It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Before I get Banned for opening my mouth...

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:05 PM
Well I thought I would use the title to get attention to a topic that will be quite touchy due to recent vents...

Someone told me I have a habit of cutting through the crap..

Recently it is possible we have had a shift in the playing field. It seems that the American politicians are using this to provoke and advanced agendas... (it appears they did not learn from the recent change in the house)

So what happened...

Someone shot people....

now to cut through it....

The main questions from this in my mind is this...

Does Violence solve things?

We seem to have a fixation with this question and no one has addressed this one bit.

It seems to have fallen into this:

Mental Illness not being treated
Add in V-tech and others

The gun killed people
these evil things are magic and just kill, kill, kill

I want to take a moment to ask for very close monitoring of this thread, but with an exception...

No one be banned for posting their opinion, even if it is a string of inappropriate post. This is a matter we must talk about in American politics. It goes to the very core of who we are and what we believe...

Does violence solve things?

Cutting through this issue, the answer is a very simple yes violence does solve things, mostly permanently.

Now to the details which is where this matter must be discussed.

To the main body of this question purely on its tipping point.


Atomic bomb


leveled to the ground and salted...


sacked by the alric proto german ????

Kennedy (both brothers)




Malcom X


Washington DC

has been sacked and looted herself (1812)

I could go on and on... You can add to this list I can guess... It appears that violence does solve things..

now to the sub points....

When is violence appropriate?
Who can use violence?
Who decides?

This is where the argument is. So lets start, but with a twist... A small one, but very important....

edit on 11-1-2011 by ripcontrol because:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:07 PM

When do you consider the use of violence Appropriate?

Think long and hard ATS the eyes of the world are now on you.

Note my twist of AM standards.

Apparently we americans decided a little while ago a few instances where the use of violence is appropriate...

The present law as it stands while america is still free... (I know Im evil)

In a fit of rage over being wronged...

It has to be at the moment it happened

you can not load or reload

through jury nullifacation the jury see's cause

property rights vs others


(in select states only) (possible violation of rights btw of non states)

any reason whatsoever against tresspassers

excption is LEOs that id themselves
(yes a few cases went away quietly on this point)
(note rumor but funny to me

posted at property is questionable???

Where it is up to the crooks in a DA's office?

Self Defense-

Assualt, and its family

LEOs I would love your input and thoughts

goes to jury 9 out of ten ( I know most stats made up 70% of time)


best fictional example (a time to kill)

during the above two you have to use measured response
keep in mind most are not trained...

I could really use a LEO here for state versus auto at fed level...

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:10 PM
nature itself is very violent, and we are a part of nature.

i personally disagree with all forms and have avoided it in my own life. I hope I always will. I also love my .45

be good

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:10 PM
If the violent action is successful, it only solves things for the person who engaged in the violent act, but to solve things in a fair and equalled balance no it does not solve things. But I see what you mean. The thing is, every situation is unique, and things are solved for a certain number of people. not all. I'd say the answer is yes and no. Perhaps that is why not too many people delve into the very question, because in some situations it may appear that it did solve things, in others it can make things worse.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:13 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:14 PM
I find violence to be the solution for many different problems. Some issues just seem better solved with the use of violence. For instance, I have a problem with christians. If I could, I would wipe them all out and that would be a solution to my problem. Yeah, I guess I'm evil too. Sometimes being "good" gets boring, at least for me.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:19 PM
With the recent warning from Admins about calling for violence, I have a feeling this thread will be short-lived, but I will give my philosophy on violence.

1. I don't like state-sanctioned violence (i.e. Death Penalty.)
2. I do like death penalty, but it should be personal (i.e. victim or family have final say.)
3. Violence is never appropriate for political or economical advantage......NEVER!
4. Revenge violence should not be proportional, it should be overwhelming and decisive.

It is a difficult subject, because revenge and even self-defense has a way of sustaining itself in cycles. For example, if I am being robbed, and I kill the offender, but the offender has a young son that sees him as a desperate provider, then I am a defender of my family, but a murderer of his family. Insert revenge, insert subsequent self-defense, repeat.

For nations, it is not that much different. One man's liberator is another man's terrorist. If we use proportional force, or metered violence, it leaves generations of people seeking revenge. If we use overwhelming force it muddies up the goodwill and support of less violent allies. If we do nothing while people suffer, we are no better than the offenders, if we do to much, we become the offenders.

I am just glad I don't have to make the decisions for the nation, and I am willing to use any necessary force in self-defense or the cause of justice for a personal victimization, but I am never willing to use violence to further my own means or causes.

Clear as mud?

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:26 PM
Who is authorized to use violence?

Law Enforcement Officers...

This part I will let the LEO's here respond... ( ats motto DI)

I know a little... They have rules on escalation

Blink- book

With the publication of several best-selling books, reporter Malcolm Gladwell has emerged in the 2000s as one of the most influential figures in American letters. Extending the trademark style that he developed in 2000’s The Tipping Point, Gladwell’s research in 2005’s Blink spans many different disciplines and areas of study in a dazzlingly comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms and processes that underlie our ability to make decisions rapidly.

I found the two stories on LEO's are the epitome of what goes right on choice of use and what goes wrong...

man with wallet shot


kid with rifle not shot

US military-

War is politics by other means...

I do not remember... but its

Their are rules for use of deadly force...

The most disturbing was the difference between Army and Marines...

"Request permission to engage ( use force)"


30 minutes later

"Hostiles all dead"

I got in trouble for my own answer...

It came up in those lovely meetings the decide are important (

(lawful orders)

If this base was surrounded by protesters an you where ordered to open fire what would you do?


"Scuse me????"

"It is an illegally given order. I am not firing on unarmed protesters?"

That caused them to talk... It got me talked about till..

"What if you say a gun be pulled?"

"I would have a clip full of dead protesters in front of me?"


"The order was given and I saw weapons, at that point they took there own lives in their own hands..."

"And if the order was not given..."

Smiling "make sure the deck log did not show me and buddies where there.."

Secret Service

is a gimmie.... I know they have rules post them if you got them..

Who else?

Some grey areas....

Bounty hunters...

other then that you reach an interesting point...

At this point you reach a problem of the second amendment vs reality as the power mongers have rigged it..

Orson Scott Card hit home with several good characters and story points in enders game..

Peter Wiggin's rise to power...

He could not rule unless the other nations gave up there armies and weapons to his organization...

I am going to move this part to another post

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:28 PM
real quick admins please give me time to finish this...

It is not a cal to violence but an attempt to get this topic into a good conversation...

I tried to post it all at once but half way through writing I accidentally posted an empty thread...

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:39 PM
violence is often used by those want power, to over throw it, keep it, or gain power for themselves. Some will claim it's our "instinct" but then denounce we are animals.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:42 PM
I have an example where Violence solved a problem (at least from my point of view)

This was about 15 yrs ago when I was in high school, (yes high school) but what the hell, still an example. I did not instigate this.

a person threatened violence against my family, I disregarded threat but made a mental note, based on unreliable source, 2 weeks later same person made threat of violence against my family and me, from a reliable source. when confronted person confirmed said threat and was beaten with overwhelming force, end of threat.

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
oh boy....I think we may need to keep an eye on OP. He's coming off a little like erad3 to me

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:01 AM
Ahhh i like this Topic.

The Government who makes the Rules/Laws control the peoples lives who reside within the walls of that Government.

But what good are those Rules/Laws if the Government who put them in place dont follow them? Or change as they see fit for conflicts outside the walls of the Government?

We are born into a Nation that punishes Murder, but will train people to kill for Conflicts of the Governments choices, and its ok cause your a Patriots?

We are born into a Nation that punishes Theft, but we will train people to steal intelligence for our Government?

We as American really have now rights that our truly our own, we are Bound bye the Rules and laws we didnt decide on,

And for the most part The Laws we live bye work perfectly and i agree with them, my problem is that the ones who make the Laws I.E. Our Government operate under a completely different set of rules.

The way i look at it like this, our Government is like our Parents, Hence: Our Forefathers,

So as our parents, why would they scream at us to stop yelling. think about it..........

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:07 AM
Apologies, Ripcontrol, not meaning to get too off topic, but can't help but post this..

Lets understand where violence is based off of.. Violence is the end result of unchecked emotion, in most cases, in others it's a response to an immediate threat, at in the case of self defense.

We are no different from other animals in this regard, It's evident in any nature video of animal interaction.

So, since emotion is the basis of violence, as long as we have emotions, violence will be present in our civilization.

Who authorizes violence, I would say it comes down to in the end, the individual who makes the first violent move, also can be looked at as who perceives the first violent move. Which boils down to the level of "threat" that either party understands in their method of thinking.

Someone who has a lot of emotional baggage at the time may be quicker to violence then someone who is laid back and easy going.

Violence is like a coin, a good side, and a bad side. there is no way around it. It is as much of who we are, and what we are capable of as any other human trait.

Adolf Hitler could be looked at as the most violent person, where as Ghandi was the exact opposite of that, both equal on either sides of the paradigm.

Violence is a personal decision, from every man, woman, and child.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Cygnis because: Added first line of post

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:11 AM

I know this is very touchy and so far so good.. I know it is hard to have a conversation over violence because we have been trained to think and rely on others for protection...

Back to ender's game... ( i am using points I know we have in common to put those points across)

Ender did get put through several violent acts...

To succeed he had to be on his own and yet be able to have that mythical balance...

Now to the reality of the situation.. Or better put how I see the past... ( I am trying to be honest and look myself in the mirror)

Who is authorized?

I will leave the religious aspect behind partially except to acknowldge that all faiths recognize violence and most ok its use, MOST...

Now my 'Merican heritage tells me this...

What is the second amendment?

2nd Amendment US

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[6]
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[7]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

I have to look over this and several other issues here. It is a complete mess...

Here is what I know...

We decided we did NOT like our relationship status with the British empire...

WE Sent multiple messages and ambassaors... We ask not to be treated like garbage...

I believe the tipping point came when B. Franklin was treated like garbage by parliament... It was the really butt-face point. A man of great thought gave up and decided enough was enough...

Unlike most other abused people, ( or a very small part) we balled up our fist and said screw it....

Please note, until they Mark Twain it over the n- word, it is still The AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR, not the independance war, (yet)

We were left after the brits gave up and left... With a problem, what to do with the power...

The author of National secrets put it best

"They decided to split it up among the people..."


Part of the split up of the powers was an attempt to avoid the possibility of tyranny of a government.

We just got over being victimized... It took a little time ( we may have got into another bad area, its called the great experiment) but we decided that the people were not protected from the violence inflicted upon our fellow man by tyranny. We had to have a method as to where the people subject to this possibility had means to respond..

It is my belief that part of what the framers had in mind in the first ten where how to protect from the violence and what means of violence the people had to respond with...

It is a very basic check in the check and balances system...

One of the thing history does show is that those in power do not want there power challenged...

The Brits, The French, The russians...

Stalin, hitler, Mao, Castro, ect...

I know know is not a good time for this but there is no such thing as a good time other then now....

I fully believe that the framers intend for this to be as a means...

The only historical example I can give unfortunately right now carries a lot of negative connotations...

Post civil war... can you name any major leaders tried for treason?

lee, davis, longstreet, johnston...????

It is a very touchy area on this

Again who is authorized....

I believe that We the people are,

What it seems most is that nation is confused as a whole over this... It is, who is???

After this tragedy, it is a question we must answer.... AS A NATION

Leos, military (I am just gonna include spies here),
bounty hunters???

personal view

we the people???

As I said who do you feel...

I do not want to add religion to this but it will come up...
Other then who we say, out of our respective beliefs, who does god(your version or none) say and when??

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

There is only one instance where the use of violence is approrpiate - to defend yourself (property, others) from someone else who initiated violence in the first place.

It is NEVER appropriate to initiate violence against another.


never ever

never never never no matter who, what, when, where, or whatever.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by BadBoYeed

Wise advice indeed...

Franklin said something about neighbors and hedges... The mythical balance we are trying to achieve...

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:17 AM
reply to post by ripcontrol

The 2nd amendment tells us when violence is just and called for..

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Majestic Lumen

You I kept misspelling Gandhi when I went to look for quotes...

Myself I to know that there are a few situations where violence is necessary and appropriate..

May I be so bold as to suggest your saying it is situational...

What situations are those...

It is why I started this thread and I am curious as to when most feel it is... We can roleplay out all the possibilities and have good answers...

or pray for good luck and not think over it...

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:25 AM
If this species is ever going to survive and evolve, it has to control it's violent tendencies.

There is always a better solution than violence.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in