Gun control

[Goodieluver]

Eh lets see where this goes, peoples' opinions on gun control.

I personally am against gun control, for a myriad of reasons

1. what does gun laws do? If someone is a criminal, you think they are gonna abide by stricter gun laws? All gun laws do is keep weapons out of the citizens hands to protect them from the criminals who have guns already. Drugs are illigal yet it doesnt stop people from usin\sellin.
2. On avg there are 150 accidental gunshot deaths in america a year, though tragic, is not large on a national scale.
3. Arming people puts fear into the criminals, if a rapist is on the street and looking to attack and rape and maybe murder a woman, i think he may hesitate knowing that some lady may be carrying, and a bullet to the head is a quick solution to stoppin a rape
4. the constitution protects it, it says to maintain a militia AND says the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
5. gun violence happens where gun control is strictest, and why is this? Why are the "gun free zones" the ones that have the shootings, such as schools, post offices, etc etc
6. why not ban people from driving a car, or owning sissors or having a hairdryer in the bathroom, cuz all of these are hazards that have killed before

My cents, would like to hear yours

 

[BigNorm]

i agree with Chris Rock. listen to this, it's hilarious:

 

[plumr2003]

Well I guess this will count as my first post, but what all the anti - gun folks need to remember is that the first thing Hitler, Mao and Lenin did was outlaw gunsOur founders put the second ammendment in for a reason, it took them 13 years to write the constitution because they tried to imagine every effort to destroy the country they fought so hard for, both foreign and domestic. All we have to do is look at the Supreme court decision on eminate domain last week that says you dont really own your home!Believe me I am not a militant gun nut , I'm a 50y.o. white male who thinks that the potential for corrupt govt. is a real possibility and I'm not prepared to second guess the wisdom of Washington ,Jefferson et al who lived through the brutal British regime.Hope that counts as a worthy reply.

 

[Kalamos]

Ah, that's a coincidence. I was thinking about it just before.
I'll be brief... I'll try.
But I'll fail.
Bear with me.


In my country guns are not plentiful. While not regulated - for example we can own a military pistol with a 15 shots magazine - guns are not widespread, and buying one requires some legal steps before you can walk away a shooter.

I am not against guns.
I am against idiots using guns.

Sometimes I read this rationale against gun control: guns don't kill. People do.
On the other hand, if that blundering fool had had, say, a knife, instead of a 7.62 rifle, maybe we would have had only one or two victims - instead of a full magazine of 20.

So, bullets kill people. And deranged individuals pull the trigger.
If we could keep them far from those triggers, maybe we could avoid being shot by illiterate idiots who can own a gun, but can't write their own name.

I am not against guns. I'd own one, if I had chosen a different career.
I am against the idea everybody can have one.

Why? Men have been created equal, they say...
Nonsense.
Men [and women] are different! They come in any shape and size.
I am not your equal, and you are not the same as me.

People share different mind pattern. Different stress threshold. Different memories about slight and grudges.

Men are not equal. That is communism.
Men are different, so I can't see a good reason to allow *anybody* to own a gun, they might misfire with.

I distrust people. Maybe that stems from a lack of self esteem. Maybe from the fools I've met in my life.

Not everybody should have a gun. Not everybody should have a car. Not everybody should own property. Not everybody is entitled to the same set of duties and rights.
We accept it, but we can't bear to admit it.

You don't expect rocket science from your janitor.
You can't expect a triggerhappy idiot to stay far from troubles.

Isn't this regime? I don't know. I am not a ruler. I am just typing out my fairly random thoughts.
I don't expect everybody to share my views.
I am not imposing them on anybody.
I am just sharing them for the sake of it.
Putting up with the risk of being ridiculed by somebody who might disagree. 🙂

If you ask me, owning a gun is not a right. Owning a gun is a privilege.
You must be found *worthy* of it.

After all, you have to get a license to drive...
Are gun examinators as strict?

...

Ah, just another random thought about fear.
Fear harbours fear. If I were a criminal, and I feared my victim might be packing a gun, I'd shoot first and ask questions later.
If at all possible possible, I'd be even more cruel with armed civilians: policemen know the game. They know they can't beat you up too much.
Armed civilians know no mercy.
I would show none.

This said, I don't rob houses nor raid stores.
If I did, I wouldn't pack a gun anyway.

Even if it is within my rights to own one. 🙂

...

Ah, and I think this thread is going to be a flame bait if I've ever seen one.
😀

 

[Goodieluver]

Amen kalamos on dont fear the gun fear the moron who has it, as for the dictators\second ammendment, we gotta remember the Const. was signed roughly 2 years after the revolutionary war, most of the consitutitional congress had fought some form in the war and they knew that one day they may need to fight again.

What i hate is people think if guns are gone that automatically crime will drop, or if guns are abundant its gonna be mass shootouts and people killin each other over fender benders when its proven in states that have concealed handgun laws that it doesnt happen.

 

[Kalamos]

we gotta remember the Const. was signed roughly 2 years after the revolutionary war, most of the consitutitional congress had fought some form in the war and they knew that one day they may need to fight again.

They also fought together, and they probably trusted each others.
Do you trust your neightbour as far as letting him own a gun?
Or that dork down the street? Or his wife? Or their children?

I wouldn't control guns. I would control people.
I can't.
I won't.
I heard it's wrong, anyway.

I don't have problems with people willing to bears arms.
As long as they are assets, not liabilities, that is.

I can't see why trained cops/troops are often dismisses as ineffectual.
If they are, how can a casual shooter be any more effective?

I am not questioning your right to bear arms, mind you.
Maybe you are a good shot, a coldheaded shooter and a sensible father.

What I am questioning is the principle of letting *anybody* have a gun, just because Constitution mentions it.
Control doesn't mean curtailing your freedom.
Control *might* mean making sure no freak will get hold onto a gun, while laws turns a blind eye.

Am I a control freak?
To get a driving license, in my country, I had to study, take tests and medical exams, and pay for drive practice.

A car is no gun, but careless driving can get people killed.
They made sure I was fit and sane enough to drive a vehicle.

Wouldn't you expect the same from somebody bearing weapons?
I would.

 

[MistressValerie1]

An article about how gun control affected the country where I was born, from www.lethallaws.com (references omitted):

G. Cambodia

Also enjoying a comfortable post-genocide life is Pol Pot, the perpetrator of the best known mass-murders of the post World War II era.

Cambodian gun control was a legacy of French colonialism. [97] A series of Royal Ordinances, decreed by a monarchy subservient to the French, appears to have been enacted out of fear of the Communist and anti-colonial insurgencies that were taking place in the 1920s and 1930s throughout Southeast Asia, although not in Cambodia. [98] The first law, in 1920, dealt with the carrying of guns, while the last law in the series, in 1938, imposed a strict licensing system. [99] Only hunters could have guns, and they were allowed to own only a single firearm. [100] These colonial laws appear to have stayed in place after Cambodia was granted independence. The Khmer Rouge enacted no new gun control laws, for they enacted no laws at all other than a Constitution. [101]

Cambodia was a poor country, and few people could afford guns. [102] On the other hand, the chaos that accompanies any war might have given some Cambodians the opportunity to acquire firearms from corrupt or dead soldiers. There is no solid evidence about how many Cambodians, with no cultural history of firearms ownership, attempted to do so. [103]

As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace. One Cambodian recalls that Eang [a woman] watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. "We are here now to protect you," the soldiers said, "and no one has a need for a weapon any more." People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. . . . The round-up of weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness. . . . The soldiers said everyone would have to leave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was finished, they could return. [104]

People being forced out of villages and cities were searched thoroughly, and weapons and foreign currency were confiscated. [105] To the limited extent that Cambodians owned guns through the government licensing system, the names of registered gun owners were of course available to the new government. [106]

The Cambodian genocide was unique in the twentieth century, in that its target was not a single ethnic, religious, or political group, but rather the entire educated populace. Lacking infrastructure for sophisticated Nazi-style extermination camps, the Khmer Rouge used the genocide methods which had been used by the Turkish government (internal deportations with forced marches designed to kill), the Soviet government (hard labor under conditions likely to kill), and the Guatemalan government (murders of targeted victims). [107]

Like other victims of genocide, the Cambodians forced into slave labor were kept so desperately hungry that revolt became difficult to contemplate, as every thought focused on food. One slave laborer explained that there was no possibility of an uprising. . . .

Contact between many people was made impossible by the chlops [informers] . . . . Besides, we had no arms and no food. Even if we'd been able to produce arms and kill the fifty Khmer Rouge in the village, what would happen to us? We didn't have enough food to build up any reserves to sustain a guerilla army. In our state of weakness, after a few days wandering in the jungle, death would have been inevitable. [108]

The authors estimate that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge murdered about a million people, at least 14% of the Cambodian population. [109] The percentage was about the same as the percentage of the Soviet population murdered by Stalin, except that Pol Pot accomplished in three-and-a-half years what took Stalin twenty. [110]

The mass murders of the Khmer Rouge became well known in the international community, but no nation made an effort to try to rescue the Cambodian people. Finally, Pol Pot was driven from power by a Vietnamese invasion that was motivated by imperialist, rather than humanitarian reasons. [111]

Pol Pot's fate was thus similar to Idi Amin's: the world would tolerate genocide, but threatening the borders of a neighboring country would lead to the regime's demise. According to the New York Times, "Pol Pot is today a free, prosperous and apparently unrepentant man who, 15 years after his ouster from Phnom Penh, continues to plot a return to power. The calls for some sort of international genocide tribunal for Pol Pot and his aides have not been heard for years." [112]

The authors have demonstrated that every nation in the twentieth century which has perpetrated genocide has chosen a victim population which was disarmed. If the intended victims were not already "gun-free," then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they attempted to begin the killing.

 

[Kalamos]

I'm a 50y.o. white male who thinks that the potential for corrupt govt. is a real possibility and I'm not prepared to second guess the wisdom of Washington ,Jefferson et al who lived through the brutal British regime.Hope that counts as a worthy reply.

...

The authors have demonstrated that every nation in the twentieth century which has perpetrated genocide has chosen a victim population which was disarmed. If the intended victims were not already "gun-free," then the murderous governments first got rid of the guns before they attempted to begin the killing.

I must raise an objection, now.
Or rather, ask permission to draw a logical conclusion.

Are you all implying that the present US government is any less than trusty?
If so, how can we, as allies, lend it our support in war?

 

[GEORGIATKLER]

Go Ahead, Make My Day.....................................

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF GUN BANNING. I THINK THAT EXISTING LAWS REGARDING POSSESSING A WEAPON DURING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, ALONG WITH OTHER GENERAL FELONY LAWS, FILLING OUT PROPER PAPERWORK AND HAVING A BACKGROUND CHECK PERFORNED PRIOR TO GUN PURCHASE ETC. SHOULD BE ENFORCED. IN TODAYS SOCIETY THAT MAY REQUIRE MORE TAXES FOR POLICE PROSECUTERS AND PRISONS. IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE USA INTO DRUGS AND THE RELATED CRIMES IT SPAWNS THAN EVER. THE ENTERTAINMENT AND NEWS MEDIA GLORIFY "MACHO" KILLINGS. I CAN AGREE THAT CRIMINALS WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS TO PURCHASE A GUN. THE CHOICE OF WHETHER TO KEEP A LOADED GUN IN A HOUSE WITH CHILDREN IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT. TO BE SAFE FROM THE CHILD MEANS GENERALLY NOT QUICKLY,EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO DEFEND THE HOME. IF GUNS WERE BANNED TOMORROW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF LEGAL/ILLEGAL WEAPONS WOULD BE TURNED IN? I WISH WE HAD FEWER TRIGGER HAPPY FINGERS( ie ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ACTIONS) RATHER THAN FEWER GUNS.

 

[Dude'sonfire]

You know it's funny... I've never seen anyone with a gun in Scotland, save soldiers, and special armed police units. There's just no real gun culture over here.
As for Gun Control, seeing as how I've grown up in a virtually gun free environment it's hard for me to be judgemental about. I mean I think the idea that taking away guns would eliminate violent crime is complete hogwash. But there is something to think about… Violent crime is done mostly because either the person involved is ill mentally (that covers a broad spectrum I know), is intoxicated, or alternatively it results as a side effect of a crime they felt desperate enough to do.
This last one is important. I think that crimes people do through a feeling of necessity, stealing mainly, are more likely to have a violent side effect in a gun orientated culture, if simply because of the power offered by guns, which escalates the risk to life and health substantially.
But again, I don’t have any experience in this kind of world, so this is all conjecture on my part.
As for the whole idea of government oppression, there’s one important thing to remember: communist regimes had to try to inflict a huge degree of control on their own populations in order to try and meet the ideals they sought. However America can suppress much of the world in the way it does to meet its ideals because a big enough chunk of its own population is happy enough to just sit by and let them do it. Essentially, the government probably isn’t going to start culling its own support base, because to keep the international power it owns and continue to suppress people elsewhere, it needs to keep the people within its borders happy, at least to a degree.
So I wouldn’t worry too much about them starting to shoot you, heh.
But once more, I don’t live in your country, so I’m talking from a position of inexperience. Bleh.

 

[plumr2003]

...


I must raise an objection, now.
Or rather, ask permission to draw a logical conclusion.

Are you all implying that the present US government is any less than trusty?
If so, how can we, as allies, lend it our support in war?

Hi,Kalamos. What I,m saying is all govts. rule absolutely and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Right now in the U.S. we have a Patriot law that has the potential to take away alot of our rights and Congressmen admitted that they didn't even read it first, thats scary! Our country as yours are not really ruled by govt but by special interest groups in the form of central bankers. These bankers use the citizens as cannon fodder because wars make money. Americans are an independant lotand not willing to give up rights willingly :but 911 changed that and under the guise of terrorism we can become sheeple( sheep+people) led to the slaughter. Some citizens fight this , in your country the example would be the great William Wallace, but you need to be armed to protect yourself and your family because corrupt politicians love an unarmed peasantry. As our great Ben Franklin said " He who gives up essential liberty for some safety in the end will have neither liberty or safety"Back to the issue of gun control look at Australia, they banned guns I think 2 years ago and their violent crime rate went up 900percent. AS far as helping us , well every country is in the same boat. I think however that the recent drupping that the E.U. took this month is a sign that people are becoming aware of these behind the scenes manipulators and are banding together worldwide to defy the bastards. Keep in touch and stay on God's good side.

 

[plumr2003]

...


I must raise an objection, now.
Or rather, ask permission to draw a logical conclusion.

Are you all implying that the present US government is any less than trusty?
If so, how can we, as allies, lend it our support in war?

Sorry Kalamos part of my reply was for Dudesonfire, I hit the send button before I read it.

 

[general zod1]

What I have always wondered about the anti-gun groups is why they can't or won't come up with a non-violent solution to take them away from the citizens Let's face it The only way to get rid of the firearms in the U.S. is by using the military and police to invade the homes of the honest and take them

 

[Goodieluver]

What I have always wondered about the anti-gun groups is why they can't or won't come up with a non-violent solution to take them away from the citizens Let's face it The only way to get rid of the firearms in the U.S. is by using the military and police to invade the homes of the honest and take them

Heh and the fear of this solution is why we have the right to bear arms.

 

[Kalamos]

The only way to get rid of the firearms in the U.S. is by using the military and police to invade the homes of the honest and take them

Heh and the fear of this solution is why we have the right to bear arms.

This is exactly my point and my question.

You are effectively telling me you *distrust* your own government and law enforcers.

On the other hand, you trust other citizens - complete strangers - on the grounds they chose to bear arms, as you did.

...

Why?

...

From what I've read so far, I'd say you do, because you distrust total face-less power.

Most of you *expect* goverment to turn against its own citizens, sooner or later, because you can't feel a direct link to it.

My country is fairly large - citizen-wise.
Yet, I could meet my prime minister in person.

I know my rulers. I know what good and ill I can expect from them.
You don't, so you expect the worst.

...

Yet... I must ask.

Why?

 

[general zod1]

Back in 1993 the FBI and BATF invaded the Branch Davidian compound in Waco,Texas They did because they thought drugs etc were there It was a fiasco Yes the Branch Davidians may have been a religious cult But there was no excuse to go in there and kill all those people

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Also Kalamos, try to understand: I have relatives in america, and from what they tell me, the media there is extremely controlled, censorship is rampant, especially about things like Iraq and climate change, this new patriot act thing has freaked them out, many of them were lied to overtly in order to convince them that a war was the right course of action, which resulted in the death of some of their own relatives who had been recruited and sent to Iraq...
Would you trust them? lol.

 

[Kalamos]

I've heard of the Wako sect, and I am aware of the Patriot Act, but...
people over US distrusted government, and had been asking for total freedom to bear arms before those.

Especially, war in Iraq looked like a bad idea from its very beginning...
Why have you realised it is a bad idea, only *now*?

Over Europe some tried talking America away from it.
You called them traitors, and terrorist-friends.
But that's not the point, now.

...

Distrust in goverment must run deeper than 1993 or 2001 or 2005.

I *think* it must due to a frontiersman's mindset.
You had no government to back you up while you were colonising westward, two centuries ago, and you can't bear to have one, even if those times are gone.

You'd rather trust your own gun, than an elected officer.

...

Ironic.
The single greatest country in the world, ready to act out as the planet's police force, and it can't even count on its own citizens' trust.

...

Ah, before lashing out at me... please consider this: I don't vote to elect the American presidents.
You do.

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Especially, war in Iraq looked like a bad idea from its very beginning...
Why have you realised it is a bad idea, only *now*?

Is that a direct reply at me? If so, I never implied that I personally ever supported the war. I was just saying that America told its people that Saddam had nukes, and that influenced a lot of peoples opinions.

 

[Goodieluver]

This is exactly my point and my question.

You are effectively telling me you *distrust* your own government and law enforcers.

On the other hand, you trust other citizens - complete strangers - on the grounds they chose to bear arms, as you did.

...

Why?

...

From what I've read so far, I'd say you do, because you distrust total face-less power.

Most of you *expect* goverment to turn against its own citizens, sooner or later, because you can't feel a direct link to it.

My country is fairly large - citizen-wise.
Yet, I could meet my prime minister in person.

I know my rulers. I know what good and ill I can expect from them.
You don't, so you expect the worst.

...

Yet... I must ask.

Why?

This country was founded on rebellion, thomas jefferson said for healthy govt, there should be an uprising every 20 years
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be
exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at
all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the
atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787. FE
4:370
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a
rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven
years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one
rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country
before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --
Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372

Different times, i cant explain, in the old days you could meet the president on the streets. I dont feel the govt will turn on me, but i do feel people expect free handouts from the govt and when they dont get help constantly, then the govt is trying to subvert them in their eyes

You must also remember america is very young, in the span of 200 years it went from backwater colonies of the brittish empire to becoming arguably the most powerful nation in the world. We didnt evolve thru centuries of trial and error europe and asia went thru, america pretty much became the melting pot and took all from there and made it their own. Plus being 2 oceans from the other nations, it left them pretty isolated and maybe paranoid

 

[Goodieluver]

Is that a direct reply at me? If so, I never implied that I personally ever supported the war. I was just saying that America told its people that Saddam had nukes, and that influenced a lot of peoples opinions.

In defense and im tryin not to get this into a war on iraq debate, nuclear weapons i dont believe were stated to be there, but the infamous 3 letters, WMD's, which is biological and chemical payloads. The fear of nuclear weapons was that we believed Iraq was trying to start a nuclear weapons program with the aid of Iran. As for what was there, whether there were weps there or werent, they aint gonna be found by now and if conpiracy theorists believe the govt lies, i would think theyd manufacture weapons there to prove it. Also, a good reason to believe he had chemical weapons(he did at one point) can be seen by their use in the gulf war

Btw, i support the war

 

[Goodieluver]

I've heard of the Wako sect, and I am aware of the Patriot Act, but...
people over US distrusted government, and had been asking for total freedom to bear arms before those.

Especially, war in Iraq looked like a bad idea from its very beginning...
Why have you realised it is a bad idea, only *now*?

Over Europe some tried talking America away from it.
You called them traitors, and terrorist-friends.
But that's not the point, now.

...

Distrust in goverment must run deeper than 1993 or 2001 or 2005.

I *think* it must due to a frontiersman's mindset.
You had no government to back you up while you were colonising westward, two centuries ago, and you can't bear to have one, even if those times are gone.

You'd rather trust your own gun, than an elected officer.

...

Ironic.
The single greatest country in the world, ready to act out as the planet's police force, and it can't even count on its own citizens' trust.

...

Ah, before lashing out at me... please consider this: I don't vote to elect the American presidents.
You do.

The waco texas thing had more to do with it being a dangerous cult rather than gun issue, but guns were the reason the ATF raided the compound.

For distrust of govt, you have to wonder where is this coming from? People assume since michael moore makes a libel and fraud movie and it makes money than this nation is filled with anti patriots\anti governmental anarchists. This is not true, yes the media here is censored very much and is a major form of propaganda, from BOTH sides, you got the conservative side preaching its side and you got the liberal\indy media who claim everything is a lie and the conservs are bad, its the battle of which evil is better

The war in iraq wasnt a unanimous support topic here at any time. The reason several euro nations were politically attacked was because after the saddam regime was removed, all a sudden countries such as france and germany wanted to get in on the iraq situation and make money, hell russia was selling arms to iraq during the war.

People wanna feel safe, and they feel they're not with the govt, but what nation of this planet doesnt have citizens afraid for whatever reason from their govt. Govt benefits some and harms some as well, your never gonna have unanimous support, hell WWII had american's protesting it. To quote former president Teddy Roosevelt on trusting gun than presidents, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick!"

 

[Kalamos]

I am walking a tricky path.

I am trying to explain why point of view, relate things as I've heard and read them, without offending anybody, out of prejudice.

Also, this thread is growing larger in scope than expected: I still doubt the sensibility of giving weapons out *as a right*.
I have explained why, so you know I am not preaching a political position, rather, I am relating my experiences.


-> Dude's on Fire.

I do not support war too, as a rule. I am not a pacifist either, mind you.
I simply think there are better ways to deal with trouble.
And I am referring to extreme means, when necessary.
But this war wasn't the most sensible conflict to start.

Again, I am aware that for many US citizens, this war was rightful retribution for 9/11.
I mourned those lives too.
I am not a blind supporter of inane peace.

This leads me to my next answer.


-> Goodieluver.

From your replies, I realise you are threading a tricky path too.

You called Moore a fraud. This would brand you as a conservative type.
Yet you admit yours is a young country, and it could use a rebellion every now and then.
Not conservative at all.

Over Europe, a share of people consider Moore truthful.
We do realise he's got money from his movies, but we think, at their cores, they struck a chord.

Unless I am misreading your posts, I must assume you distrust your own government.
Maybe you consider Moore a liar, but he criticised his own government too, so where is truth lying now?

Gist of Moore's movies was: USA wanted more power, so let terrorists slip by, so war could be started over 9/11.
USA needed a "casus belli". 9/11 afforded one, and the chance to get to Iraq's oil reserves.

If you consider this a lie, then you are trusting your government with doing the right thing, now.
On the other hand, if you really distrust government, then Moore isn't a total fraud, and this war could have been conducted a different way.

Maybe I am losing the subtleties of your posts, but I'd like to pinpoint the problem better than this.
How can war be right, when the government is wrong?

 

[Goodieluver]

Actaully kalamos, liberals have not endorsed michael moore, democratic party planners did their best to distance John Kerry during the election because they knew moore was bad press.

Also, its a fact he spins news around, misleads and is biased, despite using the title "documentary", one chief example i recall off top of my head is in "bowling for columbine" he states at a texas bank with a free bank account, you get a free gun, people were appalled, and yet moore finally said later he staged that. More of his lies are seen at www.bowlingfortruth.com, they also supply evidence at how moore has been caught in his own lies

I will not state the govt is perfect, there is much blood on the history of America both liberal and conservative.

Media has now become this monster where they will only report negative aspects on the govt and since its negative and news, it must be true.. There is another dvd out called FahrenHYPE 911 where the people in moores movie are re-interviewed and totally rebuke everything moore portrayed them to have said, including the principal of the school bush was at when 9\11 happened. But moore would have you believe Bush is some uncaring monster who has a short attention span and would rather read a book to children than jump to action.

What war is ever right? The preception of right\wrong is in the beholder, during the 20-40's when the weimar republic fell and national socialism took hold over Germany, this was not taken with heavy resistance, and later war broke out and many germans fought and died for their nation, they werent EVIL, the majority of the soldiers werent responsible for the hallocaust, but the govt was bad yet these germans laid down their lives to protect their homeland and famlies. Now is this right or wrong for the Germany army? Same with the american civil war, people claim the south was wrong, north was right, but the north did alot of wrongs, as did the south, but history is written by the victors and they decide what we should believe.

 

[fabian]

So many great and wise people have demonstrated peace is an achievable reality yet so many persons still debate if war is a solution to problems, is it really that hard to realize? Imagine for a second that on 9/11 those towers crumbling weren`t the sign of a terrorist attack but of the beggining of a war, the helplessness and certainty of knowing many lives will be lost and that one of those lives could be yours, your children, your neighbor, your friends? Do you really believe anybody deserves living in fear? Praying for their lives everyday? Gun control laws are a joke, when the very core of the problem is praised by millions and oversought and understimated by many millions more, we have become used to other people`s sorrow and disgrace. What`s the difference between a dead Columbine student and a dead Iraqi civilian? None, two innocent, invaluable lives, lost, lost to a gun.