Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Uncle Sam

Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen

183 posts in this topic

Anger is like taking a hot coal to hurl it at your enemy. You hurt yourself more. (This is a Buddhist saying that I roughly translated; I don't know if it is attributed to the Buddha or not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to apologize to the UM community because I become a real ***hole when it comes to gun control. I hate it, I hate Obama, and I hate his skank *ss wife. Fat B****. Try to tell others what they can do.

Edited by CRYSiiSx2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologize nor ask someone where there loyalty lies these days. Honestly. Those that cant give an immediate answer I call a citizen to their face. They usually are satisfied with that answer. Not everyone has the stomach to fight.

No thats a very real reason why the 2nd Amendment is necessary to preserve.

Something I said earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing that video my suspicions are raised. Is there any reason for a joint police/military exercise involving machine gun shooting practise from military helicopters above heavily populated cities?

Could any resistance to tighter gun regulations be used as an excuse for martial law?

Military exercises in cities with the cooperation of the police are not uncommon. It happens outside of the US too. I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "they're getting ready to enslave us" bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you hear them say they heard the blanks ricocheting off high rises, guy ducks for cover....WOW. Safe ?

No they didn't. They said "pinging" off the buildings. That's a reference to the sound bouncing off the buildings, not the casings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is crazy, did they even research into what would happen if they are firing live blanks over an city at high altitudes? It is like taking a dime from top of Empire State Building and dropping it, it is bound to hit someone and kill them!

Did you think that maybe they had brass catchers on the machine guns? Everyone seems quick to jump to conclusions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jumping to conclusions ? Why the hell would they need to auto fire blanks in a population center with people actively moving about without notice under any circumstance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He pretty much tells each police officer which city hes going to next. But yes education is a big piece of the solution.

For most of this country's existence people weren't afraid of guns. Thats a new very new phenomenon.

I wonder how it would end up if he walked into an armed school with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jumping to conclusions ? Why the hell would they need to auto fire blanks in a population center with people actively moving about without notice under any circumstance ?

For training. Ive done it on an Afghanistan based exercise here in Canada.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply here: they clearly did fire blanks, which means it was a training scenario. Are you surprised they fired blanks in training?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. In a major metroplolitan area without notifying the public. I am very suprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. In a major metroplolitan area without notifying the public. I am very suprised.

If that is indeed the case, it doesn't show any nefarious purpose behind it. The reporters were also saying that people just are being told its a training exercise, so it seems the public was being notified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not buying it today Stellar. Lets review the video:

[media=]

[/media]

1. its announced several hours later by a media outlet after the initial video footage was given to them by amateur videors as a drill

2. people are walking out of a professional basketball game into this unkown event

3. why are police training for a deployment ?

4. Military helicopters are flying over a major freeway and I assume populated area by the video firing machine guns (blanks)

5. Video is from 2 seperate nights.

6. The military and police have plenty of places to do this sort of thing away from the public.

7. Accidents happen and civilians were scared by this event

Conclusion: If I was in one of those cars on the freeway or the guy that videod the machine gun fire I would find an attorney. Thats a dangerous and reckless drill.

which btw is not the reason for this thread just came out of it.

Edited by AsteroidX
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. its announced several hours later by a media outlet after the initial video footage was given to them by amateur videors as a drill

Wrong. It was announced at the latest as it was happening. Did you not see how the news report said "live"?

2. people are walking out of a professional basketball game into this unkown event

So?

3. why are police training for a deployment ?

Police could have been used in 1 of 3 capacities.

1. As support for the exercise, making any areas involved safe for people.

2. In a role playing capacity--responding as they expect the police of the other country to do.

3. In a training capacity--- Not necessarily for an overseas deployment but because something similar might happen in the US and the police would benefit from training for such a scenario.

I don't see anything wrong or nefarious with any of those possibilities.

4. Military helicopters are flying over a major freeway and I assume populated area by the video firing machine guns (blanks)

So? Its not uncommon or unheard of for that to happen.

5. Video is from 2 seperate nights.

Once again, so what?

6. The military and police have plenty of places to do this sort of thing away from the public.

No, they actually don't. That's the problem. The military doesn't have any metropolitan training areas full of people and cars that would act as a real major city. They have small urban operations villages populated with some role players which do suffice for certain things, but if there is a necessity to train for something happening in a major city, the only thing they have to simulate that is an actual major city.

7. Accidents happen and civilians were scared by this event

And whats your point?

Conclusion: If I was in one of those cars on the freeway or the guy that videod the machine gun fire I would find an attorney. Thats a dangerous and reckless drill.

which btw is not the reason for this thread just came out of it.

Ahh, so your argument is that the training wasn't done to your satisfaction? I was under the impression that this video and topic had something to do with how the US is training to enslave you all --- that is certainly the light in which it was cast when it was first posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth can often be found somewhere in between. So Ill let it rest there Stellar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that needs to be done to undermine a right is to change its definition.

In the case of the Second Amendment, all one has to do to change the definition is claim it is for hunting only.

Just like the Weimar Republic with their guns; any gun beyond that of a purpose for hunting was banned.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to be bear arms is in the constitution, the document that founded our nation, it is the very foundation of our rights.

for well regulated militias, yes.

The 2nd Amendment basically says, we have the right to throw out a government that decides infringe upon our rights and doesn't uphold the constitution.

the 2nd amendment says no such thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I am alive, no one shall deny me my right and my precious constitution.

No one is denying anything. The constitution is amendable. It is not written in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Militia is the National Reserves and other militias created by the citizens. It is the counter-balance to the governments forces, which means we have a standing army in-case we need to overthrow our government.

Not in 1781 the milita was not the NAtional Reserves which did not exist. The 2nd amendment says nothing about "counter-balance" or "overthrow".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for well regulated militias, yes.

the 2nd amendment says no such thing.

And yet when the creators of the most important documents of our nation - in other documents, or in letters to one another, reaffirmed the cause of the creation of the Second Amendment - clarifying its purpose as a safeguard against tyranny - we must realize they were foolish and wrong and that the Second Amendment must be for hunting.

The Second Amendment says what it says, yes.

But when the creators of it specify the ideology behind it; and not just one man, but several, I'll stand by the people who created it.

Not just some person's interpretation 200 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



It's nice to see people who have an understanding what the 2nd Amendment means.


Hasina, yes it is interesting what both sides really thought back then from a historical perspective. However, they had the opportunity to write those thoughts into law and did not. So you are assigning meaning from opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noones making you stay if you dont like what this country was founded on NinjaDude. Really. Aint throwing it out. No matter what argument you try and use. Your argument is not based in reality but made up as you go along. A symptom of the chronic liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.

That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Wish I could have written this, this is the best argument I seen.

Edited by Uncle Sam
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've studied up on this Second Amendment to the US Constitution and it looks to me like a few individuals who have some sort of hangup about their guns have reinterpreted it to suit their taste.

That, however, is a superficial issue; there is a deeper moral issue involved here. Is it morally right to have something that kills and is so obviously designed to be for nothing else? Now all sorts of things kill -- you can drown so having a lake is dangerous and moral considerations demand precautions. Still, guns are inherently different. They exist for only one purpose, and make the very act of living in a home where one is kept much more dangerous than otherwise. Not safer -- that they protect is an egoistic, arrogant delusion.

Maybe everyone should read this (similar teachings are found in most religions):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've studied up on this Second Amendment to the US Constitution and it looks to me like a few individuals who have some sort of hangup about their guns have reinterpreted it to suit their taste.

That, however, is a superficial issue; there is a deeper moral issue involved here. Is it morally right to have something that kills and is so obviously designed to be for nothing else? Now all sorts of things kill -- you can drown so having a lake is dangerous and moral considerations demand precautions. Still, guns are inherently different. They exist for only one purpose, and make the very act of living in a home where one is kept much more dangerous than otherwise. Not safer -- that they protect is an egoistic, arrogant delusion.

Maybe everyone should read this (similar teachings are found in most religions):

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.

So you are saying we as citizens, so bow down to everything our government says? Put up no resistance if they decide to put us into hard labor camps? Decide rather we should have children or not? Give up our homes so they can build another military outpost? Some things you talking about from religion... is just mind boggling how stupid you can be. Do not resist an evil person, how naive can you be? Let me put it pretty simple, I will bow down to no man or woman. An gun ensures that I am able to protect my rights, a gun ensures I am able to protect my family, a gun ensures I will have a peace of mind knowing I can actually do something, and a gun ensures I will have the ability to fight back against my government if they turn against the people. An person who doesn't do something to stop criminals is just as bad as criminals who actively seek out another person to do harm or infringe upon their rights.

If you don't want a gun, you don't have to get one. But to tell me I should change my ways, my life, to get rid of the one thing I know can protect all of the things I treasure is selfish of you. I don't tell you how to live your life, you should tell me how to run mine either.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.

That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

Wish I could have written this, this is the best argument I seen.

It amazes me to think that people believe that when they are mugged at gun point, they'll be able to reach for their gun, pull it out, aim it and pull the trigger faster than the mugger will be able to just pull the trigger.

Mugging is just The worst example you can use, I'd say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.