The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I have an idea of a few places you can go, where people will share your anti gun enthusiasm.

Try going to England.

You keep him, we don't want him.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


hey you can talk smack. but america shows more respect towards women then most countries . and i like to see you win a gun fight with a knife since that is absoulutely impossible !!


and we made and have the right to bare arms to protect our family and our homes . and im not going to down talk any other countries i bleave we all can show good and bad examples .

and you just showed how you are a bad example !!

Only cops and robbers are allowed to have guns...

Case Study: Chicago.

It's 100% impossible to disarm the world, aside of eradicating the entire human race...

A low intelligence person can easily fabricate a working firearm from off the shelf parts.
And the smart ones would be able to devise a mass production facility within a short time frame.

I am talking about creating these things from scratch.

What are you going to eliminate the "Knowledge" of guns and how to make them too?

Like I said, Impossible.
Not logical, not rational, not even possible.

Originally posted by hakalugie4u
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

and i like to see you win a gun fight with a knife since that is absoulutely impossible !!

Historically it wasn't all to uncommon actually.

For example a few hundred years ago, the cavalry charge was still in effect and the dragoons/cruissars carried sabers.
And they sure cut the line infantry up fairly often in melee combat.

Tactics and strategy are far more crucial to a battle than the weapons themselves.
It's how you use the weapon that counts.

Consider that the gun user could be a poor shot, or have reloading difficulty, or issues with a part of the weapon breaking or becoming inoperable. This is why they attached a bayonet to the end of the musket, because they knew that although ranged fighting started the battle, there would still be a chance for a melee.

In fact, there are cases in Iraq and Afghanistan where melee combat occurred, in the modern battlefield.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It's 100% impossible to disarm the world, aside of eradicating the entire human race...

A low intelligence person can easily fabricate a working firearm from off the shelf parts.
And the smart ones would be able to devise a mass production facility within a short time frame.

I am talking about creating these things from scratch.

What are you going to eliminate the "Knowledge" of guns and how to make them too?

Like I said, Impossible.
Not logical, not rational, not even possible.

You're right, it requires an evolution of culture to reach a point where we want to finally put away our childish toys.

If you don't think *that's* possible, well the nice thing about evolution is it takes care of the self-destructive aspects itself.

Namaste.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

At least the military TRIES to act like it's interested in our protection. Civilians do whatever the **** they want to, and really, we wouldn't need guns if the threat weren't INSIDE our border. We can't even trust our own neighbors. Hell, in my hometown, a man with a gun randomly walked into a house and shot a 14 year old girl. He wasn't military, but he had a gun. Imagine if all guns were banned?

She would never have gotten hurt.

Do you really think the gun makes the person do wrong, instead of the person doing wrong with the weapon himself. And do you think that banning guns will stop those who live lives of crime? The criminals would still do harm and a lot of them will still have guns. But the people who lead decent lives won't have a way to protect themselves in their own home.
How can you say that "She would never have gotten hurt." There is no possible way for you to know that. The guy could have an underground gun, or hurt her in some other way.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment

reply to post by jude11

The perfect World for the US is to have every Nation and citizen dis-armed. Except for the US. Govt. & Military of course.

I'm in the U.S. and unfortunately I have to agree with your statement.

Originally posted by hakalugie4u



and we made and have the right to bare (sic) arms to protect our family and our homes .

Roll your sleeves up then, champ. If you can't get that right, how many other simple things are you just getting plain wrong.

Personally, I'd love to see general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world. I don't think we will see it though, because there is too much profit in wars and weapons (including the 'drugs': megalomania and greed), there are too many people believing that they can carry a weapon wherever they are, even if they are living in areas that encroach on the natural habitats of wildlife such as cougars and bears and will use their 'big man' guns against these animals even though it is the humans that have invaded their range....sounds familiar?

Perhaps the other option is to give everybody guns and kill ourselves off.

reply to post by Daedal


You know in ancient time the armies would kill the whole population, women, children, and babies. How is this different from the modern threat of nuclear weapons. Disarmament always back fieres when the others secretly develop weapons. Look at the Nazis. They were not suppose to be developing weapons but they did, and they overran Europe. As long as there are those willing to secretly develop weapons disarmament is a big mistake. Your enamy knows you are weak when you engage in disarmament.

Originally posted by jakflat1
reply to post by Daedal

 

You know in ancient time the armies would kill the whole population, women, children, and babies. How is this different from the modern threat of nuclear weapons. Disarmament always back fieres when the others secretly develop weapons. Look at the Nazis. They were not suppose to be developing weapons but they did, and they overran Europe. As long as there are those willing to secretly develop weapons disarmament is a big mistake. Your enamy knows you are weak when you engage in disarmament.

Possibility of the "paradox" you find yourself in:

So long as you still want to keep a knife "just in case", you will be stuck here. It's a mechanism to keep those with destructive tendencies in a "space" where they can't do exactly what you propose to the rest of existence that gets along just fine.

You want to evolve and join the big boys and start having some real fun? Put down the gun (pacifier) and graduate from this school.

Namaste.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

My, you're sensitive. I never once implied that I was cool, so take a chill pill and cool yourself down, friend.

At least the military TRIES to act like it's interested in our protection. Civilians do whatever the **** they want to, and really, we wouldn't need guns if the threat weren't INSIDE our border. We can't even trust our own neighbors. Hell, in my hometown, a man with a gun randomly walked into a house and shot a 14 year old girl. He wasn't military, but he had a gun. Imagine if all guns were banned?

She would never have gotten hurt.

Really?... So there aren't knives, bats, and a whole bunch of things that can be used to kill and murder other than guns?...

If that man who walked into the house of the 14 year old didn't have a gun, he might have thought twice, raped her, then strangled her to death or used a sharp object to kill her... Hell there are some sickos out there that would have set her on fire and laugh while she screamed in agony...

There are good and bad people in the world, yet you seem to think everyone is bad... Maybe it is because inside of you, you know to be a bad person...

You bunched all civilians together and seem to imply that "all civilians do what they want no matter the consequences..." Which of course it is not true... Plenty of "civilians" are good people and do not act recklessly...

Criminals like to claim "everyone steals", and they make that claim because THEY are criminals. Likewise you might be thinking that "every civilian" is bad because YOU are somehow bad?...

Either that or you are one of those recruits who became a soldier, or maybe not, but because of your small mind you bought into the lie that "soldiers are better than civilians. Civilians do nothing while we protect them"... Yeah, I heard the same stupid lie from a small minded RDC during bootcamp, and also know many other recruits are told/were told the same thing, but only small minded people believe such a lie not to mention that the "commander-in-chief-" of all the Armed Forces is also a "civilian"...

Either way it is obvious you think too high of yourself and think other people, or "civilians" can't control their dark side, which of course is nothing but another lie.

I agree with the other member, you are high in a cloud and think you are better than everyone else, but you are not.

Just because there are people who are bad, that doesn't give YOU or anyone else the right to want to ban firearms...

BTW, in case you didn't know there have also been murderers in the military...

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

You're right, it requires an evolution of culture to reach a point where we want to finally put away our childish toys.

If you don't think *that's* possible, well the nice thing about evolution is it takes care of the self-destructive aspects itself.

Namaste.

You know, such thoughts on how you are so high above everyone else, and everyone must do as you do to reach some "high point" is nothing more than a way of stroking your own ego which is what will really keep you in a never-ending circle of karma in this world, or even what you would call a lower one.

Thoughts are very self destructing, and your thoughts that you think to be at a higher spiritual level than others means that your ego is one of your faults, so don't go assuming that because you use a whole bunch of symbols, and greetings invented by different cultures that you are "at a higher point" than anyone else...

Firearms in themselves are not evil, and neither does it make anyone having firearms as evil, or "spiritually lesser" than anyone else... What is evil is in what way you use that weapon. If you use it to murder, and not in self-defense, yes that is an evil action. But firearms, and owning firearms is as evil as you using the greeting and parting "Namaste"...

Let me try to make my point.

In case you didn't know "Namaste" is derived from Sanskrit and originates from the Indian subcontinent. It is part of the Hindu tradition. Also in case you didn't know another hindu tradition is the caste system that separates people into different categories. The lower caste people have to ask permission from the higher caste people, who work in the government, are land/owners or very rich people, if they can better their lives, if they can go to a college/university, etc. There are also lower caste who can never try to better their lives, many of them are known as "untouchables".

The caste categories and system comes from the hindu belief in karma, that we are all born into the life we are supposed to live, and we shouldn't try to get away from that sort of life. So if you are born poor, you should live the rest of your life as a poor person.

Although I don't blame Hindu people, and there things that can be learned from their Vedas and their culture, the caste system literally is an excuse for allowing millions of people to live in poverty, and never letting them better their lives, and every time you say or write "Namaste", you are in fact bowing to that way of life even if you are not Hindu.

The "untouchables" themselves in India are the people who work the most dirty of jobs, they are completely avoided by the other caste, and because of this every child born of "untouchable" parents can NEVER be part of a higher caste, and can never better his/her life. These people literally live in neighborhoods which are dirty, full of diseases, and they can't get away to live a better way of life no matter what "because they were born of poor parents"...

So, every time you write or say "Namaste", think about this fact and keep trying to "label" or "categorise" other people for thinking differently than you do...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

You're right, it requires an evolution of culture to reach a point where we want to finally put away our childish toys.

If you don't think *that's* possible, well the nice thing about evolution is it takes care of the self-destructive aspects itself.

Namaste.

You know, such thoughts on how you are so high above everyone else, and everyone must do as you do to reach some "high point" is nothing more than a way of stroking your own ego which is what will really keep you in a never-ending circle of karma in this world, or even what you would call a lower one.

(etc.)

I don't think I'm above anything, though I can understand why you will have interpreted it that way.

I however do know that there are more effective ways for people to interact. We "know better" than to just randomly walk up to and punch someone in the street, yes? Would you suggest that a person who is still "stuck" in a mindset that punching someone just because you want to is on equal footing when it comes to social development and health with someone who doesn't... and is prepared to deal with someone who does want to punch them by not punching back, but redirecting instead?

I can be just as much of a scoundrel as another while having "grown up" enough to recognize acting on those isn't going to get me where I really want to go. Just as I don't punch someone in the street "just because". I'm presuming you too have "outgrown" certain behaviors you wouldn't support, but don't think you are *better* than the other person who hasn't moved on yet, yes?

Namaste means I recognize the spirit within you. You can apply whatever other meanings, historical, etc you wish... but it means that despite some people's willingness allow others to scare them into supporting and sustaining the violence against others profit industry... I still recognize the good and beautiful and perfect being deep within.

Nothing more though you are free to inject whatever else you like into it. That is your choice.

Namaste.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And in case there is any confusion, I am not in support of gun control.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion

I don't think I'm above anything, though I can understand why you will have interpreted it that way.

Your own sentences say so.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
...
You want to evolve and join the big boys and start having some real fun? Put down the gun (pacifier) and graduate from this school.

Namaste.

There is no such thing as "you want to join the big boys club...? Put down the gun"... Weapons have purpose in this world, which is not always to do evil things, and whether you want to admit it or not you are part of this world.

We are not living in some "spiritual paradise where there is no need for weapons", we are living in a world where there are really evil people, and praying, meditating, or thinking that you are highly spiritual is not going to stop evil people from murdering you, raping your daughter and your wife, and then killing them.

Even Ghandi himself knew that weapons are needed in this world, as well as defending yourself and the innocent who can't protect themselves.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. - Mahatma Gandhi"

You will find the above quote in Ghandi's autobiography.

A lot of gun-grabbers like to claim that this happened at a time when Gandhi was still young, and later on he changed his views, but his autobiography he wrote himself when he was already a pacifist.

In that same autobiography Gandhi repudiates every error he ever made when he was younger, but he never repudiates his view on firearms, and even later on on that same autobiography you find references by him of when it is time to stop being a pacifist and put up a fight.

On page 477 he states;

...
As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government’s tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of it’s officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.
...

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
Namaste means I recognize the spirit within you. You can apply whatever other meanings, historical, etc you wish... but it means that despite some people's willingness allow others to scare them into supporting and sustaining the violence against others profit industry... I still recognize the good and beautiful and perfect being deep within.
...

You can't just take a word from a FOREIGN language and change it's meaning as you see fit...

Namaste means "I bow to you". No matter what you think that is i'ts meaning. I know a lot of New Agers do what you do, they have done the same with for example the prophecies of the Mayans/Hopi, changing what they actually say just because they see fit...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Interesting. You try to use the authority of a man who without using guns effectively helped inspire his nation to remove the British... who powerlessly used guns and other weapons on them. Are you going to put the "big boy"ness of Dyer and those who followed his orders on the same level as Gandhi and those who followed his example?

I recognize the complexity of the current situation... that's why it's called a choice. If it were an easy choice, it wouldn't mean anything. You are free to interpret "not taking something lying down" with "just go back to using guns the old fashioned way". He was never at odds with the DIRECTION he saw the culture could go. He didn't *condone* violence and never ceased encouraging the pursuit of that direction even in self defense if at all possible. You can recognize the injustice of a government disarming a population while remaining armed itself... and not lose sight of the far more effective and efficient aspect of a culture which dispenses with it all-together.

What makes more sense? The universe (or whatever word you use to describe everything that exists) never learned how to "contain" the self-destructive aspects of itself? Or developed a way to "digest" and "transmute" the destructive aspects, behaviors, and impulses into constructive ones? This environment isn't the end of the line.

If you honestly can't recognize what a culture which has freed itself from needing to defend itself from itself will be capable of versus feeding the machine that weighs it down... well... your choice. You are right, nothing right or wrong about it... just... has its long term easily predictable outcomes. That said: I am appreciative of the machine, it serves a vital purpose here.

New Age? Heh.

I do bow to you. But sure... feel free to continue looking for the negative angles.

Namaste.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

To give a better way of exploring what I was trying to demonstrate with the "big boy"ness between Gandhi and Dyer.

I'm taking an assumption that you have no support for what Dyer did. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that aspect as it will save us both a lot of time.

Therefore... You have determined for yourself some "threshold" of acceptability for the "Tools of Life" being converted to "Weapons to Kill". Meaning... you have a boundary where you would rather take the "high road" than take a certain action. "Turning the other cheek" as you saw it, choosing to take a more "moral" as you saw it, approach to stop them. Dyer thought he was doing what was right for the people he had a duty to protect.

The only difference between you and me is we're setting different thresholds. They are ultimately just our individual arbitrary thresholds which then informs the nature of every interaction we have with another. It's all about how we choose to agree to treat each other. No more or less. No magic. No mystery.

/salute

Hmm... I probably shouldn't salute someone, huh? Nazi's saluted. That must mean people who salute...

reply to post by muzzleflash

How well did those cavalry charges work out in the civil war, WWI &WWII. It doesn't work anymore, they got lucky at Bersheba but that was the last time it worked.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

And lastly I'm confused.

On one hand you criticize someone who suggests we can choose to act differently than we currently are. That our culture can grow out of the old means of maintaining order and resolving conflict.

However you then issue a negative slant towards the Hindu caste system which is derived from a different time, place, and culture from your own. Yet you still appear to believe you have the capacity to view it as a "lesser" way for a group of people to be relative to what you would support and encourage for *your* culture? Or if not, then you would have no opposition to living within a caste system? Or if you would have opposition, would you prefer to support it or grow out of it?

Is the Hindu caste system simply another viable way for people to be in your eyes, or is it a poor example to follow?

Can you conceive of how what you consider "necessary" today might be just be another caste system from the perspective of tomorrow? Which side of that wave are you paying attention to? The one incoming or the one outgoing?

Namaste and /salute