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.
leveled to the ground and salted...
sacked by the alric proto german ????
Kennedy (both brothers)
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?
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: oops...lol
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
War is politics by other means...
I do not remember... but its famous...lol
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 ( )
If this base was surrounded by protesters an you where ordered to open fire what would you do?
"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.."
is a gimmie.... I know they have rules post them if you got them..
Some grey areas....
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 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.
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
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.
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
Violence is a personal decision, from every man, woman, and child.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Cygnis because: Added first line of post
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. One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:
“ 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:
“ 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
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),
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??
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.