Moses Remembered

[Guest]

and I mean YOU personally for all you did for us during 9/11. We couldn't have done it with out ya buddy,

 

Hey I had five Polka players from Columbus Ohio living in my basement for three weeks!!

 

R,

[James Steven Beverly]

Kinky...I actually prefer girls myself but whatever floats your boat !! I'll tell you what, we'll trade you all our Ohioian Polka musicians for another Shatner and a talk show host to be named at a later time.....Think about it and get back to me later. Anyway, BACK to Chuck Heston. I loved that guy and I'm gonna miss him. B)

Edited April 15, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I need two tanks for my next film, but I don't think they have any. Instead they do own half of a military vessel (the Belgians own the other half), despite the fact that Luxembourg does not even touch the sea...

 

They're getting ready for the global warming sea level rise.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

We are the shining city on the hill though we may be tarnished from time to time, in the end, we seem to eventually get to doing the right thing. I couldn't live anywhere else. B)

 

The problem with "the shining city on the hill" is that it's a Calvinist Theocracy.

Calvin's Geneva had no qualms about executing dissidents.

 

The Puritans came here to set up set up God's Kingdom on Earth. England and Holland were too corrupt.

 

The Church of England was too Papist & the Protestants in Holland were too tolerant.

 

The Massachusetts Colony was a place where Quakers could be & were hanged for blasphemy.

 

Thank God for Thomas Jefferson.

[James Steven Beverly]

The problem with "the shining city on the hill" is that it's a Calvinist Theocracy.

Calvin's Geneva had no qualms about executing dissidents.

 

The Puritans came here to set up set up God's Kingdom on Earth. England and Holland were too corrupt.

 

The Church of England was too Papist & the Protestants in Holland were too tolerant.

 

The Massachusetts Colony was a place where Quakers could be & were hanged for blasphemy.

 

Thank God for Thomas Jefferson.

 

It's just a metaphor, we're not quite Calvinist's, we don't execute our dissidents unlike some countries and I believe the Quakers stopped hanging people for blasphemy once we became the United States. The Puritans were a bit bizarre but hey we still owe a lot to them, and YES SIR, Thank God for Thomas Jefferson, John Addams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Samuel Addams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allan and the rest of those brilliant men who brought this great nation into being. B)

[Leo Anthony Vale]

It's just a metaphor, we're not quite Calvinist's, we don't execute our dissidents unlike some countries and I believe the Quakers stopped hanging people for blasphemy once we became the United States. The Puritans were a bit bizarre but hey we still owe a lot to them, and YES SIR, Thank God for Thomas Jefferson, John Addams, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Samuel Addams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allan and the rest of those brilliant men who brought this great nation into being. B)

 

It was the Quakers who were being hung, a warm up for the later witch hangings.

 

It was a three strikes deal; first offense: a lashing, second: having an ear cut off, third: the gallows tree.

 

Apparently most everyone hated Quakers, what with them cooking up horse feed for breakfast.

Baptists were merely banished from the colony or jained in anglican Virginia.

 

The real problem with the "shining city on a hill' is that politicians take it out of its original context and change the original meaning. Of course they do that with damnear anything.

Voting is the chosing of the lesser evil.

 

You should read steven Waldman's 'Founding Faith'.

 

I mentioned Jefferson because he was the most rabidly anticlerical of the bunch.

[John Brawley]

I don't want to start a big stupid argument, but I have never seen ample evidence that would make me believe laws controlling or banning firearms to be a good idea. After all, logic dictates that someone who wants to commit a crime with a firearm probably won't pay much attention the laws anyway.

 

 

I think that you will never stop pre-meditated violence. However, often murders are commited in the heat of the moment, often in domestic situations. Easy access to firearms makes the outcome all the more final.

 

jb

[James Steven Beverly]

I think that you will never stop pre-meditated violence. However, often murders are commited in the heat of the moment, often in domestic situations. Easy access to firearms makes the outcome all the more final.

 

jb

 

Perhaps, But as MY favorite founding father Ben Franklin once said (and I'm probably paraphrasing here) Those who sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve nether freedom nor safety. I think the bigger issue here is the right of the people to defend them selves against domestic and foreign threats. I live in El Paso. There is a small community not far from us called Columbus, New Mexico which was attacked by a foreign army in the last century. Pancho Villa attacked Columbus on March 8, 1916. The residents on Columbus were able to defend their community against the onslaught of the Mexican rebel's forces and repel the attack, killing many of their attackers and soundly defeating Villa's forces. These were not American soldiers, they were residents of Columbus. In February 1973 the American Indian Movement helping organize the armed occupation of Wounded Knee, The Black Panthers called armed resistance to white repression. Mao Tse Tung once said that “political power flows from the barrel of a gun." Many people are killed by guns in the US, many more are killed by smoking, high cholesterol and by far, auto accidents, all are tragic but it is imperative that so long as all too human beings are put in positions of power that can result it the abuse of that power, the people of a free nation have the means to remove the corrupted and evil from power should armed resistance ever become necessary and the right of the people to have arms is worth the sacrifices and is part of the cost of having a free society. B)

Edited April 18, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[John Brawley]

the people of a free nation have the means to remove the corrupted and evil from power should armed resistance ever become necessary and the right of the people to have arms is worth the sacrifices and is part of the cost of having a free society. B)

 

 

Sounds kind of insulting to all those *other* pesky nations that seem to be doing OK without arming their citizens. I'd rather take freedom without the guns thanks.

 

JB

[James Steven Beverly]

How exactly are you gonna take freedom, if someone is pointing a gun at you and telling you to do what THEY say, and all you have in your hands is your head? No one wants to have to use guns to defend freedom, but that's not really the point, the point is having the option to use guns to defend your personal freedom and THAT'S what's imperative. Most other nations came from monarchies and supreme rulers had a vested interest in keeping their citizens unarmed and under thumb. Most nations don't have the personal freedoms we have and don't expect they should have a right to them because in their long histories, they've never had them. Many have emulated us but never fully replicated us. Like it or not, we're not like other nations, dude. We're unique, an original. Our whole reason for coming into existence is to secure the blessings of liberty and freedom for the people of the of the United States. If you don't believe that just read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution it's all there in black and faded pale yellow. Every word in those documents is meant to protect the common man from the abuses of government and those in power. Guns are just one method to help enforce those ideals BUT it is an important method. Don't forget Hitler was elected to office in a democratic society and Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy was only a junior senator from Wisconsin when he chaired the House Un-American Activities Committee! Thomas Jefferson once said Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. He also said From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots which means the willingness to defend liberty at all costs down to the last American. B)

Edited April 18, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

Oh, one other thing Thomas Jefferson also said-Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. and Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. and Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. and finally For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

Edited April 18, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

Maybe one more for the road -No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. and The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Edited April 18, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[Alex Haspel]

I think that you will never stop pre-meditated violence. However, often murders are commited in the heat of the moment, often in domestic situations. Easy access to firearms makes the outcome all the more final.

 

jb

 

 

oh yes, if i had access to a gun while driving i would already be in prison for a long time.

by not having access to firearms, thanks to living in europe, i just swear like a trooper and might only die of a premature heart attack.

 

which i think is better.

[John Brawley]

Most nations don't have the personal freedoms we have and don't expect they should have a right to them because in their long histories, they've never had them. Many have emulated us but never fully replicated us.

 

Most nations ?????

 

jb

[John Brawley]

Oh, one other thing Thomas Jefferson also said-Every citizen should be a soldier.

 

 

I guess that means Timothy McVeigh was doing his patriotic duty....

 

jb

[James Steven Beverly]

Most nations ?????

 

jb

What, you want a list?!

[James Steven Beverly]

I guess that means Timothy McVeigh was doing his patriotic duty....

 

jb

 

No, Timothy McVeigh was acting like a criminal and was justly executed for his cowardly heinous crimes WHICH he committed with a bomb, NOT a gun, made from perfectly legal common place items, easily obtainable in almost ANY civilized western (or Eastern, Southern, Northern, pretty much any) nation. A time delayed fuse, 5000 lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane racing fuel which only goes to prove if you are really set on killing people, a ban on guns won't stop you from doing so.

Edited April 19, 2008 by James Steven Beverly

[John Brawley]

No, Timothy McVeigh was acting like a criminal and was justly executed for his cowardly heinous crimes

 

How then, do you account for the apparent contraction of your argument. On one hand you argue that it's a critical backup to democracy and freedom. That sometimes, there may be a requirement of the citizens to hold a wayward or abusing government to account. That this is the reason that every citizen should be armed.

 

the people of a free nation have the means to remove the corrupted and evil from power should armed resistance ever become necessary and the right of the people to have arms is worth the sacrifices and is part of the cost of having a free society.

 

Timothy Mcveigh seemed to believe that this is exactly what he was doing. Apparently he was inspired by the same quote you used previously from Thomas Jefferson.

 

"He wore a printed T-shirt with the slogan Sic semper tyrannis ("Thus ever to tyrants", the phrase shouted by John Wilkes Booth immediately after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln) and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (from Thomas Jefferson)."

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

 

Your argument about it being a bomb instead of a gun denies that the fact that it was inspired by the same thinking. Thomas Jefferson talks about arms. Arms means weapons.

 

I abhor the acts of timothy mcveigh and i think there are no justifications for the acts he committed. I only raise and pursue the issue to shine a light on what i think are grossly simplistic notions of being armed " just in case. "

 

Of course if someone wants to commit a crime of violence and murder, it's probably not too difficult to obtain the means to do it no matter which territory one resides in.

 

My argument would be that with less firearms within the community, one can greatly reduce the chance of a temporarily irrational act that (as opposed to the aforementioned premeditated acts) results in the violent death of a human being. It might prevent some suicides. It might prevent some domestic violence. The gun culture of the US seems to have created

 

It makes me so terribly terribly sad to read that students feel the need to carry firearms to their places of academic pursuit in case of a repeat of a particularly US phenomena of school shootings.

 

Students ! Children. Young adults. Why do these young adults resort to shooting their fellow students when in despair ? What kind of culture teaches them that this is the answer ?

 

I can hear your argument already about the need to protect oneself in case someone "points a gun at your head"

 

There is no defense to that is there ? Even if you are armed to the teeth. It's an emotional argument that simplifies the real issue.

 

That gun culture breeds gun violence.

[James Steven Beverly]

How then, do you account for the apparent contraction of your argument. On one hand you argue that it's a critical backup to democracy and freedom. That sometimes, there may be a requirement of the citizens to hold a wayward or abusing government to account. That this is the reason that every citizen should be armed.

 

 

Yes it is critical backup to democracy and freedom, but your argument rests on the absurd assumption that, that's what Mcveigh was doing when in fact he was attempting to bend the will of a democratically elected and by far majority approved government to HIS will which is against every democratic priciple we have!!! AND which would make Mcveigh the tyrant. I fact, too bad nobody got the chance to shoot him before he did it! And I never said every citizen SHOULD be armed. I said that every citizen should have the right to own a gun or several guns for that matter. There are several honest, decent, hard working people that really should stay as far away from fire arms as possible because they're just as apt to accidentally shoot them selves as anyone else, but it should NEVER be my right to tell them they CAN'T own a gun.

 

 

Timothy Mcveigh seemed to believe that this is exactly what he was doing. Apparently he was inspired by the same quote you used previously from Thomas Jefferson.

 

"He wore a printed T-shirt with the slogan Sic semper tyrannis ("Thus ever to tyrants", the phrase shouted by John Wilkes Booth immediately after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln) and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (from Thomas Jefferson)."

From wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

 

And Hitler quoted Darwinism to justify killing millions of Jews, homosexuals and anyone else who opposed him, what's your point? just because someone spouts rhetoric and selected thoughts of great men to justify the evil they do, doesn't mean they have the slightest thing in common with the great men that first spoke the word or any understanding of what those words mean. Muslim extremes and terrorists quote the Karan all the time. Does ANYONE but themselves believe they are men of God?

 

 

Your argument about it being a bomb instead of a gun denies that the fact that it was inspired by the same thinking. Thomas Jefferson talks about arms. Arms means weapons.

 

I abhor the acts of timothy mcveigh and i think there are no justifications for the acts he committed. I only raise and pursue the issue to shine a light on what i think are grossly simplistic notions of being armed " just in case. "

 

I also never said it was a simple issue. I said it was vital to a free people for the have the right to own guns, this is not simplistic, it is a statement of fact. In EVERY case when tyrants seize power, the people they subjugate are dis-armed. The responsibility of gun ownership is a complicated matter but we in the US feel we are adult enough to handle that responsibility fpr the most part. One of the way I can prove that is that IF we could not handle it considering the actual number of guns available in the US, there should be a GREAT number MOST deaths from guns then there actually are. Most of those ore from mis-handling of fire-arms and ignoring basic safety precautions in other words, dumb ass poop. People actually shooting one another is a relatively rare occurrence and MOST of the time involves criminal activity. Neighbor, blowing away neighbor just plain doesn't happen very often.

 

 

Of course if someone wants to commit a crime of violence and murder, it's probably not too difficult to obtain the means to do it no matter which territory one resides in.

 

That's EXACTLY my point, you've got subway bombings in London, Elementary school bombings in Chechnya, IEDs in Iraq, car bombs in Italy, Suicide bombers in Israel. There is not shortage of way to kill people in "civilized" countries that HAVE a ban on private gun ownership! So way should we give up our rights? It doesn't seem to be all that much better where you're at now.

 

 

 

My argument would be that with less firearms within the community, one can greatly reduce the chance of a temporarily irrational act that (as opposed to the aforementioned premeditated acts) results in the violent death of a human being. It might prevent some suicides. It might prevent some domestic violence. The gun culture of the US seems to have created

 

You mean like the temporarily irrational act of picking up a pipe or ashtray or small statue and bashing someone brains in? How 'bout we ban Razor blades, rope, sleeping pills, tall buildings and bridges, should we ban those as well? What about forcing married men to wear handcuffs so they won't be able to beat their wives to death or strangle them. MAYBE we should ban cars, mountain climbing, skateboarding, skiing, swimming, airplanes, rugby, football, horseback riding, parachuting car racing why not walking while we're at it, it might save lives from accidental death. I mean what the Hell. Let's put EVERYONE in a separate padded room with a straight jacket on so they'll be safe....... You can't save peopl from themselves, dude. If someone is going to go into a murderous rage or is determined to off them selves, banning guns isn't gonna save them or their victims.

 

It makes me so terribly terribly sad to read that students feel the need to carry firearms to their places of academic pursuit in case of a repeat of a particularly US phenomena of school shootings.

 

Students ! Children. Young adults. Why do these young adults resort to shooting their fellow students when in despair ? What kind of culture teaches them that this is the answer ?

 

Why does an 18 year old guy strap 80lb of dynamite to himself, go into a discotheque and blow a bunch of innocent 20 somethings up? Why do 4 guys high jack an airliner and slam it into the side of a skyscraper? Why does some guy walk into a subway tunnel in Tokyo and release a cloud of poison gas? There's no shortage of insanity in the world and quite frankly if SOMEONE is gonna have a gun, I'd rather it be ME! Would you have felt better in the kids at Columbine had set off a van full of fertilizer and fuel oil? These kids were headed for destruction whether the had guns or not. The real failure here was no one tried to help them BEFORE they picked up a gun or planted a bomb.

 

If we're to blame, and I think that's a BIG if, it's not that guns were available, Hell, they coulda built a bomb, used machetes or knives, ran a car into a crowd of fellow students. It's that education and mental health are not priorities in the US. Capitalism is a double edged sword, it provides the highest standard of living in the world but in turn also rewards and promotes greed and selfishness. We have built this incredible military/industrial complex that feeds off of on another and draws resources from ever other aspect of our society. Eisenhower warned about this happening in the 50s and it's come true, These kids were the result of a LOT of different problems home, environment, social, societal. Picking up guns was just the end result of a host of problems that could have been addresses well before it got to that point. If it hadn't been guns, it woulda been something else. The positive thing that came out of that is an overhaul of the education and school counseling system. Now if kids show signs of sever emotion problems, measures are taken to help that student.

 

I can hear your argument already about the need to protect oneself in case someone "points a gun at your head"

 

There is no defense to that is there ? Even if you are armed to the teeth. It's an emotional argument that simplifies the real issue.

 

That gun culture breeds gun violence.

 

See again that's your assumption, there is no such thing as "Gun Violence" there's only violence, a person is gonna be JUST as dead if you stab him in the heart as if you shoot him in the head, bash his brains in with a hammer or blow him up with a car bomb. The police in Great Briton don't even carry guns, but I've seen scoccer matches explode into full fledged riots! That's something you'll probably never see at an American football game. Guns are nothing more than a tool and assigning them some kind of sinester and evil essence says more about you than it does about them. Evil lies in the heart of the user of guy using the tool, not the tool it's self. B)

[John Brawley]

Yes it is critical backup to democracy and freedom, but your argument rests on the absurd assumption that, that's what Mcveigh was doing when in fact he was attempting to bend the will of a democratically elected and by far majority approved government to HIS will which is against every democratic principle we have!!!

 

Sorry. But you can't have it both ways. Can't you see how hypocritical it is for you to argue that arms are a requirement for a free society in case one should need to take action against a government. This is what McVeigh believed he was doing. You say he's a tyrant for doing what you argue you have the right to do ? You describe him a tyrant who was attempting to bend the will of a democratically elected government. But you want to reserve the right to do so for yourself ??

 

 

 

 

There is not shortage of way to kill people in "civilized" countries that HAVE a ban on private gun ownership! So way should we give up our rights? It doesn't seem to be all that much better where you're at now.

 

It appears to me that it is. American's seem to kill each other at greater rates than the rest of the developed world. Are you happy with that price ?

 

 

 

You mean like the temporarily irrational act of picking up a pipe or ashtray or small statue and bashing someone brains in? How 'bout we ban Razor blades, rope, sleeping pills, tall buildings and bridges, should we ban those as well? What about forcing married men to wear handcuffs so they won't be able to beat their wives to death or strangle them. MAYBE we should ban cars, mountain climbing, skateboarding, skiing, swimming, airplanes, rugby, football, horseback riding, parachuting car racing why not walking while we're at it, it might save lives from accidental death.

 

 

Don't you think you're getting a bit dramatic now ? Of course we legislate that people wear helmets if they ride a bike or motorcycle. We make it difficult to get sleeping pills over the counter. We put barriers and security to stop people getting to the top of buildings. What real use do you have for a firearm in an urban environment ? Why not make it difficult to obtain one ?

 

 

 

Picking up guns was just the end result of a host of problems that could have been addresses well before it got to that point. If it hadn't been guns, it would been something else. The positive thing that came out of that is an overhaul of the education and school counseling system. Now if kids show signs of sever emotion problems, measures are taken to help that student.

 

 

Picking up guns is the end result ? Ok. So why is it a particularly AMERICAN problem that KIDS are shooting other KIDS ? Why do KIDS resort to a gun in America ? Why make it any easier for them to actually be able to pick up a gun ? It doesn't seem to be changing the fact that guns and schools seem to go together. Do you know how absurd it seems to me that you would have metal detectors or even security guards at a school ?

 

 

See again that's your assumption, there is no such thing as "Gun Violence" there's only violence, a person is gonna be JUST as dead if you stab him in the heart as if you shoot him in the head, bash his brains in with a hammer or blow him up with a car bomb.

 

The gun is final. It kills in an instant. It can be used at a distance. it neutralises any physical advantage one may have over another. In short. Because it's so easy and quick. The gun kills way more efficiently than any other method. So why make it easy ?

 

 

The police in Great Briton don't even carry guns, but I've seen scoccer matches explode into full fledged riots! That's something you'll probably never see at an American football game. Guns are nothing more than a tool and assigning them some kind of sinester and evil essence says more about you than it does about them. Evil lies in the heart of the user of guy using the tool, not the tool it's self. B)

 

How would arming police even change this ?

 

People kill people, no doubt. But why make it easier why put a quick and simple means within easy reach ?

 

jb

[Chris Keth]

This got heated. Sorry I started it. Oh well.

 

Anyway, one last stab: If someone wants to harm another person, it doesn't matter much whether it's a firearm that's handy or a tire iron; they'll do what they want to do.

 

I just don't feel that guns are any more dangerous than any of the hundreds of other objects that could be used to kill a person. Yes, they can be used to harm. So can myriad other things.

[John Brawley]

This got heated. Sorry I started it. Oh well.

 

I dunno.

 

Spirited discourse is a great thing.

 

And we're in off-topic land.....

 

jb

[Guest]

Note to my European and Australian friends....do not try and figure out why Americans think it's normal for civilians to carry a gun. I lived in the USA for five years, and I never came close to understanding it, I don't think those of us outside of the USA will ever comprehend this uniquely American trait.

 

R,

[John Brawley]

Note to my European and Australian friends....do not try and figure out why Americans think it's normal for civilians to carry a gun. I lived in the USA for five years, and I never came close to understanding it, I don't think those of us outside of the USA will ever comprehend this uniquely American trait.

 

R,

 

 

I thought logic might work.....

 

Clearly I was mistaken.....:-)

 

jb

[Chris Keth]

Note to my European and Australian friends....do not try and figure out why Americans think it's normal for civilians to carry a gun. I lived in the USA for five years, and I never came close to understanding it, I don't think those of us outside of the USA will ever comprehend this uniquely American trait.

 

R,

 

I thought we were talking about simple gun ownership and now you come in talking about concealed carry? :P