Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Sepiatone

OT: A moment of silence and prayer

Recommended Posts

Since this discussion has largely remained civil I'll weigh in. Anytime politicians talk about limiting gun rights here in the U.S. they always bring up target shooting and hunting being American traditions, and how they don't wish to interfere with that. I don't think the founding fathers really cared about target shooting or even hunting at at a time when hunting provided needed food for the family table. They had just forcibly ejected tyrants from the land, helped largely by the fact that the inhabitants of the colonies were already armed and trained in the use of those arms. They bothered to add an amendment to the constitution about bearing arms so that in case a foreign power ever invaded - and the British themselves returned as invaders just twenty or so odd years later - that the armed citizenry could help repel those invaders. There was also the worry among the founders that the U.S. government could someday go rogue and turn tyrannical too.

 

Could the founding fathers have foreseen the kind of firepower we have today? No, of course not. But any invading power will have whatever the latest and greatest is in armaments and if Americans have only muskets the outcome will be certain. No foreign power, unless they are intent on just wiping us out and starting over via some device of mass destruction, is going to want to go house to house against people armed with the same kind of guns that their army has. After all, guerilla warfare is why we finally had to shrug our shoulders and leave Vietnam.

 

That's why the second amendment is not about target shooting, hunting, or even protection against the criminal element, who will always have guns if they have to make them themselves. It is about protection against tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not the one who is complaining. You're doing plenty of that for all of us. I find that if one raises objections to other posts that generally starts more dissension instead of just reading it and moving on.

 

Are you now the board moderator?

 

Your criticism is too subjective. Just because you do not like something does not mean it is inapproriate. So I am asking you to stop brow beating me. Frankly, I'm very close to reporting you for harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to go ahead. Requesting that posters behave in an appropiate way on the boards is something we are all allowed to do. I'm sure by now Michael is use to getting that type of complaint from you. I'm asking that you have a little respect for the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not your place to focus on other posters and tell them what to post. There is nothing in the code of conduct that gives you that power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me only? HA,HA. Don't you read all the posts directed at you??????????? FROM MANYOTHER POSTERS HERE why not ask darkblue, kyle, etc. More time is wasted on these bds. on you and your friend. Why don't either one of you ever post anything without a complaint, name cealling or cracks? I've never seen a post from either of you answering a question about a film that might help another poster.

ENOUGH. I'm done with you. Let posters continue their discussion and sympathies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your place is not to criticize others. Stop your criticism of others. Why don't you get that?

 

Have a little respect for what others post. Or maybe you could choose not to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tired, tired of wating, tired of wating for you:

I'm so tired, tired of waiting, tired of wating for you:

 

*To stop disrupting my message board*

 

Let us now.....return to.................click

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}But we have armed forces and police forces on the scale that we did not have when the constitution was written. Are you suggesting that people need to have weapons, so that in case of war, they would take those weapons with them (like Henry Fonda in Drums Along the Mohawk ?) If so, that might help with the budget deficit -- people would be obliged to pay for and bring their own guns to war. That would be a big savings for the government.

>

> My own personal opinion, as a student of Theology, is that there are people (not anyone here that I know of) whose fundamentalism and devotion to the word of a document transcends respect for the spirit of the document, whether that document be the Constitution or the Bible. In my first post-graduate course, Introduction to the New Testament (at a Jesuit University), my professor, referring to a student's question about the Bible, said, "We have to decide what was for that time and what was for all time." I think that's where analysis and contemporary interpretations of the Constitution come in, and judgement and responsibility as well.

Good points all well made, but ask the residents of NYC after Hurricane Sandy went through how much good the police force or the army was when civilization ceased to exist for several days after the storm. I've been told police response time on Long Island is two hours during normal times - I have no idea if that is the case. Can't imagine what the case was after such a horrendous storm. And then you call FEMA and get a recording that it is closed due to inclement weather. That did actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK you Swithin, for supply a rational and well reasoned response to calvinnme's worry about some FOREIGN power invading the U.S. in the future and that fight coming door to door at him! You were EXACTLY correct in your response to to his worry.

 

You see calvinne, I had this same little discussion with a friend of mine on the tennis courts last Friday. He's a recently retired Colonel in the U.S. Army and was in Iran and Afghanistan. And, he attempted to make this very same point that you made about this "house to house" fighting thing but he used his experiences against the Mujahidin and other guerilla forces he's encountered during his tours of duty there, saying in essence that their owning of guns has been the reason they have had some success in their war against us.

 

My response to my friend was FIRST that we're talking an extreme case of Apples and Oranges here, as the Afghan people have little to no experience with western style democracy or the idea of a separation of church and state for that matter(as many OTHER nation's don't have in that part of the world), and thus they never have and probably never will understand our American governmental practices of Checks and Balances, BUT...and here's THE most salient point here I believe...IF he was using the thought that the Mujuhidin have been somewhat successful in fighting off the U.S. forces in their country because of their having guns at their diaposal, THEN what does THIS say about us and OUR government's latest adventure over there to modernize that backward freakin' country and their backward little ways, HUH?!

 

In OTHER words, doesn't THAT argument make us the owner of a "tyrannical government" RIGHT NOW??? And I THEN went on to ask my friend why he would involve himself WITH this presently so-called "tyrannical government" we have then, in THAT case. And, I THOUGHT that was what he was "worried about" in the FIRST place!!!

 

(...yeah, you guessed it...he had NO answer for that, OTHER than to agree with me that certain parts of world ARE indeed backward little hellholes where the people living within will probably never understand our concept of orderly change of leadership and all the other advantages we have in our country and that other people in MOST western countries presently share)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Ct. Thank you everyone who has responded with prayers and condolences. I was in the bank this morning at 9:30 when we all stopped and bowed our heads in a collective moment of silence. Outside the church bells tolled 26 times in remembrance for those slain on Dec. 14. As for the gunman and his mother may they rest in peace as well (not a fashionable sentiment right now but it is my own). From New Haven, Connecticut, Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}THANK you Swithin, for supply a rational and well reasoned response to calvinnme's worry about some FOREIGN power invading the U.S. in the future and that fight coming door to door in himd. You were EXACTLY correct in your response to to his worry.

>

> You see calvinne, I had this same little discussion with a friend of mine on the tennis courts last Friday. He's a recently retired Colonel in the U.S. Army and was in Iran and Afghanistan. And, he attempted to make this very same point that you made about this "house to house" fighting thing but he used his experiences against the Mujahidin and other guerilla forces he's encountered during his tours of duty there, saying in essence that their owning of guns has been the reason they have had some success in their war against us.

>

> My response to my friend was FIRST that we're talking an extreme case of Apples and Oranges here, as the Afghan people have little to no experience with western style democracy or the idea of a separation of church and state for that matter(as many OTHER nation's don't have in that part of the world), and thus they naver have and probably never will understand our American governmental practices of Checks and Balances, BUT...and here's THE most salient point here I believe...IF he was using the thought that the Mujuhidin have been somewhat successful in fihting off the U.S. forces in their country because of their having guns at their diaposal, THEN what does THIS say about us and OUR government's latest adventure over there to modernize that backward freakin' country and their backward little ways, HUH?!

>

> In OTHER words, doesn't THAT argument make us the owner of a "tyrannical government" RIGHT NOW??? And I THEN went on to ask my friend why he would involve himself WITH this presently so-called "tyrannical government" we have then, in THAT case.

>

> (...yeah, you guessed it...he had NO answer for that, OTHER than to agree with me that certain parts of world ARE indeed backward little hellholes where the people living within will probably never understand our concept of orderly change of leadership and all the other advantages we have in our country and that other people in MOST western countries presently share)

I've never thought nation building in places that will never be civilized is a wise use of tax dollars or the lives of American soldiers, so if this is at least part of the point you are making, I am with you so far. If you are trying to say that today, in the U.S., all is well and everything is orderly, then I pretty much agree too. If I saw a robbery in progress I would call the police. But just one catastrophe can change all that and then you are on your own. Suddenly hamburgers don't come from a grocery store anymore and the police have their own problems, they don't have time to protect you. Hmmmm. This is all fitting in with TCM's programming today isn't it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for understanding my(and Swithin's) point here, calvin.

 

And to answer your other worry here...IF there ever does become a time in our collective future when your imagined "social order breakdown" scenario happens, then it wouldn't be a case of a "tyrannical government" taking away our rights, would it?!

 

Nope, it would be some UNLAWFUL individual or GROUPS of individuals who would be attempting to do THAT in some imagined future distopian America, WOULDN'T it?!!

 

And thus...BOTTOM LINE...ONCE AGAIN...all this talk about why our 2nd Amendment supposedly is primarily in place because "we must fear our govenment" and/or "our guns insure our government fear us citizens"...IS nothin' but...wait for it here...BS!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Thanks for understanding my(and Swithin's) point here, calvin.

>

> And to answer your other worry here...IF there ever does become a time in our collective future when your imagined "social order breakdown" scenario happens, then it wouldn't be a case of a "tyrannical government" taking away our rights, would it?!

>

> Nope, it would be some UNLAWFUL individual or GROUPS of individuals who would be attempting to do THAT in some imagined furture distopian America, WOULDN'T it?!!

>

> And thus...BOTTOM LINE...ONCE AGAIN...all this talk about why our 2nd Amendment supposedly is primarily in place because we "must fear our govenment" and/or "our guns insure our government fear us citizens...IS nothin' but...wait for it here...BS!!!!!!!!

I don't think that it is "B.S." to believe that any group - or government - is capable of becoming tyrannical. I'm using the cases of natural catastrophes - Katrina, Sandy - to show that even if you don't believe that we could be facing a tyrannical power regardless of origin, civilization can disappear in the wink of an eye for other reasons.

 

I just don't want to go down the path of Britain. They faced a similar tragedy - lone nut shooting up schoolchildren - and implemented a total gun ban. Now the British police advise if you are the victim of a home invasion robbery - and there are many over there since the criminals know their victims are unarmed - that you cooperate with the criminal in every way - and I'm not talking about just handing over property if you know what I mean. One man did defend himself with a handgun he had kept from the total confiscation and ended up receiving 20 years. Oh the horror! He shot a burglar! They won't consider parole because he ... wait for it ...shows no remorse for shooting his attacker!!!! In this case, a total ban on firearms now has the British govt. acting in a tyrannical way towards their citizens - forcing them to cow in fear in their own homes and subject themselves to whatever horror a criminal might throw at them or else risk prison themselves. If this is not the definition of tyranny or for that matter terrorism, I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--"I don't think that it is "B.S." to believe that any group - or government - is capable of becoming tyrannical. I'm using the cases of natural catastrophes - Katrina, Sandy - to show that even if you don't believe that we could be facing a tyrannical power regardless of origin, civilization can disappear in the wink of an eye for other reasons.--

 

Once again, in your "natural catastrophes" scenario here, this would be the LACK of our government's ability to insure order then, wouldn't it, and NOT the idea that some governmental entity is going to go "door-to-door" in order to enforce their will upon us, right?!

 

And thus, once again, the whole point I've been attempting to make in this thread that the people who use THIS imagined "tyrannical govenment" fear to press their point about THIS being the PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment MUST be suffering from at LEAST a mild case of "paranoia" in their lives and/or a lack of "faith" in our COMPLETE Constutution, and AREN'T pressing the REAL reasons why we SHOULD have firearms available to us in this country, BUT with at least SOME restrictions as to the type and FIREPOWER available to us, so that those who like to go hunting, or like to go target practicing, or who just feel safer having them in their homes for home protection...as I DO, because I DO own a few guns for just THAT scenario, which MAY come as a shock to anyone who has read any of my thoughts in this thread..and UNlike your British model which you brought up.

 

However, one DOES have to admit that instances of gun violence on that li'l ol' island of theirs IS a fraction of what we here in the good ol' U.S. of A must put up with on daily basis...RIGHT?!

 

(...and I have a strong feelin' here that few Brits think that THEIR government is "tyrannical" in any measure...and in fact, many of the Brits I know or have communicated with over this here Internet can't seem to fathom our seeming obsession with guns and how many of us Yanks seem to somehow find "comfort" in that obsession in this so-called "Modern Age"!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}--"I don't think that it is "B.S." to believe that any group - or government - is capable of becoming tyrannical. I'm using the cases of natural catastrophes - Katrina, Sandy - to show that even if you don't believe that we could be facing a tyrannical power regardless of origin, civilization can disappear in the wink of an eye for other reasons.--

>

> Once again, in your "natural catastrophes" scenario here, this would be the LACK of our government's ability to insure order then, wouldn't it, and NOT the idea that some governmental entity is going to go "door-to-door" in order to enforce their will upon us, right?!

>

> And thus, once again, the whole point I've been attempting to make in this thread that the people who use THIS imagined "tyrannical govenment" fear to press their point about THIS being the PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment MUST be suffering from at LEAST a mild case of "paranoia" in their lives, and AREN'T pressing the REAL reasons why we SHOULD have firearms available to us in this country, BUT with at least SOME restrictions as to the type and FIREPOWER available to us, so that those who like to go hunting, or like to go target practicing, or who just feel safer having them in their homes for home protection...as I DO, because I DO own a few guns for just THAT scenario, which MAY come as a shock to anyone who has read any of my thoughts in this thread..and UNlike your British model which you brought up.

>

> However, one DOES have to admit that instances of gun violence on that li'l ol' island of theirs IS a fraction of what we here in the good ol' U.S. of A must put up with on daily basis...RIGHT?!

>

> (...and I have a strong feelin' here that few Brits think that THEIR government is "tyrannical" in any measure...and in fact, many of the Brits I know or have communicated with over this here Internet can't seem to fathom our seeming obsession with guns and how many of us Yanks seem to somehow find "comfort" in that obsession in this so-called "Modern Age"!)

Thank you and everybody else for the spirited debate. I guess sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. Now I must take my leave and write some imdb reviews of some precodes I've been watching. Ah the precode era, in which there is little in the way of tyrannical governments with the possible exception of "The Bitter Tea of General Yen", and that involved chaos more than actual government. Happy holidays to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slippery slope argument is quite persuasive & has valid points. But there's not only one slope. While much of the oppression & human suffering in the world has come from tyrannical & totalitarian governments, a large part is also the result of rogue violence & intimidation from dangerous, heavily armed groups - some operating as para-militaries, some as cartels, and so on. Human experience, past & present, has shown us that freedom & peace can be threatened not only by limiting a people's access to guns but also by a society being awash in guns (legal or otherwise). It's not just the Soviet example that should concern us, it's the Somalia example, the DR of Congo example, the Mexico example, etc.. Syrians are being killed by their own corrupt government as well as by the rebels fighting that government.

 

The global arms trade, sanctioned or not, is extremely lucrative and a consequence of it is conflict in so many regions. America has its own domestic arms trade and billions are spent on it. I don't think it's far-fetched to wonder if the gun lobby's main interest is actually those billions, less so preserving the Constitution.

 

I don't know what the answer is. Yes, the Newtown massacre has reminded us, yet again, that more needs to done for the seriously mentally ill in this country. But we can't deny that readily available powerful, accurate weapons & high capacity ammo clips are also major factors in these attacks. And there's more - a seemingly spreading mood of anger & suspicion & fear that can inflame even the non-mentally ill to behave rashly & violently.

 

I'm posting from my phone so please pardon any choppiness or typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's to you and yours having a very happy Holiday and a peaceful and prosperous new year right back, calvin. I too have enjoyed this exchange of thoughts here.

 

Cheers!

 

(...oh, and btw calvin, while you will now being doing that whole movie thing, I'LL be hittin' the ol' tennis courts shortly and indulging in a REAL sport where one raises their cardiovascular metabolism in efforts to keep my trim 60y/o 6'2" 190lb body in shape...and UNLIKE those fake "sports" where all ya do is point a gun and pull the trigger while riding around on a quad and lookin' for deer to shoot...or say at the target range where cardiovasular EXERCISE is at a minimum ALSO!!!...yeah, sorry, I JUST couldn't resist this final little shot at those who believe that shooting guns is somehow a "real sport"!!!!)

 

ROFL

 

Edited by: Dargo2 on Dec 21, 2012 1:28 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The most common used phrase in any discussion of apocalyptic events is "The end of civilization AS WE KNOW IT!"

 

 

Judging the state in which our "civilization" is in now, it might NOT be such a bad thing!

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a week, which somehow seems like no time at all and forever. I keep trying to think of the right words to express my sympathies & grief but there aren't any.

 

This terrible event has touched us all but for those personally affected, I'm so sorry. I will always keep the memories of those brave women & innocent children in my thoughts & prayers. May something good come from this, please, something that will stop a repeat of this awful, senseless loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought your original point was that freedoms are lost through a gradual,

step by step process, and before you know it you can't buy a soda of any

size, and that this process was similar to what took place in the Soviet

Union in the 1920s and 1930s, though the freedoms lost were much more

significant. And if something is inevitable that makes it sound like a sure

thing. I don't think that cigs or sodas being banned are anywhere near

inevitable.

 

The problem with ancient Greece, or at least ancient Athens, was that while

it was a more direct form of democracy, the number of people who were allowed

to participate was restricted. Only free males of a certain age could participate,

which left a lot of people out of the process. As for there being less freedom

now in the U.S. then when it was founded, remember that slavery existed

when our country was founded and it lasted for another 75 years, and after

that there was another hundred years of segregation. It's hard to see how we

could be less free than when there was slavery and segregation. Back in the

good old days when people didn't live in such close proximity and less was

known about pollution, one could get away with doing things that didn't impinge

on one's neighbors, so if you wanted to dump garbage and all manner of things

in a river, who cared. Today things are different and what we do is more likely

to infringe on somebody else, thus more regulations. Some rules will go overboard,

as they usually do, but in the main they're likely a good thing.

 

I'd guess that people who grew up under a totalitarian system like the Soviet

Union are a lot more wary about government regulation, even rather minor

government regulation, than those who grew up in a democratic system, who

realize that some regulation is necessary, and know that it's not likely that

these regulations are the first step toward an oppressive regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that theoretically anything is possible, but the idea that the U.S.

will turn into the Soviet Union, gradually or not, is highly, highly improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Bildwasser wrote:}{quote}

> And if something is inevitable that makes it sound like a sure thing.

 

I believe the word "inevitable" implies that the general frame of reference continues.

 

It is inevitable that a person's skin with lose it elasticity, their eyesight will degrade and their mental functions will become compromised. Those things will not occur if they are skydiving and their parachute fails to open when they are twenty-two years of age.

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  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...