Before I get Banned for opening my mouth...

reply to post by ripcontrol


You know very well if this thread gets somewhere it will be closed and you will be banned, due to TPTB. G/L with your endeavours.

Violence is a natural state. By studying animals we know this to be true. Animals will resort to violence very quickly if they are threatened or believe to be in any type of dangerous situation.

Humans are nothing more than animals with evolved brains. We have learned to harbor other solutions prior to violence, but in every human the "fight or flight" instinct still remains. Even the most peaceably of people will find themselves to be well capable of violence should something they love dearly come under a serious, perhaps lethal threat.

There for it can be determined that violence is the result of threats to the well being of someone or something that is loved by a particular animal. Whether than thing be a person, a pet, an object, a location, or even an IDEA, it is still capable of holding great emotion for a person.

In America, the grand idea is the idea of FREEDOM. Every day, people who love and cherish freedom see the government limit it more and more, even though in tiny increments. When compared to the inception of the country back in the 1700's, we have very little freedom that we were guaranteed by the event of violence in the form of revolution.

To defend the idea of freedom, people have spoken out, protested, rallied, picketed, voted, and done everything peaceful within their means that the governing body allows them to do. However, by ignoring these actions, the government is paving the way for violence as the last resort, just as it is with any society or animal when put into danger of losing something they love. Just as the people in 1776 loved their freedom and petitioned for it for years, they eventually had to resort to violence in order to spread the power of the country among the people, and thus guarantee the freedom they fought for.

BUT they were not stupid and they were not ignorant of what future generations might bring. They were well aware of the risks involved with having a central government and the fact that at any given moment, the government might make an attempt to nab power from the people. Over the years, the government has done JUST THAT. They have managed to wrestle the power of freedom from the people and ignore any pleas to have it returned.

Thus, the second amendment guarantees that we be armed in the event that violence becomes necessary. In the event that our freedom is at stake and government refuses to acknowledge us in our peaceful attempts to gain it back, the framers of the Constitution made it so that we could follow in their footsteps and do what has to be done in order to return the freedom and power back to the people.

Violence was the only answer back then. Violence is the only answer today. Nothing has changed in that time. The only thing that has changed is the powers of the world drumming into peoples heads that violence can not be used for good as they continue to use it on a daily basis to expand empires and limit rights.

Many people speak of the "Road to 1776" and the events that led up to the revolution. Being a Revolutionary War buff myself, I can tell you that the events prior to that great event, and the events we are experiencing today are not far off from one another. Just as there was back then, there are people today that will speak down on violence as unable to accomplish anything. Those are the same people that when the dust settles, and all was said and done - they thanked those small percentage of men and women who sacrificed for ensuring their freedom and they realized that in some instances of the heart, though it may not particularly be liked or wanted -

VIOLENCE IS NECESSARY.

All will realize the same today in due time. In due time.

violence is the wrong answer they want these outbursts too happen, all apart of the grand plan ! you wnat too beat them beat them with brain not brawn.

The world revolves around violence or the threat of same.period.
Your own goverment controls its populace through this threat of organised violence upon you or yours should you decide not to co operate with their agendas.
Every person who goes against the wishes of the goverment is immediately under threat of escalating violence, till the person is overwhelmed by the govt forces.
In this regard the goverments are merely a legalised form of coertion of the individual.
With violence or the threat of it as a basis for goverment,and the individual is basically powerless to resist, id say wed be just as well off with the mafia or any other organisation running things.
Even court proceedings are backed by this threat of violence.

reply to post by Cygnis


Actually your opinion imho is right on topic...

You side with
Daniel Goleman

Daniel Goleman (born March 7, 1946) is an author, psychologist, and science journalist. For twelve years, he wrote for The New York Times, specializing in psychology and brain sciences. He is the author of more than 10 books on psychology, education, science, and leadership.

His subject...
EQ

Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability, capacity, skill; or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Different models have been proposed for the definition of EI and there is disagreement about how the term should be used.[1] Despite these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability-EI and trait-EI models (but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful applications in various domains.

It seems that this argument is coming down to the level of said form of intelligence versus interactions between those up and down the scale...

ex. someone with a lower eq actions and how those with higher eq will respond...

The argument is how those with higher levers should do things....
I hoped I summed this up correctly....

reply to post by mnemeth1


I agree with that statement 9 tenths the time....

the problem is that tenth time..

THIS IS MY OPINION AND DOES NOT REFLECT ATS

Their are times where it does not apply.....

In history and fiction

it seems that the main problem is not all humans agree to play by the same rules.... The issue is sociopaths...

reply to post by ripcontrol


This has been the topic in the national media for the last few days. Seems to be two schools of thought here.

Those who are trying to take advantage of this tragedy for political gain from the fringe Left.

Those who understand this was a young man having a classic psychotic break at the age when it most often happens and want to have rational dialogue about why the Sheriff and his Dept., who knew for a long time this person was making death threats against their citizens and chose to ignore it and failed to even have him evaluated for the 72 hours the law allows.

This same Sheriff who's own Dept's inaction shares blame for the deaths is all over the airwaves blaming it on people who had nothing to do with it. He even admitted on an interview he has zero evidence to back up his political rants.

Him doing that has compromised the case against this killer and given his Defense an out to get a reduced sentence. Multiple Prosecutors have voiced their opinion in most places, this Sheriff would loose his job for doing what he is doing. So why is he doing it? What would make a Sheriff take actions he knows are wrong and could benefit a Mass Murderers Defense?

We know why the Politicians do this. To get votes and their message is catered to whoever they think will give them the most votes. Truth is irrelevant to them. The Sheriffs reason could be the same, but I don't think so.

I think this Sheriff knows that his Department dropped the ball on this and it will likely cost him his career. We now know they made many visits to the killers home on calls, had many complaints and knew about multiple death threats from this Schizophrenic and took no action at all. We know they could have detained him for a psych evaluation anytime they wanted and could have done it legally. We know this Sheriff is responsible for not doing anything about this known danger to his citizens. What better way to cover your own mistakes, which may have played a part in these deaths, than to engage in a political tirade of nonsense to hide behind? I think it is obvious that is what he is doing.

As to the dishonest politicians trying to use this to remove more of our rights and do away with free speech, they are just doing what they always do. They lie for a living to people to naive to pay attention because they know people are so divided thanks to their long efforts to divide us, they can tell their supporters any lie they wish and they will fall for it.

They and this crooked Sheriff are taking advantage of this tragedy for personal gain and that should make everyone want to vomit or spit in their faces. Does it? Heck no! People are just as gullible as these crooks think they are.

One good thing from all of this is we are finding out who the absolute bottom of the barrel are among us. Those so sick and vile they would use a tragedy for their own gain. Those who are so Partisan they will lie openly about anything to get their own way. Those who's goal in life is to control us completely and rule over our lives. Those who want to take away free speech and a free press so the only message we hear is whatever propaganda they want us to hear.

I've seen more in your face Hipocracy this week than I've seen in quite a while.

reply to post by backinblack


I have to leave my personal response to this out....

I agree with the sentiment that the constitution does state that.......

I felt it was an axiom of the ideas....

The application of said issue is different then the implementation...
It applies to the idea of a free market economy working here in the US... We are a mixed economy with semi- central authority planing in the form of the fed...

so the application of all the constitution will be altered by this as well...

Cesare Beccaria, Guns quotes:
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

I have often wondered what would happen if this caught on

Looks like a field test worked
Mandatory gun carry law

of note...

"When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then," said police Lt. Craig Graydon. "We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert Heinlein”

I truly wonder if it would make things better. Does anyone live in this area? I would love to see the numbers versus the rest of the world...

reply to post by ripcontrol


Lougher?
Is that you?

reply to post by whatukno


I want to argue,but your right...

The argument goes into the control of those tendencies... Who and how....

I will speak for your response, even though we disagree...

Read some of his post. He accomplished a lot using his brain refraining from violence....

Brain vs brawn ( batman vs superman) (i know bear with me )

Legion annual

in this there is a scene where he (ultraboy) is trying to get back at a group of enemies who took something.

It was the example of fighting on your terms... They challenged the other group and had the police pick em up....

Brains vs Brawns

I think it's a touchy subject really.....

I would only resort to violence as a last measure, and only if someone threatened the saftey of my family and friends. I would rather use words to try and diffuse a situation.

That being said, I could quite happily let the darker side of me out to play for ten minutes with a kiddy fiddler (pedofile).

But I suppose the use of violence to end long running violence could be acceptable in certain situations if there was no other option (ie the middle east).

I will be returning to answer more post and respond to some of the great replies that have been added here...

I expected a lot more t and c removal yet so far everyone has behaved quite well... This has turned into something a lot more interesting via the discourse....

sum it up for those just getting here....

Brain vs Brawn

And when intelligence and if it should return or better put resort to violence

I'm glad that you are bringing this topic to light. In an attempt to Deny Ignorance I think it is important that we discuss this topic in a civil and intelligent tongue. I will quote one of my favorite books first:

“There is no excuse for war, none whatever, and whatever the wrong which your nation might be doing to mine - short of war - my nation would be in the wrong if it started a war so as to redress it. A murderer, for instance, is not allowed to plead that his victim was rich and oppressing him - so why should a nation be allowed to? Wrongs have to be redressed by reason, not by force.”

-Merlyn, The Once and Future King, T.H. White

I have more than once consulted these words from a fictional book in an attempt to not only ease my own mind, but to ease the minds of others. The interpretation is no more vague than how it sounds. "There is no excuse for war." In the same paragraph Merlyn states: "...whatever wrong which your nation might be doing to mine - short of war -..."

Short of war.

Any non-violent activity, whether it be protesting, name-calling, etc. is not a requirement, nor a reason to see to these actions with force. Merlyn speaks this quote in the grander scheme of things: nations going to war. The "war" however, as many have stated already, could be as simple as a mugger trying to hurt you or a loved one, or perhaps trying to break into your house to steal your property. Should these actions be redressed with force? In my opinion, yes. In a situation where one's life is in danger of being forfeit due to the actions of another, the only way to meet that need for self preservation is to eliminate the force that is trying to extinguish your own. This, of course, is the most extreme action that a single person can take. Talk to people that have taken a life to protect their own; They are not the same people. LEO's, soldiers, Letter Agents, etc. Once they take a life, they are no longer the same person.

"Wrongs have to be redressed by reason, not by force."

What sets us apart from the animals is our ability to reason. It is our ability to negotiate. It is our ability to understand one another. It would be far too easy to shoot someone that doesn't agree with you than to find out where their opinions are derived from. One might find that after negotiations, debate, and intelligence reasoning, one comes to an understanding about the person that one may disagree with.

My opinion is that there is already too much violence in this world; and for what? A difference of opinion concerning outdated belief systems. A difference of opinion concerning political banter. A difference of opinion concerning financial affairs.

A society fails when the last resort one feels they have is taking the life of another.


"A murderer, for instance, is not allowed to plead that his victim was rich and oppressing him - so why should a nation be allowed to?"



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

reply to post by ripcontrol


I'll try to be succinct....

Violence does not solve anything. All violence does is force people into submission. Can a war really be won because one side was more violent or smarter about how they carried out that violence? Yes. Does that mean the person who won has proven they were in the right all along? No. We won WWII because we were smarter about our violence. But we did not change the fact that Hitler was a racist scumbag bent on destruction and there are people in this world that either agreed with him or are just like him and capable of the same thing. We bombed the every-loving bejesus out of Hiroshima. Did this prove we were in the right? No. It proved that we are willing to be the most violent in order to win a war.

Winning a war is not the same as winning an argument over who is right and who is wrong. If a guy gets peeved that some other guy was hitting on his girlfriend and gets into a physical fight with him and wins, this does not mean that the one who was beaten accepts that he was in the wrong to hit on someone else's girl. It only means he was beaten into submission and doesn't want to be beaten anymore so he will back down. The victory is only temporary.

I feel like I have said this many times in the past few days, but it cannot be said enough, in my mind. The 14th Dalai Lama said the power of guns is temporary, the power of truth lasts forever. You can win a war with your guns, bombs, drones, bunker busters, and by torturing people. In the end, the truth about who was right and who was wrong will prevail. It does not happen immediately. It can take a year, five years, or even a hundred years. In the end, it is truth that will win.

When is violence acceptable? When you are defending yourself or someone else who is in immediate danger of having violence committed against you or them. I don't really think I need to clarify that.

After my last post I had to make a trip to pick up my Wife. There was a relevant story on the news on the radio that pertains to this thread.

Apparently through interviews with people involved it has come out that Loughner has made death threats multiple times in the past and Sheriff Dupnik never took any action. Now after his Dept. released some information yesterday on unrelated events of no meaning in this, pretending it was all of their contacts with Loughner, they are now refusing to let anyone in the media view the publicly available records on Loughner even though by law they cannot be hidden from the public. Apparently a local Newspaper made the request to view them.

Oddly enough when Arpaio was required to make such records available in the same State, the oposite argument was made and upheld by the court so Dupnik knows he is wrong for withholding this information.

On top of this he is up for reelection in 2012 and his job is on the line.

Add all this up and you have a Sheriff hiding the fact they knew about Loughner, they knew about the death threats, they knew he was a potentially dangerous Paranoid Schizophrenic, they knew they could take him in at any time under Arizona Law for an evaluation and they CHOSE to not do anything at all about him. Now people are dead on his watch and he may bear the most responsibility other than that held by Loughner.

If true, his career is over and he knows it. So what does he do, he divides the whole country with Partisan lies and accusations to save his own job and uses this tragedy as a tool to get himself elected. He risks the case against Loughner by giving the Defense a perfect excuse and he does it over and over again publicly. He could not have helped Loughner more if he had been paid to help him. He broke every rule there is about the conduct of person in Law Enforcement and made statements any other Officer would be fired for.

I think their refusal to let people see public records is pretty good proof of what I believe. One can only hope the good people who vote there are not foolish enough to fall for this. He is betting they are and trying to guarantee it by using the old divide and conquer strategy, but he does not seem intellectually capable of fooling anyone.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
It seems that the American politicians are using this to provoke and advanced agendas...

The entire American political system is corrupt. And so are all the voters.

The politicians are only mouth pieces for those voters that nominated them. I say it's the corrupt voters that are doing the REAL provoking and advancement of agendas. When some politician promotes this (involuntary servitude) socialist agenda, I don't get nearly as upset with the politicians as I do with all of those corruptible thieving voters that nominated these immoral politicians as their nanny/leader. These politicians blatently and openly bribe the voters with junk like this idea of a socialist commie health care system. "Vote for me and I'll give you free cookies! Free cookies for some .. and a bakery bill for others!" Horrible blatant bribery and corruption. (I think Obama and everyone that voted for him should be sent to prison, ha)

So what happened...

Everyone is mad and scared. The socialists are upset because they might have to carry their own weight, and the freedom loving crowed is upset because they are being asked to carry more commies on their back.

Does Violence solve things?

Violence can never solve an issue, it can only make it go away instead (ha). Okay, seriously though, violence is only necessary when it becomes pretty obvious that it is necessary.

Here's what I mean in-so-far as today: "I" want to be left alone. "I" do NOT want to play communism nor socialism. "I" do not want to be someones slave.

Now, given the above, suppose I refuse to join in on this socialist health care mandate. Suppose I refuse to pay whatever, be it an insurance policy, or some fine for refusing. What will happen next? Violence? Will violent government gangsters with guns that represent that gang of socialists come to FORCE me to play and pay, or take me away to jail, or shoot me when I refuse and stand by my commitment: LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE, DAMN IT, OR ELSE!!! And when they start shooting at me for not surrendering and becoming a commie, will violence then okay, or should I let them shoot me and/or drag me away .. all because I didn't want to become a commie because it goes against my moral beliefs that "involuntary" servitude is immoral and wrong ???

Violence will not even solve the above issue because after they have shot me for refusing to be commie, the commies will still be around, and thus these little acts of violence never solve anything.

Best bet is to pray to our God(s) to save us from these commies, ha. "God, please strike down those that have visions of ropes around our necks!"

Does violence solve things?

It took a civil war to end slavery once in this nation. Will another civil war become necessary to keep slavery away? Hey, maybe we can divide this nation into two halves, one half for the lefties, commies, and socialists, and the other half for the right folks, the freedom lovers, those that don't need or want a nanny socialist state to run our personal lives for us. That would be cool, a perfect alternative to violence, if we just divide the nation into two halts right here and now. Of course, if that doesn't happen tomorrow .. well .. either that monkey gets off my back now, or I'm gonna mace and taster it, ha.

That's really what all of this madness is about these days. Survival. You got one half that seems perfectly content to take care of themselves and their own, and then you got that other half that just doesn't get it and wants THEIR ideals forced down everyone elses throats. Seriously, EXPECT violence if that's the kind of world we're headed towards tomorrow. Half just want to be left alone, and the other half wants to eat them. Yeah, expect violence if this is how tomorrow might be.

I myself am a peace loving person. I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone. But seriously, if this socialist nonsense doesn't stop, this nation will be headed towards civil war, and that is a certainty.

According to all peace advocates, whatever system we are born into, whether we like it or not, we are simply just supposed to bend over and take it.

I want someone, anyone to answer me one question.

I was born in the United States. I believe the United States government is a repressive government. I have petitioned this government. I have asked to be removed from the control of this government. I have attempted to leave this place, only to find that all around the world are similar government with similar forms of control.

I do not enjoy this life under these circumstance and I know that I am not the only one.

I have voiced my concerns much in the same way as everyone else has, even so far as to decades before I was even born.

Those before me saw no action, no reprieve, no honoring of their requests.
I have seen no action, no reprieve, and no honoring of my requests.
Thousands around me have seen the same.

So my question is this:

At what point does it become OK to react with violence, and if never, at what point does it become our responsibilities to be slaves of a system that we had no part in creating?

Violence is not acceptable in any circumstance except for defense! Self defense for self and loved ones. IMO that does not include the right to join forces in war to kill others off with an unncessary war started by TPTB - the only time this would be acceptable is if our country was invaded and killing civilians.

reply to post by ripcontrol

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

WRONG!

I have posted several times that laws in the seventies Deinstitutionalized the mentally ill. More recent laws made it illegal to require the mentally ill to take their medication. Now 25% of the street people have severe mental illness according to the US government.

Also desegregation busing took place at the same time giving young drug pushers access to all American school systems. Deaths by coc aine spiked.

The result of these sets of laws coupled with the CED's implemented plan of forcing farmers off their land and the resulting social upheaval, was a very sharp spike in US incarcerations. From well under 500,000 before 1970 to over 2.2 million. Now 1 in ever 18 adult males isi n jail,in prizon on parole or otherwise monitored.

In otherwords CONGRESS is to BLAME!

The shooter was visited by the cops several times and nothing could be done BECAUSE of the laws passed by CONGRESS!

reply to post by ripcontrol

Interesting question that the op has put forth, and there are a few thoughts on the subject that could be addressed. Before going into the thoughts behind the topic, it is often best to look at the very definition of the word and idea that is being proposed.
Violence is defined as an act of aggression, ferocity, a turbulent state resulting in injury and destruction. Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against the self or other.
Life and the planet that we all reside on, by its very nature is a violent place. We eat meat, thus commit acts of violence on other creatures. But in this case, does violence solve things? In some cases, yes it does, and in other cases it does not. You mention Hiroshima and the Atomic bomb, yet fail to mention that the reason for developing and actually using this weapon, is that it was to end the war in the pacific against the Japanese, through their own action, committed an act of violence against the United States of America, dragging the country into World War II. It was believed, based off of the information at the time, that the Japanese people would fight to the last man, woman and child, in a fanatical devotion, thus saving lives on both sides of the conflicts, and starting the atomic age. It also, kept the peace, and even ended a cold war without so much as firing a shot.
Wars from our distant past, say that of Rome, it is hard to say, if it was a good or a bad thing, though based off of military tactics, the salting of the ground was to prevent the people of Carthage from waging war against Rome again, done as a punitive action. And even then after the western Roman empire fell, it led the way for many of the forefathers of the modern day European countries to give rise and develop their own identity as a people.
The war of 1812 was bound to happen as a new nation was seeking to prevent actions against it by a country that it beat back in 1776.
Guns, do not kill people. I know, there are three sitting in my house, gathering dust. They are about as likely as to kill someone, and I do pity the person that tries to use any of them for such, as they are old and have not been kept up with.
It is not the tool that is inherently evil, rather the hand that wields it. A gun can have a positive effect, as many of the innovations from violent conflicts that we all use and enjoy today. Some of the very technologies, that are the most useful and life saving came from technology. Microwave ovens, came from the development of radar. Advances in medicine, often came from wars, including surgical techniques to save lives. X-ray, the concept of seeing into the human body, came about after the assassination of a US President. The internet, cell phones, and telecommunications all came from the very military hard ware that we would use to destroy those who we would believe to do us harm. Even the maps, that are used, came from conflict and violence. Our greatest achievement of the 20th century, a man walking on the moon, came from the remnants of World War II. Even the United States of America, came about from a violent beginning, to overthrow the British control over the country so we can determine our own destiny.
Assassinations often have a stronger message than the person itself. Take JFK, for example, we know he was assassinated, however, did not his message live on long after, his death, along with that of MLK, Gandhi, or even Malcolm X? Ask yourself this, would we have remembered any of the assassinated figures, if they had died of natural causes, or do we remember them and consider their lives more, cause they were assassinated? I believe that those who were assassinated, and in the publics eye, all knew the risks, knew that there was a very good chance that they would be killed for what they believed, and were willing to continue, as the message that they felt that was needed to know about, was far more important than themselves. Even in religion, the death of a religious figure, the death is often associated with a message, and we often remember that message long after the person was killed in an act of violence. So I would say that violence has a role to play in our lives, in one form or another, and it is not something that can be avoided. It is within our very nature, and one that many people far wiser than many of us has been trying to figure out how to deal with, and most of the time, can not solve.