Printable View
Whoah, dude, you might want to take a quick step back and reevaluate. Did I mention genetics? Did I even indirectly suggest that it's all hopeless and we should just revive the ante-bellum colonization movement and have it over with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Racism ain't great and color-blindness may be a good direction towards which we as a nation may evolve-- but blindness of any sort isn't much help in trying to understand a situation.
DA
I think Phelps already beat those guys to the draw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured...r-katrina.html
Sorry, I read what you wrote and being a little tired of the back and forth in this thread, I thought you were suggesting that because the people here a BLACK, that this is why the situation was so dire. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Ah, just making sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
That is a parody site. There is no such organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
(EDIT: Not saying you didn't know, just making other people reading this thread aren't mislead.)
I’m asking the same thing, or at least flew a few bags of groceries there. Did we all of a sudden loose the ability to airdrop supplies? And what about the news helicopters? They couldn’t have stopped at a supermarket and brought some milk for the starving babies? Oh no, it is more important to get the footage of the dying babies on the air than to save them. :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
I'm wondering how do you know that? Been without food for three days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Has anyone here been without food for 3 days? Any marines or something?
It looks like that news helicopters should have a new name:vulture.
Well I don't much care for the news media myself, but they did bring the situation at the New Orleans Convention Center to the attention of the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Michael Brown of FEMA was telling people yesterday that he just found out about the refugee's at the center. The city government established the Convention Center as a shelter before the storm, so I do not understand how he didn't know it existed. It seems the news media has a better grasp of the situation than the various levels of government.
I said to imprison Bush not for his handling of this disaster, but because he has sapped valuable personnel and resources from our nation's services to kill people in another far-off country when they should be here providing crucial services for situations like this.
That is criminal.
Actually you would be incorrect - with even this statement. Try reading the National Response Plan and the mission of FEMA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
The criminal neglect on this situation comes from other then the whitehouse.
Oh come on now, Tachikaze. Even you & the MoveOn.Org crowd can do better than this. Less than 10% of the National Guard is deployed in Iraq. Adding in Afghanistan & Kuwait (apparently, we still have a large deployment there) brings the total deployment up to 12.5%. Louisiana itself had 66% of it's Guard available to it on Saturday.
The geographic situation, the lack of an adequate evacuation plan and a hesitation to send in large numbers of Guardsmen early in the crisis are the three leading causes for what's going on. You can blame Bush & Iraq for a lot, but not this. Try again, but thanks for playing. ~:cheers:
Tachi would rather snipe from the side lines, smoking weed and banging on his drums like your typical American-hating hippy than actually offering anything contructive... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
~:eek:Quote:
. . . Arkansas crack troops . . .
Back on topic. Its simple. In order to survive disaster I have prepared. I have some food, some water, rugged clothes, some tools, camping gear, and guns.
I think that I prefer to have the ability to be armed in situations that are lawless or where I cannot expect the state to protect me.
Since I prefer to have the ability to be armed, I must consent to allowing others to have the same rights, so therefore I continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If this increases the number of criminals going about armed, then I'm willing to accept that.
On the side, while Del Arroyo probably didn't say it in the best manner, I concur with his assessment that the folks left behind in NO were some of the most disenfranchised and least constrained people in the US. Remember that political corruption is fairly widespread in the region and racial politics are some of the least progressive.
Many of the folks left behind probably have a deeply ingrained feeling of being victims, something the system has encouraged. When I see the news clips there are many people asking who is going to come help them, and while I sympathize that many truly deserve assistance I believe that many others are simply used to having government assistance. For example I don't lots of clips of regular people organizing into any meaningful effective force, instead the scenes from NO they seem to be standing around.
Hope that doesnt sound too harsh, and I realize that I'm not there. But I have been in the middle of many natural disasters (as a professional) and I've seen both responses - one where the 'victims' organize and work together and the flip side where people sit and complain and wait for someone to it for them.
Angry, desperate people who see themsleves as victims can react in very irresponsible ways. I'm sure there are many folks working feverishly to deal with the situation, and I applaud them.
But don't take this as an examply of the need to control guns.
ichi :bow:
Bit side of the topic but the gun control in western Europe is different then Northern European.In my country we have a shotgun or hunting rifle in almost every household and still most of the human killing in here is done with a knife.
As I previously said, you cannot make laws based on the assumption that at some point society will break down.Quote:
No, they don't have them legally. They looted them from stores like Walmart who had hundreds of guns on their shelves legally.
Do the math about how that relates back to gun control.
Basically, those using this tradgedy to push for gun control are saying: "You need to change your gun laws because at some point in the future society might break down and then youll have a lot of loose guns around."
The basic thought is flawed. You cannot legislate on the assumption that laws will not be inforced. It would be like saying "Everybody must keep at least 5 gallons of water in their house at all times because at some point in the future society might collapse and the government will not be able to enforce its laws."
I think everyone needs to stop looking at ways to use this tradgedy to push their pet political issues.
Gun control is useless when the whole country is flooded in guns. It would take decades to clean it up even if smugglers didn't go into the gunrunning business. You'll just have to settle for the next best thing, giving everyone guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Smartest thing all day PJ. people are dying and the best some can come up with is Bush in jail becuase we all know a hurricane must be the presdint doing I mean hes right up there with big buisness and the zionists. They best we can do is send aid and pray not bitch about Bush or gun-controlQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Edit I just found out my church will try and host ten familes after what our mayor said so im happy
Lets hope this guy can help Horone
So you're putting riches and goods over the human lives. WOW ~:eek: that's some irrational way of thinking. Bush seems to have some problems with drugs again, it would be better to him if he first legallice them.Quote:
And as far as shooting to kill the looters, I say shoot away. After only three days you're not hungry enough to NEED to steal. And if you're doing it armed, you're asking to be shot regardless.
This is so absurd, people dies for lack of prepare and asistence (and for the hurricane too of course) and then a president whom has to do everything to save lives, thinks that the lives of the human beings that he's trying to save are of less value than the goods. I'm begining to think that USA is not so good as someone paints it, but it's just a vission that we here have, between i and some scientist in the universities, sure someone from there could refute me.
I fully agree with that statement PJ. Laws are, after all, made and enforced to keep society from breaking down. When society actually does break down, all bets are pretty much off.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
But my point is that just about every gun that is in the hands of a criminal started out as a "legitimate" gun. It was manufactured legally and at some point along the ownership chain was either stolen by or sold illegally to a criminal.
When guns are so prolific in a society as to be a major part of that country's manufacturing and retail industries, more and more criminals will have guns simply because of the existence of so many guns. Then of course, more and more honest citizens want guns to protect themselves from the armed criminals, which just leads to continual escalation in the criminal vs. law-abiding citizen arms race.
Goof, Canada has their national gun registry now right? What effect has that had on crime? Has violent crime gone up or down? Gun control doesn't equal less crime. Nor is it fair to say that higher crime in the US is due to more guns. It's just not that simple.
[QUOTE]I fully agree with that statement PJ. Laws are, after all, made and enforced to keep society from breaking down. When society actually does break down, all bets are pretty much off.
But my point is that just about every gun that is in the hands of a criminal started out as a "legitimate" gun. It was manufactured legally and at some point along the ownership chain was either stolen by or sold illegally to a criminal. [QUOTE]
And that is against the law! We need to enforce the laws better in every american state. And my point is that in the particular case the law is not being enforced at all, so its not a valid example for the supposed gun control problems of America. LA, which is not in a crisis, would be a much better case in point.
But thats not happening. Gun crime continues to fall in America, unless Im mistaken.Quote:
When guns are so prolific in a society as to be a major part of that country's manufacturing and retail industries, more and more criminals will have guns simply because of the existence of so many guns. Then of course, more and more honest citizens want guns to protect themselves from the armed criminals, which just leads to continual escalation in the criminal vs. law-abiding citizen arms race.
That is a parody site. There is no such organization.
Del , unfortunately you are wrong , they were all over the news last week protesting at servicemens funerals .
While it might seem like a parody , the reality is that it is a seriously disturbed/disturbing group of (choose your own expletive) idiots .
[QUOTE=PanzerJager]From the stats I've seen you're indeed correct. And all the while gun ownership rates have been rising in the US.Quote:
But thats not happening. Gun crime continues to fall in America, unless Im mistaken.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/...nonfatalno.gif
The last time you answered me you revealed your tendency to make profiles. It's still there i assume. You're wrong, never, in no situation you can put the human life below the things. You even can justify in some cases the stealing appealing to a resource of mass psicosis. Now i see that the president Bush it's not alone, it seems that part of the people supports him in this notorious wrong decision. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
It's not Pat himself, but it's still pretty good:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Repent America
Well thats not quite true.Quote:
And there's a problem with that? We learned from the Gang Wars of the 20s and 30s; never again will Civilians have access to better guns than Law Enforcement.
Quote:
11/11/04 Takeover Bandits shooting in Richardson
Out manned, out gunned: Dallas Police on the verge of catastrophe.
In March of 1997, two heavily armed robbers held Hollywood captive for 94 minutes. One hour and thirty-four minutes of pure terror. These two men were armed with AK-47 assault rifles. They were covered with bulletproof armor from their necks to their feet. Officers on the scene did not possess the firepower to penetrate the suspects' body armor and had to successfully make a head shot in order to stop the robbers. An accurate headshot from 50 yards is challenging, if not impossible, for even the most proficient marksman. The officers on the scene had little to no hope of stopping the robbers with their weapons.
.
Gun ownership and American culture.
Consider these two concepts: Freedom and Security.
In democratic society, these two admirable qualties do, occasionally, run counter to one another.
We wished to be protected from the worst aspects of life, but wish to have the fullest freedom of choice to do or say or think as we wish.
For many (not all) Americans, guns represent freedom. They are and have been an integral part of America. At our founding, a working gun or two were survival necessities for every household -- a basic tool in a continent where hunting was often the prime source of protein and where the indigenous peoples we were slowly displacing often reacted with hostility to the presence of our early settlers.
Gun ownership and proficiency is enshrined in our foundation myths, with the minute men of Lexington and Concord besting the British oppressors with the guns that hung over their fireplace. Community defense against raids and banditry and enemy attack was largely in the hands of a citizen militia, armed with their personal weapons. Militia were the bulk of our forces in nearly every engagement of our war of revolution -- despite the fact that most were pretty sub-par as soldiers.
Privately owned guns tamed the west, defeated the Dalton gang, and their ownership is, indeed, endorsed in our Bill of Rights. It may well be that the founders did so in the belief that the citizen militia would remain our primary defense force, but the right is clearly delineated.
Would Gun Control work?
Yes. If the constitution were altered to allow it, the process of removing most or all weaponry from the hands of every American would be bloody, but we would achieve a situation where few people owned or used guns. Deaths from gun violence and the number of killings in general would sharply decline.
Government would have the only power to easily exercise deadly violence, and could smash any group of rioters/looters and other hooligans because they would not be able to stop the government authorities with deadly force. This would clearly enhance security.
Yet in the back of our minds, many of us would feel that we had lost some of our freedom. What is to stop that government from appropriating my property because the government believes it knows best how to use that property? How would I defend my family against a group of thugs who break into our home and threaten chubby, average-sized me with a club? There are numerous places in America where the nearest neighbor is miles away and the nearest police a half hour or more distant -- how can such people feel safe? Guns are an integral part of American culture because they stand, in the minds of many of us, as both a tool to maintain and a symbol of freedom.
Is that freedom purchased at a price? Yes. But would we give up that freedom? I think, for most, the answer is no.
Seamus
Anyway we can get back on subject?