ouyr society creates the need for guns. We like to look past the causes of the problems and instead focus on temporary solutions to the symptoms of those problems that often make things worse and that is precisely what has happened with guns.

I think the problem lies in the area of concentration- the concentration in the water supply isn't enough to affect the bones, whereas the concentrations in most of those studies have been quite different... But details like that don't matter to the sorts of people who get angry about it.

The whole thing kind of reminds me of that parody site calling for people to ban "dihydrogen monoxide".

isukun

My POSSESSION of a gun does not inhibit your rights or freedom.

Actually, my point before was that it does. Just the very presence of a firearm is enough to inhibit my freedom. If I don't know you and you have a gun, just the fact that you have a device designed with the sole purpose of injuring or killing another human being is very intimidating. It doesn't even have to be pointed at me, the very fact that you possess the gun tells me you're willing to use it.

Anything could be a lethal weapon if applied.

True, but not everything has the sole design and purpose of being a lethal weapon. For instance, many swords these days are purely collector's items or for decorative purposes. They aren't built, designed, or maintained like swords in the past and are not nearly as efficient when it comes to fighting.

It doesn't take a genius to make them just as effective as guns.

Sorry, but your average household objects aren't as effective as guns. Even your alternative weapon types, such as swords and knives are not as effective as guns. There are common defenses for most of your gun alternatives. There is no defense against a firearm, though, short of giving the person what they want.

You could be intimidated by military or martial arts training. You could be intimidated by a motorcycle and riding chaps if a biker was standing next to you. Does the biker need to lose the biceps and fuel-efficient transportation?

Not the same situation at all. Training for the military is done to serve one's country. Martial arts are often used as a sports alternative and neither is a physical thing. These are things that can be misinterpreted and misunderstood or abused. Guns only have two functions, use as a deadly weapon, and intimidation on account of their status as a deadly weapon. Ouyr society creates the need for guns. We like to look past the causes of the problems and instead focus on temporary solutions to the symptoms of those problems that often make things worse and that is precisely what has happened with guns.

I don't buy it. If you didn't know I had a gun and I never did anything against you, your rights wouldn't impinged in any way. You'd just go on happily interacting with me on a daily basis because I'm a nice guy, and nothing I do stops you from doing as you please. Yet if you DO know then suddenly your ability to execute your lifestyle is suddenly hampered? Yeah sure, only if you're a criminal. Because the only people who should be fearing my firearms are the ones trying to harm me. There is no difference between how I would interact with my neighbors as opposed to an unarmed person. I'm not threatening anyone with my guns. Anybody who knows I have guns knows that I pose no danger to them. If intimidation is the only thing about guns that restricts your freedom, then I will gladly sponsor a bill that swears weapon owners to secrecy. If you are simply afraid of the very presence of a gun then you are being paranoid.

Its almost insulting to imply that my owning a gun implies I'm willing to use it on You or anybody else.

My other points simply illustrate that deadly or not, intimidation or possibility of threat is not a basis for taking things away. Its simple irrational fear unless I've given some indication of threat. Isukun, your description:

Someone
most issue to me are the ones with a single design and function, TO KILL PEOPLE.

also fits the functional swords and crossbow on my wall. Would you be similarly intimidated by these explicit killing instruments? I doubt you would. I don't carry them or my guns around. I don't wave either set of instrument around or wield them menacingly at passersby. Why can't I have my guns? Because somebody MIGHT be afraid IF they knew I had it?

If you didn't know I had a gun and I never did anything against you, your rights wouldn't impinged in any way.

Actually, that's not even the case. I don't know who owns guns and who doesn't in this town, but I know that there are a lot of them. Quite often that means you see a lot of people act like dicks around here and you can't really do much about it simply because you don't know who's a crazy with a gun and who isn't. I don't need to know who has a gun to find them intimidating. In fact, not knowing can be more restrictive, since then you have to be cautious with EVERYBODY.

If you are simply afraid of the very presence of a gun then you are being paranoid.

Not in this town. People shoot each other for the stupidest reasons around here. Plus drug abuse is pretty rampant and people get pretty desperate when their supply runs out. They'll do some pretty crazy stuff to get their next fix.

I'm not threatening anyone with my guns.

Except that you are and you admitted to it in your past post.

Its almost insulting to imply that my owning a gun implies I'm willing to use it on You or anybody else.

Then be insulted, because that is exactly what it implies. In fact, that is exactly the impression you want to give off and the function you personally HAVE used your gun for. You may have put it in little type, but even you claimed to have used a gun to intimidate people who broke into your apartment. So, what message were you trying to get across by pointing your shotgun at them apart from "I am willing to shoot you"? And what message were you sending out in your neighborhood when they were arrested?

also fits the functional swords and crossbow on my wall.

Nope, it doesn't. You seem to be missing my point entirely. Although if you really want to argue that your swords and crossbow aren't any different, why don't you try looking at some of the laws relating to such weapons. Crossbows are primarily restricted to hunting, and even then, most states have special restrictions on their use (like only allowing them during hunting seasons, restricting them to certain areas or even restricting them only to hunters who are handicapped). Most states do not allow people to carry blades over a certain size. Swords do not serve much purpose beyond show pieces these days. You generally can't carry them on the street even with a permit.

Still, you are talking about weapons primarily used for hunting or decoration. I generally don't have to worry about crazies with crossbows stuffed in their pants or swinging cheap katana replicas around in the streets.

isukun

If you didn't know I had a gun and I never did anything against you, your rights wouldn't impinged in any way.

Actually, that's not even the case. I don't know who owns guns and who doesn't in this town, but I know that there are a lot of them. Quite often that means you see a lot of people act like dicks around here and you can't really do much about it simply because you don't know who's a crazy with a gun and who isn't. I don't need to know who has a gun to find them intimidating. In fact, not knowing can be more restrictive, since then you have to be cautious with EVERYBODY.

If you are simply afraid of the very presence of a gun then you are being paranoid.

Not in this town. People shoot each other for the stupidest reasons around here. Plus drug abuse is pretty rampant and people get pretty desperate when their supply runs out. They'll do some pretty crazy stuff to get their next fix.

I'm not threatening anyone with my guns.

Except that you are and you admitted to it in your past post.

Its almost insulting to imply that my owning a gun implies I'm willing to use it on You or anybody else.

Then be insulted, because that is exactly what it implies. In fact, that is exactly the impression you want to give off and the function you personally HAVE used your gun for. You may have put it in little type, but even you claimed to have used a gun to intimidate people who broke into your apartment. So, what message were you trying to get across by pointing your shotgun at them apart from "I am willing to shoot you"? And what message were you sending out in your neighborhood when they were arrested?

also fits the functional swords and crossbow on my wall.

Nope, it doesn't. You seem to be missing my point entirely. Although if you really want to argue that your swords and crossbow aren't any different, why don't you try looking at some of the laws relating to such weapons. Crossbows are primarily restricted to hunting, and even then, most states have special restrictions on their use (like only allowing them during hunting seasons, restricting them to certain areas or even restricting them only to hunters who are handicapped). Most states do not allow people to carry blades over a certain size. Swords do not serve much purpose beyond show pieces these days. You generally can't carry them on the street even with a permit.

Still, you are talking about weapons primarily used for hunting or decoration. I generally don't have to worry about crazies with crossbows stuffed in their pants or swinging cheap katana replicas around in the streets.

You've missed MY point. Large blades and bows are weapons designed with the explicit purpose to kill. The same reasons you'd take away a gun would apply to them. You've assigned a special stigma to guns just for being guns. There are just as many laws about carrying guns, what type you are allowed to have on your person, carry licenses, etc. You just admitted to jumping at shadows and living in fear at the mere possibility of somebody having a gun because one of them may use it on you. I live in a dangerous place too, doesn't mean I'm cowering in fear because somebody could be packing.

You know what happened in the slums of Rio De Janeiro when the police forcibly took away guns? The drug lords still had AK-47s and the street gangs started using machetes. As I previously stated: Take away guns and you WILL start having to worry about other weapons.

Now Let Me Be Very Clear. I have never threatened anybody. I pose no threat to anybody. The only thing I ever said was that a criminal who is actively committing a crime against me will be deterred. If you want to take that to mean I'm willing to shoot my neighbors or innocent people or that I'm gonna run out in the street firing as I go then you're stark raving mad.

If you are not a criminal then you have nothing to worry about from people who buy and keep guns.

Legal gun owners are responsible people. The people you're afraid of are criminals who in all probability didn't get their guns legally. Don't punish the many for the crimes of a few. What message did I send out in the neighborhood? RELIEF. Those guys were the same ones who had killed two tenants and robbed six others. People were clapping when they were piled into the squadcar, I had gift baskets showing up at my door for a week. My careful and responsible ownership of a gun NULLIFIED fear in my area. To tell you a secret though? That night was a bluff. I wouldn't have used a gun on a person. I couldn't take a life, I just don't have it in me. Few people do.

If you want to take illegal guns off the street then good luck to you, otherwise mind your own business because other peoples guns are not your affair and do not affect you.

You know... I'm with Imshard.

not every person who owns an gun is a crazy person who could go shooting everyone in sight.

But in a sense I do understand where the fear of guns comes from. Especially when it comes to children. If you're a family guy/woman who owns an gun, then you have this fear that your children could get into your gun stash somehow and accidentally injure themselves this way. Or even worse, if they felt that they couldn't talk to you about their troubles and thought that one way to solve their problems were to shoot people with guns without consulting you first.

of course, there's plenty of responsible people who lock up their guns, etc out of the reach of children. Even taking the time to teach gun safety to their kids. And of course most of them notice when their kids are emotionally and mentally troubled to the point of needing help. or at least I would hope so.

But still, guns seem to go off easily depending on what brand. If you accidentally forgot to leave the safety on, even a dog stepping on it inside a truck could injure you. Actually happened once, and were on the news much to the embarrassment of the poor guy who got shot by his dog. Even the most responsible of people can have blunders like that...^^;;

And face it... back then when bows,swords, etc was more used than guns did anybody ever hear of stories where some young boy accidentally stabbed himself or injured his brother/etc with a sword? Accidentally shot somebody with a bow?

Well... now that I think of it, I could see that happening with an crossbow. Especially if it had those mechanized springs on it.
Hmmm... And I did hear of some story where an young boy unintentionally stabbed his sleeping father to death with an katana when he was swinging it about like it was an toy.

Aha... maybe the moral of this whole thing is to simply teach children not to view any type of weapons as an toy, when it comes to the whole "guns aren't good for families" side of the argument.
And while we're at this, we can stress the fact that guns are merely for home protection against bad people, and not for killing people. isn't that common sense?

Is this logical?

- Ok. Guns are scary. Guns are bad. Guns are the devil. Guns somehow have a mind of their own and can magically fly up in the air and just shoot people. Therefore they have to be confiscated.

- If a fellow slave carries a gun, you should freak out. Because its wrong.

- But if its a big guy with a black uniform with little trinkets and a car that has fancy red and blue lights, it is ok. There's nothing to be scared of. It doesnt matter if this guy sometimes beats up people for no reason to a bloody pulp.


Why is that?

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

As for fluoride, thats not my opinion but the opinion of health professionals




Speaking from personal experience though, as I cut off the fluoridated water, I felt more invigorated, alive, more energy, positive... everything that is good.

But that's a placebo effect, eh?

explain the weight loss. explain the stamina increase. explain the normalization of my blood pressure.
And it didn't just happen magically. When I first heard that "fluoride is bad for you", I was initially skeptical and couldnt believe it. Then I tried it myself. Drinking distilled water for a month. I noticed an improvement of my health. After a month of being off the fluoride.

The way I see it, the fluoride decreased the performance of my digestive system.

And by the way, there's are scientific studies on the toxic effects of fluoride on the digestive system

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8034913 [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383215-219.pdf [fluorideresearch.org]


Thank God I learned in the nick of time that fluoride is bad for your health.

Large blades and bows are weapons designed with the explicit purpose to kill.

You seem to be missing a very important word, there. Also, as I have said before, not all swords, especially those people typically collect and hang on walls, are designed with the explicit purpose to kill. They are SHOW PIECES. They are designed to look cool, not be effective weapons.

There are just as many laws about carrying guns, what type you are allowed to have on your person, carry licenses, etc.

And in most states, they tend to be more relaxed, which seems a little backwards to me considering the intended use of each item.

You just admitted to jumping at shadows and living in fear at the mere possibility of somebody having a gun because one of them may use it on you.

I've know too many people who have died from gun violence, usually for incredibly stupid reasons, and I have yet to meet one who's life was saved by owning a gun. I even had one guy point a gun at me in the street for no fucking reason AT ALL. He didn't rob me, he didn't want anything, I didn't even know the guy, he was just trying to be an ass.

You know what happened in the slums of Rio De Janeiro when the police forcibly took away guns? The drug lords still had AK-47s and the street gangs started using machetes. As I previously stated: Take away guns and you WILL start having to worry about other weapons.

That's funny, murder has been declining in the city since 1994. It's currently almost 1/4 of what it was when police started to really crack down on guns, but I guess to you that would be a massive failure. Of course, it also doesn't help that Rio De Janeiro is an extreme situation that really has no equivalent in the US.

Now Let Me Be Very Clear. I have never threatened anybody.

Yet the one time I pointed a shotgun at the guys trying to carry the TV out of my apartment was the time they went to jail and I didn't go to the hospital. Since then I've slept like a baby and the neighborhood gangs drive right past my complex.

Bullshit.

Legal gun owners are responsible people.

Not responsible enough to keep their guns out of the hands of criminals. Where do you think all those illegal firearms come from?

not every person who owns an gun is a crazy person who could go shooting everyone in sight.

I never said they were. You never know who is, though, and our gun laws are so lax, there really isn't any way to prevent those people from getting a gun if they want one.

Speaking from personal experience though, as I cut off the fluoridated water, I felt more invigorated, alive, more energy, positive... everything that is good.

My parents started buying bottled water around the time I started middle school. It never made any difference to me. In college, I drank primarily tap water and I never had any problems with my digestion or a lack of energy. I've also never had a cavity, yet I don't floss and I have a tendency to chew gum more than I brush.

Of course, if you're concerned about what additives are in your water, it isn't like buying bottled water is all that more expensive than drinking out of the tap. I can hit the local grocery store and buy enough water to last me a week for $4. Don't like it, get your water elsewhere.

I can't understand you dead-set immovable anathema towards guns Isukun. I established that in absence of guns other weapons would simply take their place. There ARE things just as deadly as guns in the world.

Cracking down on illegal guns and limiting the availability of military grade weapons is a good idea in my book but take my 9 and you take my safety in a neighborhood just like the one you describe Isukun.

isukun
Bullshit.

If you can't distinguish between self-defense and assault with a deadly weapon then you need your head examined. I'm not threatening anybody if I'm detaining a burgler IN MY OWN HOME. Whether I use a gun or a spiked club its just common sense to protect your family from ARMED MEN who have invaded your dwelling. Believe it or not a Gun is a great way to defend yourself. If you are determined to say I threatened them then remember this: they are the only people that qualify for that description and they HAD already demonstrated clear intent to harm my person with no provocation on my part.

And nobody just waves a gun around for the hell of it. The police like to call the reason motive. You might be trespassing in gang turf, you may be getting robbed, maybe its a serial killer. Who knows, but I DO NOT buy that a guy just waved a gun at you for shits and giggles. There is always a motive however superfluous for a man pulling out a gun.

You've stated that anybody who has a gun is willing to shoot people and coerce their neighbors into subjugation. (most people would define that as "a crazy person who could go shooting everyone in sight.")

That's belief is patently false. If your neighbor IS threatening or intimidating you then take them to court. Its called harassment, its illegal. Owning a gun does not it and of itself constitute harassment. If you're intimidated by "a lot of people" then get over it. "A lot of people" could do any number of things to you and guns are just their possibly present, possibly not implements that they use. They could use any number of things against you from brass knuckles on up. If you get attacked you're still in deep trouble, sans-weapons or not. Learn that its not the gun you're afraid of, its the person using it. Take the gun away and you still have a violent person willing to hurt you. No level of gun-bans and laws are going to change that.

Also you can exchange the word sword for: machete, bowie knife, cleavers, etc. Its still the same point. Some of my GUNS are non-functional showpieces. (well I don't know about the flintlock though, I suppose it could be fired). Should they be banned too just for being guns?

A second point I'd like to make is that removing guns is a reactionary move that doesn't remove the root/core reasons WHY violent criminals are using them. Poverty, poor education, lack of law enforcement, desperation, drug addiction and other factors are going to keep on spawning violent weapon users regardless of the availability of guns. Improving socioeconomic conditions would do a helluva lot more for crime rate than revoking the right to bear arms. Take away the reasons and it doesn't matter if guns are available, people won't feel the need to use them.

I think any and all legislation can be decided by simply looking at the issue, and decided whether it has potential to harm, or restrict others' rights.

Gay marriage.
Is there any part of allowing gay people to be married that would harm anybody else? Two consenting adults wanting to enter into matrimony. No harm there. People argue that it would harm any children they might try to have, but the evidence that gay people make bad parents is flimsy at best, and I think little Billy would be much happier if his daddies could get married.
Does it restrict anyone's rights to allow gays to marry. One could argue that it would restrict the rights of religious people, who believe it is wrong. However, with regards to personal freedom, your freedom stops where it begins to intrude upon someone else's. Gay marriage does not intrude upon the church, but the church has intruded on gay people.

Gun control.
Is there any part of allowing access to guns that could harm anybody else? Yes. So what can we do about it? We can make sure that people buying guns are of sound mental health, and use some common sense. What practical purpose does Bob have purchasing a bazooka, outside of taking down the people at the office where he hates his job? He certainly isn't deer hunting.
Does it restrict any freedoms? I would argue that it regulates them, but does not restrict them. No, you cannot have any weapon you want, but it is also the right of the public not to have to fear that people are walking around town with bazookas.

Abortion.
This is the hardest to figure out.
Does it harm anyone? Unless we have a clear, 100% factual notion of when life indeed begins, it's very difficult to determine whether the fetus in question constitutes a life.
Does it restrict any freedoms? Again, unless we know whether or not the fetus is alive (living people have rights, non-living do not), it is hard to determine. The mother definitely has rights. But if the fetus is actually alive, her right to kill it would end at its right to live.

Since we have no effectual way of determining where life begins, we must compromise. Let the mother have the abortion. If, in the end, whatever higher power exists deems it to be wrong, then only the mother will have to pay for it. Let her make her own mistakes.

Either way, women who want abortions will get them. And it isn't one of those things a woman can keep doing forever. Women aren't going to have 17 abortions. After a few, it becomes hazardous to the woman as well.

More on the abortion issue.
The options are not black and white have-an-abortion-or-keep-the-kid-and-raise-it.
First off, we need a better understanding of birth control, and we need to teach teenagers about it.
Hormonal birth control simply keeps eggs from leaving the ovaries. There is no way this can be considered killing an unborn thing, even if life begins at conception. It prevents conception. We need to make HBC cheaper, and more widely available. Teenagers should be able to obtain it without permission from their parents.
Condoms also prevent conception. Once again, we should teach kids condom use, and use education.
The less unwanted pregnancies happening, the less abortions.

There is also the issue of adoption. Right now, the adoption process is difficult, even for loving, caring potential parents who only want to give a child a good home. Plenty of us have seen Juno, in all its cheesy, wonderful glory, but part of the message is, adoption is an option.
Going back up to the gay marriage thing, if gay people could adopt, they could take in some babies that might otherwise be aborted. Many gay people have their own children by traditional reproductive means, but many of us (me included), love the idea of getting a "pre-made" baby. Heck, I know a lot of straight people who would rather not get pregnant, but would like a child.

Finally, (and this is said mostly sarcastically),
We should encourage people to have more gay sex. Can't get pregnant from gay sex! It's the best abortion prevention ever made!

I like what you're saying about abortion. Personally, the subject scares me a lot, because depending on when life begins, we're either discarding a lot pre-human tissue or we're murdering tons of babies.

But placing the choice on the mother feels like the best way to do it. She gets the choice, she gets consequences (this is not meant to imply that the man doesn't have responsibility in the situation, though).

Hawk
She gets the choice, she gets consequences (this is not meant to imply that the man doesn't have responsibility in the situation, though).

I'm in a small minority of people who feel that the father should get some say in the abortion decision.

Obviously, if you raped a girl and knocked her up, you have no say.

But if you had consensual sex together that resulted in pregnancy, and you are delighted at the prospect of being a father, only to have her get rid of it, that must be devastating!

And yeah, abortion has always been one of those issues that make me feel very worried. It's one of those things that will always be a gray-area morality-wise.

megan_rose
But if you had consensual sex together that resulted in pregnancy, and you are delighted at the prospect of being a father, only to have her get rid of it, that must be devastating!

That's a very good point. I could imagine that kind of situation being very upsetting.

If you can't distinguish between self-defense and assault with a deadly weapon then you need your head examined.

You're the one who seems to be having the reading comprehension issues, here. Your reasons are irrelevant, the fact of the matter is you still threatened someone with a gun. His status as a criminal invading your home does not change this fact or the fact that you were sending out a clear message that you have a gun and are willing to use it. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, intimidation was your goal, and from what you've said, that is what you accomplished. I don't see why you are having so much trouble with this concept.

Who knows, but I DO NOT buy that a guy just waved a gun at you for shits and giggles.

Some people get a kick out of the sense of power they get by intimidating people. It also isn't all that uncommon for a racist to try to intimidate those of a different color. My guess is that is what this guy was trying to do. It's not like I was about to chase him down and ask what his motives were, though.

You've stated that anybody who has a gun is willing to shoot people and coerce their neighbors into subjugation.

There's that reading comprehension problem, again.

Some of my GUNS are non-functional showpieces. (well I don't know about the flintlock though, I suppose it could be fired). Should they be banned too just for being guns?

No, once again, reading comprehension.

A second point I'd like to make is that removing guns is a reactionary move that doesn't remove the root/core reasons WHY violent criminals are using them.

I don't disagree that there are root problems that cause people to commit crimes. In fact, I've mentioned this earlier. The problem is that making guns readily accessible increases the lethal nature of violent crimes. Guns are also an enabler, particularly among the lower classes who feel trapped. Unfortunately, the same people who tend to be against gun control, also tend to be against social reform or anything which might help address the underlying issues with our socioeconomic structure. Any time we try to even take one step further from a purely capitalistic system, you see conservatives throw out the "communism card".

The problem with the situation is that guns ARE more lethal than other types of weapons. They are less personal, they have great range, are faster, and potentially can do a lot more damage to a person. There is also more room for error and misuse because of how easy and impersonal they are. Guns may not be the underlying cause of the problems, but they certainly aren't helping resolve the issues, either, and their presence doesn't help to stop violent crime from happening, they just make it easier for criminals to get their hands on something even more dangerous than the alternatives.

But if you had consensual sex together that resulted in pregnancy, and you are delighted at the prospect of being a father, only to have her get rid of it, that must be devastating!

It doesn't have quite the impact on the father as it does on the mother, though. The father doesn't have a parasite living inside of him for nine months. He isn't forced through the pains of an extended pregnancy or labor. He doesn't have to take time off of work to deliver and care for the child (or make the choice between work and raising a kid). Her life is effected to a much greater degree than his. I don't really think he should have much say in the issue unless they are a married couple and he wasn't somehow tricking her into getting pregnant (like punching holes in his condoms or something). Even then, though, the mother/child bond is a one of the most important things in a person's early life and really sets the foundation for all their social interactions in the future. It can be very problematic trying to raise a kid if the mother resents them.

isukun

If you can't distinguish between self-defense and assault with a deadly weapon then you need your head examined.

You're the one who seems to be having the reading comprehension issues, here. Your reasons are irrelevant, the fact of the matter is you still threatened someone with a gun. His status as a criminal invading your home does not change this fact or the fact that you were sending out a clear message that you have a gun and are willing to use it. It doesn't matter what the reasons are, intimidation was your goal, and from what you've said, that is what you accomplished. I don't see why you are having so much trouble with this concept.

Wait, did you just call me stupid? meh, whatever.
I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.
Not conceding your other points, but let me ask:
Are you familiar with the difference between offense and defense?
Now don't get me wrong, I understand your point fully.
What you've assumed is that a gun is always strictly offensive.
In bearing a weapon I do announce myself as an active combatant. When defending the intent behind that weapon is not to attack and cause damage. Defense is to negate threat and preserve yourself and others from damage. In attacking there is threatening and seeking to cause harm.

Attacking a person with a Gun is wrong, and illegal.
Is willingness to utilize a gun implied in its wielding? Yes it is.
What matters is the intent. In defending my intent was not to harm or kill, it was to prevent my own injury or death. Any number of laws clarify and validate this concept. People are inherently allowed to defend themselves.

If your mind and vocabulary insist on defining that as intimidation, then you'd better subdivide that into the categories of justifiable and unjustifiable. Though I wouldn't define it as such, I am alive today because there are such cases where that "threat" was necessary, and I used it.

Its a sometimes theodicean challenge to explain the value of guns. Explaining why something with the ability to take life is needed. Best to put it this way. Our society has found that intent is Primarily what matters in evaluating an action. Without criminal intent punishment for actions is limited in accordance to its actual detriment. Thus my mind has categorized guns as a tool. All tools have intended uses, and can be misused. I can fix my computer with a screwdriver Or I can jam it in my neck instead. The difference is my intent, and whether it is right or wrong to the standards of the society I live.

My owning a gun does not mean I inherently pose an offensive threat. My neighbors are not intimidated because they know I will not use the weapons against them. I am not a threat to them, and neither is my possession of firearms. My intent is not to the detriment of my peers.

imshard
offense and defense?

These words aren't originally related... in the way you think they are anyway. Americans created the meaning you're talking about because these words rhyme. This "offends" my sense of propriety. :P

imshard
My owning a gun does not mean I inherently pose an offensive threat. My neighbors are not intimidated because they know I will not use the weapons against them. I am not a threat to them, and neither is my possession of firearms. My intent is not to the detriment of my peers.

I wouldn't want to live next to you. Wild Bill.

RE: Abortion

The problem with addressing it as a life or not a life that is being destroyed is ultimately futile. So far all anti-choice people I've spoken to are incapable of explaining the legal framework that they would like to create with the criminalization of abortion. I know I've posted it elsewhere, but the main questions:

1. Who gets punished for illegal abortions? The doctor? The woman?
2. What is the charge? What is the punishment?
3. How deep will investigations have to go to uncover these illegal abortions?
4. Since sympathetic doctors will inevitably perform abortions and call them "miscarriages", will all miscarriages have to be investigated?

Just like gun laws, sex laws, drug laws and all the morality laws we tend to react but not think the actual legislation through. This inevitably leads to irrational and contradictory laws.