Molon Labe

,    »  -   295 Comments
384
7.63
12345678910
Ratings: 7.63/10 from 105 users.

Storyline

Molon Labe

Molon Labe, inspired by The Sword and Sovereignty, explores the "power of the sword" and how it guarantees American's freedom. Never in human history have population suffered the tyranny of despotic governments more than the 20th century. For every time despots take control their first aim is to disarm their intended victims. Governments have killed more people than all of the wars combined because the vast masses of people have previously been disarmed.

Sometimes it happens over night, other times it takes a few decades. When the establishment has the arms and the monopoly of arms there is no check and balance on that arbitrary tyranny. All tyrants throughout history including present history must make sure that the people they have conquered do not have the physical means of resistance.

If the American colonists have not been well armed they would never have had their revolution. Since colonial time Americans have understood this, that a free nation is a function of an armed populous, and the founders reflected these realities in four places in the US constitution, the most famous being the Second Amendment. This amendment states A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When you disarm the population you leave them open to the worst criminals of all which are government criminals. There have been more deaths due to the genocide and democide of governments in the 20th century than all the wars put together.

Unfortunately the mainstream media influenced by anti-constitutional interests rarely mentions any of this, nor do they ask the obvious question: If the Second Amendment says that US supposed to be a free State how come they're fast approaching a police State? How people in US could have allowed their politicians to establish a department of Homeland Security when all 50 states already have departments of homeland security provided by the US constitution itself?

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • a_no_n

    "Never in human history have population suffered the tyranny of despotic governments more than the 20th century."

    This is one of the most historically ignorant statements that i have ever read in my entire life...I would have laughed if it wasn't so upsetting to see.

    lol because these lunatics think owning an AR-15 with an extended magazine is going to stop a drone or a tank...that's what you get when you watch so many movies about lone heavily armed underdogs that you lose touch with real life!

    Unfortunatly, government troops aren't as easy to kill as the classrooms full of children that the owners of these high powered assault rifles tend to prefer going after.

    at the end of the day, if you need fifty rounds to protect your home, you should probably have that gun taken from you because you clearly can't use it properly!

  • Jack1952

    I watched Rambo take down a helicopter with his bare hands. Imagine the damage he could have inflicted if he had an AR-15 available. Those Yanks are a bunch of tough dudes. They fight lightening with their fists. Arm them and what government could stand up to them. Except, the American military is made up of Americans, too, so they'd be awfully tough. It would be quite the battle. I could sit up here in Canada and watch the carnage on our unbiased CBC television network.

    Nothing impresses a criminal more than having fifty rounds sprayed in his direction. If an innocent bystander happens to get shot. we just have to understand that collateral damage is the price one pays for home security. It's for the good of all that the bystander might have to give his life. God bless America.

  • a_no_n

    and now my monitor is covered in coffee...thanks for posting that just as i was taking a sip. lol

  • Jack1952

    I felt it was necessary to straighten out some of your liberal, left-wing commie ideas. If it helps, think of your monitor as collateral damage. The price you have to pay for enlightenment.

  • dmxi

    conspiracy is an inflationary term being flung around very loosely at the moment.

  • Janeen Clark

    government arises from the concept of domination which is created through the psychological use of punishment and reward, coupled with a competitive ideology.this means the monetary system , government, and other forms of forced authority have to go if you want to see a world based on co-operation instead of domination. it is so beaten into our heads to give others what they "deserve" this becomes a educational issue and a detachment from the established status quo in society. one possible method may be to objectively show people that co-operation ALWAYS leads to a better outcome in any situation over competition (the idea that others have to lose in order for you to succeed). reward and punishment have been used for thousands of years to establish authority and maintain it. the real challenge is to identify all areas where that method is used and make it obsolete. for example our everyday language we use punishment to diagnose, judge and dehumanize people ex. "you are selfish" this is a judgment in which what your really saying is "your taking care of your needs, but not the needs of others" notice the difference mentally when comparing both statements it is crucial to note we speak to our self in our head with our thoughts in the same manner . these examples demonstrate how far reward and punishment are engrained in us over the last 10k years. one may be able to overcome these obstacles then demonstrate to others the advantages. it is important to note every action or thought a human has is to meet their needs. human needs are objective and all humans have the same needs. this barely touches on the subject but you can trace the use of reward and punishment in any use of authority and domination this is the truth.

  • Terry Beaton

    I think you mean 'inflammatory'. But yes, you're right.

  • BryantTucker

    Lol anything with Alex Jones' name attached is a joke.

  • Guest

    Granted the first statement is an ignorant one. Then you go down hill. So how many rounds would be ok in an AR-15 for example? 10? 20? you do realize more people get killed with handguns than rifles dont you? Those normally have less than 14. You do realize the fact that more crimes are commited with guns in supposedly "gun free" zones than in areas that are not ie: Chicago and DC? An armed society is a polite society.

    And at the end of the day the meaning of "Shall not be infringed" hasnt changed since it was written in the constitution.

  • Vet

    Yes that statement was an ignorant one, then ya went downhill.
    Just how many rounds do you think an AR-15 for example should have? 10? 20? No small arms arent designed to take out heavy equipment, most who have served and/or are trained in small arms know this.
    You do realize that more people are killed with handguns by far than assault weapons in the USA? There are higher rates of gun crime in supposedly "Gun Free" zones that in other zones. ie:Chicago and DC
    And at the end of the day the meaning of "Shall not be infringed" hasnt changed since it was written in the constitution.

  • thisismyspamemail

    I see the most of the rest of the world unarmed and still suffering extreme crime in some places....there is no reason on earth to disarm every human unless you want to control every human. People either give too much or take too much as far as law goes. Self defense should never be against the law.

  • 1concept1

    Its the sound of his voice; and he wines! But none the less if he is right on i mean who knows, not me?

  • Sewwwtheplanet

    I am sorry but you see some..., that is the 3 world wich was suposed to be unarmed being in wars. None of europe
    or other civilsed countries and combined together have such a level of gun
    realted crimes than America. Check the statistics, it is simple that
    simple: legalised guns cause crimes.

  • Jabberjoe

    Read some history, to say that the tea tax was insignificant is deceptive because the tea tax was the symbol and rallying point, but was only a small part of the story.

    Duties were placed on colonial imports of lead, glass, paper, and tea. The money collected on these imports was used to pay the salaries of British officials in America. They hoped to make these officials more loyal to Britain and more independent of colonial legislatures, who traditionally had paid governors and judges.

    Colonists objected to the tax without representation and to the new bureaucracy that was to be put in place to collect the taxes, and the use of the taxes to pay officials. They saw this as an attack on their legislative authority. Colonists waged a campaign of nonimportation and tarring and feathering. Boston merchants adopted a nonimportation agreement in 1768, agreeing not to import certain items rather than pay the duties. This civil disobedience spread to other cities. By 1769 imports of British goods had fallen by 40%. Finally in 1770, Parliament gave up and repealed all the duties except for the tax on tea. At first colonists accepted this compromise and often evaded the tax by smuggling.

    But when Parliament allowed the near bankrupt East India Company, the English monopoly on the trade of Indian goods, to sell its tea directly to the colonies without paying the usual import duties in England, colonists were outraged. This meant that the East India Company could sell tea more cheaply than the local merchants, who had to pay high duties on the tea they imported. All the old opposition to the tax returned. In New York and Boston the company's ships were not allowed to land.

    In Boston a group of colonists dressed as Indians showed their opposition by dumping company tea into the harbor. Colonial resistance had resulted in damage to private property and Britain felt that it could not let this episode (later known as the Boston Tea Party) go unpunished. The result was the Five Intolerable Acts.

    The Boston Port Act: The first of these closed the port of Boston until the East India Company was paid for the lost tea. This created a great hardship for the people of Boston whose livlihood depended on trade.

    Massachusetts Government Act: The second modified the Massachusetts Charter of 1691, taking away many of its rights of self-government. It was aimed at punishing Boston and forcing it out of resistance. Almost all positions in the colonial government wer to be appointment by the governor or directly by the King. Activities of town meetings were limited. Massachusetts was very proud of its independence and was angry at this infringement on its rights.

    Administration of Justice Act: The third measure provided that British officials accused of committing crimes in a colony might be taken to England for trial. Because it wold mean witnesses would be forced to travel, the practical effect was thought to be that the British officials would escape justice.

    The Quartering Act: The fourth measure allowed the British to quarter British soldiers in colonial buildings at the expense of the colonists, including colonists' homes, if there were insufficient space in other buildings.

    The Quebec Act: The fifth act extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec. Because Quebec did not have representative assemblies, many colonists thought this transfer of land from the colonies to unrepresented Quebec was another attempt to punish the colonies and solidify British control.

  • Highlander

    As a Brit , ( Scottish ) I perhaps look at this slightly differently from the arguments well put below . Since 9/11 , ( actually 2009 when my eyes were forced to open when I learned about" building 7 " ) I have watched with dismay as the rights of everyone in America and Canada ( here in UK also ) have been eroded.
    To me the argument would boil down to this question.
    Why would the Homeland security of the USA need to stockpile bullets by the million ( I don't know if hollow point or not, it is immaterial really), unless there was the possibility of a civil war ?
    Who ordered this ?
    Why do they fear the population at large ?
    Now it seems that anyone who supports the "right to bear arms " is portrayed as a crackpot or conspiricy nut .
    I have more fear of our governments , than any terrorists .
    In UK it is very hard to obtain any firearm .
    I would urge the brothers across the water not to give up that right to bear arms please ? You saved our asses in WW2 , we may need the help of the average armed US citizen again before long !

  • dmxi

    hollow points are extremely damaging in comparison to standard ammunition & thats why they have been banned.that makes the order of 1m. more disturbing if true.

  • bringmeredwine

    Hi from Canada!
    I don't think that any guns will be of much help in defending ourselves if "the powers that be" (whomever they are) decide to annihilate certain populations. Not in this new world of drones,
    ballistic missiles, satellites, etc.. etc.
    There's nowhere to hide.
    Gawd, I didn't mean to sound so depressing.
    Cheers!

  • a_no_n

    yeah...back when they wrote the constitution you had to work damned hard to put out as many as three rounds a minute. the concept of as many as ten rounds wasn't even imaginable.

    really...you're suprised that areas where gun control laws are tighter there are more gun crimes...is that not a logical progression?

    as for your question, my answer is why do you need an AR-15 at all?

  • bringmeredwine

    I'm actually agreeing with you on this one.

  • ArmyVet

    The founders were men of vision and mostly military men, so the idea that weapons would improve I'm sure wasn't lost on them.
    The 2nd amendment was written to defend all the others from tyrants, that being keeping possession on par with governments would fall into line.(this also answers your last question)
    No I'm not surprised, pretty sure I didn't word it as if I was.

  • ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    what the f**k...

    I'm so confused... are you advocating innocent collateral damage in the fight for "home land security"?

    If so you owe a_no_n a new monitor.
    If you were being sarcastic, you owe him a bottle of windex ;-p

  • ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    This is a good documentary.

    But @ 32min it crosses the line into "old thyme" indoctrinated beliefs. Which I must add, describe False, untrue and cowardly claims of "certain belief systems" that have established power, purely out of violence.

    Yes no government should have tyranny over its people, but, "the greater good" entails non-violence, and rehabilitation.

    Not some old school punitive and vindictive mentality that calls to arms, whenever its beliefs are questioned or threatened.

    There should be similar rights, to fire arms, as there are to dangerous motor vehicles.

  • Sewwwtheplanet

    choosing a dangerous motorbike there is a chance that you kill yourself or unintenionally you kill somebody else. The gun is designed to kill and no other purpose. Would you give the right to keep a nuclear head in any family house, a garage just because the goverment has it, too? unfortunatelly human being has possibilities of being good and evil, thats why is not and will not be fully free.

  • serialteg

    great documentary
    of course take it with salt
    just read the constitution and reach your own conclusions...

  • Nada nada

    If you're gonna fight the US gov, better equip yourselves with proper weaponry. Like, hydrogen bombs.

  • Lenny

    The fact that so many people buy into this garbage is a testament to the dumbing down of society. People like Alex Jones used to be the crazy individuals screaming gloom and doom in Time's Sqaure, now people like him have millions of subscribers. I find that extremely disturbing, and these conspiracy theorist-twoofer-OWS-Anonymous types are as much a threat to this country as Muslim terrorists.

  • DrJack37

    When your freedom depends on a gun, you've already lost it.

  • Achenbach

    this is just a terrible pro-gun propaganda piece, probably produced or financed by the NRA or some other crazy gun advocate group. Don't waste your time.

  • shafawn

    Wow really Mr. Genius? Tell me which free country won it's freedom and independence with words because it sure wasn't ours

  • shafawn

    You must have forgotten what the colors of our flag stand for sir.
    Better men than you have died and shed blood so you can sit on your
    biscuit and never risk it.

  • shafawn

    What disturbing to me is a government who beefs up Homeland Security
    buying millions of rounds of ammo while actively seeking to disarm the
    public because 'we don't need to protect ourselves'. Can't you see a
    one party system = tyranny
    God you people are imbeciles

  • DrJack37

    You have no idea what you're talking about. Get back in your cage.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Dr Jack is talking about freedom... You are talking about the meaning of the flag... No direct correlation, one is not the other

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I agree "you can't sit on your biscuit and never risk it." But once you stand up to do something, violence is not the only way to do so... In fact, it is not an effective method, as it is not a long term solution. Violence begets more violence... And whoever was left standing at the losing side will grow resentment. There is ALWAYS a losing side in a battle...

    PS. Do you know what type of a man DrJack37 is? You know him? Are you the elected judge of rating men superior or inferior?

  • shafawn

    What country won it's freedom and independence with words?

  • shafawn

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    Thomas Jefferson

  • CaptHowdy

    Oh yes, Pepe, and the people in Africa are doing so well these days, aren't they? NOT. Get real.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I already answered that question above, some links included... Listing several countries that did so.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Oh yes, Howdy, and the people in Africa are doing poorly because of peaceful independence or gun issues, aren't they? NOT. Get real, don't fall in logical fallacies.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Another fallacy in your response is your focus on a particular group of the several countries I list. Want another example? (Apart from the Easter European countries you ignored?)

    India fought several times for independence. It's attempts were futile until they changed to passive resistance.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Only if peaceful revolution is made impossible, as JFK once put it.

    "The ballot is stronger than the bullet. " - Abraham Lincoln

    "Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." - Mahatma Gandhi

  • Pepe Alvarado

    You risk it with civil dissobedience, before even considering any form of violence.

  • hisxmark

    Homeland Security is stockpiling ammo because they know that when the oil finally runs out, when climate change leads to widespread famine and unending weather disasters, there is going to be social unrest, and volkerwanderung as southern peoples move north in search of food. Such conditions lead to chaotic violence, not only from foreign incursions, but from the disaffected citizens whose government can no longer serve. Anybody who is not lost in that African river can see it coming.

  • hisxmark

    The Second Amendment is indeed important. It was for just such times as these it was put in the Constitution. "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven." There is a time for loyalty, and a time for revolution.

    The choice is always there with every "freedom", with every "right". Use it, or lose it.

  • Bran_Man33

    Hahahaha you're ridiculous to say that I mean if we lived in a world where we didn't need guns I'd be all for it..I'm definitely in favor of peace but it's common sense that when guns are "outlawed" they are not just gone, oh no, they're still around in the hands of the criminals. You talk about statistics? One word CHICAGO...Give me a break. Some of you people should have your house broken into and be held at gun point. What would you do? Talk'em out of it? I would have my gun ready. Just the sight of a gun in the hands of a deserving individual is enough to detour a crime. If you lived in Chicago I would dare you to put a sign up saying your house was gun free. By the way, Chicago has America's strictest gun laws and it's the murder capitol of America with the most gun violence..

  • Bran_Man33

    No, it's a solution to a criminal messing with you and your family on your property though.

  • Lauri Neva

    Who controls the Press in the United States? From this film one is led to believe that the government we do have is due to the press and media that put them there and supports the government and it oppressive polices Jews!

  • james2112

    Lauri, you obviously have a problem with misplaced anger toward the Jewish people. Now read slowly and try to understand this, very slowly please I wouldn't want you to get hurt. The government controls the press, the corporations control the government and the globalists control the corporations. I would go into further detail but I don't think you can take anymore in than this, careful now, I don't want to be responsible for your brain exploding trying to understand this. And yes I am Jewish and I try to control my cats, it's not easy.

  • james2112

    I do not own a gun and never have, however I sure am glad one of my friends will toss me one should I need it.

  • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    lets all close our eyes, and hope everything fixes itself !!! deuh......... does anything ever fixes itself??

  • shafawn

    I believe they are planning for our economy to go belly up and they're stockpiling in preparation for widespread panic, rioting and looting. I think they want to go paperless and they want a more fluid one world government.

  • shafawn

    All the countries you listed are under U.S. protection Mr. Genius. Not
    very good with logic are you? There is a centrifugal force of
    Geo-political power held in place by polar opposites in our world. All
    the countries you listed live under the umbrella of our protection.
    Dictators, murderous regimes, and radical theocratic militants are not
    held in check by self control and diplomacy.. they are held in check
    because the United States stands for personal freedom held together by
    our Constitution and brave men who are willing to risk their lives to
    uphold that Constitution in defense of freedom and liberty all over the
    world.

  • shafawn

    Any man who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither.
    Benjamin Franklin

    ***
    If you are willing to give up freedom so that you can have a free place
    to live, free food and free medical ... isn't that slavery?

    ***If
    a woman has multiple babies while living for free off the government
    hasn't the government become the 'baby daddy'? Isn't that also not
    unlike slavery?

    **And why does the government stockpile ammo and
    weapons for 'our security' while telling us we don't need weapons for
    personal protection?**

    **Does a government exist to protect the people or do the people exist to serve their government?"Think for yourself!!

  • Lenny

    The same Homeland Security that just stopped a terrorist from blowing up an airport in Kansas?

  • Lenny

    The views you have are the views that people have in the Arab world and the third world; places where stupidity, paranoia and ignorance prevail over logic, rationale, critical thinking and reason. The serfs are usually the ones that think "The Man" is out to get them. Get an education -- a REAL education -- and stop listening to the poisonous rhetoric of Oliver Stone, Chomsky, Anonymous, Chris Greene, Alex Jones et al. Take it all with a grain of salt, see through the one sided propaganda, revisionism, commission and omission.

    I'm not saying you have to love government and authority, but the assumption that your elected leaders/intel communities/military are out to get you and destroy the fabric of America is extremist ideology.

  • a_no_n

    So you think they actually had fifty round magazines and fully automatic assault weapons in mind before they even invented the bolt load?

    the second amendment was written to stop the British from siezing back control if they ever decided to invade after the war...the bit that's supposed to answer my second question doesn't actually make grammatical sense, so i have no idea what you're talking about.

  • ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    I see what you're saying, and in a broad sense your right. However Nobody...and I mean Nobody could ever "justify" a Thermonuclear device as a hunting tool, or tool of home defense.

    The juxtaposition of intrinsic "bipolar human behavior" can be curtailed. Mainly through proper education, which I must add is quite lacking in the current "mainstream systems".

  • Jack1952

    Canada became independent without bloodshed. It can be done.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I believe you are misunderstanding my message... I never meant to imply we have to give up our freedom, nor give up our weapons.

    What I mean is the fight doesn't necessarily have to happen with violence.... YES things seem to move in that direction. But before we have to fight against the government, we can chose to be disobedient.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Yes the second ammendment is important, as it states that the people need to have the possibility to defend themselves from enemy, foreign or domestic, as the enemy will most surely carry those weapons as well.

    Though, guns are not absolutely necessary for revolution.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Wow... Impressive American propaganda in those last lines

  • Jack1952

    You laud the fact that the United States fought for it's independence and then seemingly want to fight the United States for your freedom. American independence was not won by a bunch of farmers breaking out their muskets and randomly shooting British soldiers. It was a cohesive coalition of men organized into a military unit that eventually became the government of the United States. This is the same government that wrote and protects the Constitution, including the second amendment. The constitution was been under scrutiny and has been changed numerous times in American history. If the law of the land becomes static, we become slaves of that law and no longer the caretakers. Times change and the way we see things also change. The realization that certain ideas that made sense two hundred years ago may not be as sensible today and people should not be restricted to an iron clad constitution but one that is open to discussion and possible change.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Dear MrGenius

    Taking an idea from a previous response of yours....
    "Are politicians servants of the people, or do people bend theirselves for the government?"

    So when you talk about dictators,murderous regimes, and the such.... It is not the US who keeps them in line, it is the people who have the power to do so.

    People must gather together so the 'leaders' can see they will lose support if certain action is made..... The War with Syria was stopped (for the moment) because Congress had 90% of calls against the war... The people didn't protest with gun violence.

    PS. Russia and India are under US protection?

    PSS. Your last couple of lines could fit perfectly in a Hollywood movie, or a join the army add, or any other typical source of American adulation, and brainwashing propaganda

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Oh yes, personal freedom is guarded so well in the US... You don't need a permit to cut hair, or feed the homeless, 8 year olds can sell lemonade freely in the streets, you can grow food in your front lawn, you have the option and easy access to fluoride-free water, there is no such thing as a "free speech zone", no one forces you to vaccinate your new-borns....... And oh yes, all your private data in the web is not closely guarded by the NSA.

    Sorry to bust your little bubble, the US is as corrupt as any other nation.

  • Jack1952

    Actually, I said "home security". Collateral damage while fighting criminal behaviour has a more tragic feel to it.

    I guess I owe him a bottle of windex but it will have to be done virtually. Best I can do under the cyber circumstances.

  • shafawn

    It has been said Canada is the fly that sits on the elephant's back and not without reason. Every country under the umbrella of the United States enjoys protection with the least loss of life otherwise there would be no point to form alliances. What country would dare attack our northern or southern neighbors?

  • Jack1952

    When Canada became independent, one of it's biggest fears was invasion by the United States. Canada was in competition with the United States for land in the west and had the Americans not purchased Alaska, Canada would have as soon as it was able. One of the main reasons no one has ever invaded Canada because of it's enormous size and its relative isolation to the rest of the world. It's only significant border is with the United States and any invasion from another country would be an enormous undertaking, requiring massive troops and the ability to solve overwhelming transportation problems. Yes, the United States does offer protection to Canada, but it is not the only factor protecting this immense country.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Dear MrGenius:

    You are evading the fact @Jack1952 answered your question (as did I) of examples of countries who underwent independence or revolution without bullets flying... If Canada is a fly (which i differ), that doesn't change the fact that their independence was peaceful.

  • shafawn

    How big is your military compared to the U.S.? What is your population compared to the U.S.? Please don't get me wrong. I love and respect Canada and have Canadian friends.

  • Jack1952

    Yes, the American military is bigger but you're talking about a scenario that has never happened. No one has ever gotten into a dispute with Canada to the point where war was a distinct possibility. The only wars that Canada has ever involved itself with were the world wars, U.N. peacekeeping initiatives, and support in Afghanistan. Not one of these has been a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty. You can't take credit for a protection service that may never have been necessary.

    My original point was that Canada achieved its freedom and independence without bloodshed and the United States had nothing, or at least very little, to do with it.

  • shafawn

    If you think your geographical position has little to do with your
    relative easy peace and independence you are delusional. Dictators and
    despots are not held in check by self control and diplomacy.
    USA is
    about 310 million people while Canada has only 34 million people ..
    It's like comparing Mayberry RFD to New York if you can understand the
    analogy. US Has population of 310 million and a military of about
    2.25 million, or about one in 125 americans.

    Canada has a population of 34 million and 65,722 military, or about 1 in 500.
    Now compare land mass....

    Canada - 3,854,082 square miles
    United States - 3,717,727 square miles

    You
    have a sprinkling of people up there spread out almost equal land mass
    and again it's like comparing Mayberry RFD to New York City.

  • Sewwwtheplanet

    Listen...If there is a burglar with a gun in the house and you hold the gun, there will be much greater chance that somebody start shooting out of fear. If you don,t have one there is a bigger chance you will loose money but you will survive. I guess with Chicago you just answered yourself. If only a few cities have a strict gun law, they will definitely attract criminals and from other states as an easy target. Those must be applied for the whole country. Transition would definitely be scary and long to achieve goal since Americans for generations have lived with guns. Come to Europe and live some biggest cities and tell me if you hear some gun shots or that often at least.

  • shafawn

    And that's where you're wrong. This country absolutely banded together to fight the tyranny of King George who wanted to suckle from American dollars without providing ANY protection to American people. That's why when our government did form the first thing they did was make provision in the Constitution to deflect attempts of dictatorships in our country. Our Constitution which Obama despots work to shred.

    You don't have to look back 200 years to see the results of totalitarian governments either. In the 1930's Hitler worked to disarm Germans and they were left defenseless in the 1940's when government men showed up at doors to first collect mentally ill and those born with debilitating defects. They people let him get away with hit so then he went after gypsies. Nobody complained. Then he burned synagogues and forced Jews into the ghetto. Forced them to wear a star on their clothing so everyone could ostracize them and agree they were less than human.

    My point with this is it didn't start with an oven. It started with little nibbles at freedom.

    It started with small chunks taken out of laws protecting the rights of the people as a whole in favor of protecting the rights of a few.
    Which is EXACTLY what is happening right now in America. And if you think government and humanity has evolved into a kinder gentler entity you are gullible and ignorant and the very useful idiot Stalin spoke of.

  • shafawn

    Do you consider yourself Christian? Jesus is STILL Jewish friend.
    Remember the promise God gave to His people? I will bless those who
    bless you. I will curse those who curse you. You are bringing curses
    on yourself and one day you will meet a very Jewish Jesus face to face.

  • shafawn

    No probably you can also have powerful allies and sit geographically on their porch.
    :)

  • Pepe Alvarado

    You focus on only a small portion of my responses (Canada in this case). And I find it curious you chose to comment here, instead on the responses I gave you on previous conversations.

    My followthrough will be in the according 'thread'

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I call BS on your claim of the US protecing her neighbors to the extent that you claim. If the US had anything to do with Canada's peaceful INdependence, then why wasn't Mexico's peaceful? If the US protects her allies, then why did the US steal land from Mexico? (Bought from a person who never really owned the property... Same as stealing)

    The USA only has interest in 'protecting' it's neighbors because that's the only land entrance in case of war. As was almost the case with the Zimmerman agreement that Germany proposed to Mexico during WWI.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    As the discussion has developed, your argument now, is that Canada can't compare with the US because it doesn't have it's population... And neither do most of the examples I gave... Let me point out your fallacies.

    Not only do you state Canada as an example is inadmissible because of it's population, but also because it receives 'help' from the US for being it's neighbor.

    More than land size, what counts is population numbers & pop Density, as you mentioned indirectly with the 'sprinkling' of people on Canada. So countries with higher pop and density than the US, by YOUR definition, wouldn't be able to achieve peaceful revolution.

    So I'll take an example from the opposite side of the planet from the US. INDIA has more people, and in higher concentrations than the US. And not more than 70 years ago, they gained independence peacefuly from the British.

    The British had way more firepower than Indians, and eventhough India had millions of inhabitants, they failed at their violent attempts for independence. Then along came this fellow named Gandhi, who was well educated. And using his wisdom, and knowledge from a book by Henry David Thoreau, he taught the people Civil Disobedience, and the importance of it. The people learned that violence is not the healthy way, and is by far, the most ineffective.

    And that @shafawn, is how a country with a larger population AND population density organized itself to stand against injustice.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Population:
    USA - 316,770,000
    INDIA - 1,210,193,422

    Density:
    USA. - 83 ppl per square mile
    INDIA. - 953 ppl

    India has 4 times as many people and they are 11 times more crowded than Americans.

    The odds they faced against the British's firepower was also overwhelming.

    Violent uprising isn't for everybody, training is necessary, and you need lots of money for guns, ammo and such. Being violent only motivates those you oppose, and gives them a reason to do attrocities, they can "justify" themselves to others.

    Civil disobedience is for everybody, it requires no training, discriminates no age, nor gender, costs no money and needs no equipment... It asks only for noncompliance. The powers that 'are' know only aggresiveness, which when used on peaceful people, move hearts around the world, even some aggresors realize the barbarities they are doing.

    It is this that crumbled England's will to hold on to India. Countries around the world sided with the peaceful protesters.

  • ArmyVet

    Not saying they had that exact item in mind but weapons have gotten more advanced as time goes on so you do the math. Its as if you dont think they will improve in the future and if you dont you're deluding yourself

    Have you read the 2nd amendment it was written to stop anyone not just the British.
    Your inability to understand a sentence isn't my problem. What part of "Shall not be infringed" dont you get?

  • a_no_n

    mate, you're the one that's deluding yourself. Your argument only makes sence if you apply modern context to it.

    There is no way at all that they could have imagined the type of weaponry we have today because the most basic parts of those mechanics, namely the bolt action wouldn't be invented until 1863, a whole 70 years later. As far as they knew at the time of writing the second amendment there was no way of getting more than one shot out per load without attaching extra barrels...So either they were psychic, or you're talking out your backside...and since psychics don't exist that only really leaves us with one result doesn't it.

    Who exactly is it that you're expecting to invade America, and why?

    Finally why do the many victims of lax gun legislation have to put up with their rights being infringed just so that you can play with a bigger penis extention in your back yard?

  • ArmyVet

    oh please, space flight was imagined long before it happened along with aerial flight, the forethought of technological advancement of firearms isnt farfetched considering davinci had drawings of tanks and multiple barreled guns long before they were built.

    Actually dont expect an invasion from an external threat. They are (the gun rights) to protect against tyranny of government as well as an external threat which is much more likely

    You do relize gun fatalities are down 61% in the last 20 years right(look it up) as for your penile statement I dont own guns but the right is there for me to own them.

  • a_no_n

    if you can't see how pig ignorant your argument is yet, then no ammount of logic or rational discussion is going to change your mind...Because apparantly the writers of the bill were all knowing supermen who were infallible...when you've built your state founders up into Jesus Christ figures, there's not really much that logic or reason can do about it.

    so you don't expect an external threat, but an external threat is more likely? WHO FROM?
    who is this mythical race of people that you think have the army economy and capabilities of invading america...because i'm telling you now, it doesn't exist.

    Gun fatalities are down are they...that must be because you're consolidating them all down into a handful of school shootings instead.

    i've mentioned school shootings several times, and you've ignored it...hopefully you'll carry on ignoring it because i think i might vomit if i see you try and defend them as a constitutional right.

  • ArmyVet

    Not saying that at all they were just men with some foresight.

    Tyranny comes from within alot, the first thing a tyrant will do is disarm the population, it has happened in history many times. The founding fathers also knew that tyrants can come from within as well.

    No overall gun fatalities are down, FBI website will show this ,why not take a look instead of a knee jerk reaction

    You mentioned school shootings once. More kids died from playing football than from being involved in a mass shooting. Not that these shootings arent sad and the criminals who do them dont deserve full punishment under the law. Assault weapons account for less than 3% of gun related crime in the US. So to take away a right that others have on the basis of 15 people in the last 15 (15 involved in those school shootings you said you've mentioned several times)years in not how a republic is run.

    Ever been in the military?

    Ever had to draw your gun in defense of yourself or family?
    Ever had to draw a weapon in wartime?
    Ever had to draw you weapon to stop a crime of violence?
    I would venture you would say no to all of the above

    I for one have fought to defend the constitution from enemies foreign and
    domestic it was in the oath I took in the military and one I continue to pursue to
    this day

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Yes, Government is still the same... Though Humanity is not a violent people as you wrote. Most wars are because of misunderstandings of the people... Mainly led by a handful of power-grabbers. We have sufficient information, technology, and communication capabilities to get rid of misinformation.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    You wrote it yourself... "The people let him get away with it."

    So it really started with people not standing up for themselves, it started with passiveness of the people, it started with ignorance of the people, it started with indifference of the people...

    ... The government only does as much, as the people allow it to do

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I totally agree on the various degrees of weapons. But we have a couple dilemmas: One is when world technology arrives at a point where anyone can hold such weapon, the other is that restriction and prohibition have proven through history to be inneficient.

    Without arguing in favor or against... Today the possibility of owning a gun is widespread. If it's legal you only need to go through appropriate legal processes. If it's illegal, guns can 'easily' be bought in the black market. Now it is even possible for anyone with a 3d printer to make a gun for themselves or even distribute the weapon.

    Inevitably we will reach a point when mass-power (destruction capabilities) technology will be at the reach of almost any man or woman.

    The only solution I see is in education... learning how to tolerate, respect, and live with one another... Learning to work together... And maybe THEN we can start loving one another

  • ~Oliver B Koslik Esq

    Beautiful!

    Many Many +1's!

  • Can't wait to say I told u so

    how come there was no solution suggested for what to do about the globalist?

  • a_no_n

    utter tripe, Stalin didn't disarm the population, and neither did Hitler...Tyrants rarely disarm the population because they tend to rely on agressive patriotism to keep their regimes afloat.Learn your history!

    Please don't try rewriting history to support the second amendment...it's incredibly disingenuous!

    I haven't had to do any of those things no...But then i'm guessing you haven't had to do ALL of those things either...what's that, you attacked a bunch of farmers in a third world country...gosh your opinion must be valuable then...all those dead children must have really been a threat to the constitution before you brave boys turned up with your drones to vaporize them.
    lol you went to war to protect the constitution, meanwhile at home, the guy that you probably voted for was tearing the constitution to shreds by installing the patriot act which encouraged the NSA to spy on literally everyone.

  • ArmyVet

    wow those are the only tyrants ever? Said many not all,look whos trying to rewrite. Ill leave the insults to character to you. I dont agree with my government (seeing how I dont think you are a citizen Ill call it MY) the patriot act was a major step to tyranny with rights being pecked away one by one, that why I want people to have the right to buy guns bottom line.

    So in closing as I am done when the insults start flying. You have a good life and hope you never need more than 10rounds.

  • Mads Djervig

    Paranoid propaganda. Guns don't give you freedom.
    The only things which can guarantee you freedom is education. Without access to knowledge, you can never be more than what others tell you to be. Free yourself, read a book. A gun won't protect you from s*upidity!

  • a_no_n

    Good. So now that we've agreed the "tyrants take the guns" argument is provably false, I trust you won't be using it anymore.
    yes you are quite correct as to my nationality, i'm British.
    Oh so you prescribe to the child like definition of good and bad guys...like real life is some kind of cowboy film...who gets to choose who the good guys are, because the US has a really bad track record with it's judgement of character in that reguard...the Taliban being the most prominent example.
    I'm sorry mate but it's hard not to insult you when you're that oblivious to reality.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Mexico has more gun related deaths than the US, and guns are illegal there. Criminals will find a way to posses a firearm, regardless of the laws.

    With a 3D printer Anyone can manufacture guns

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Sadly though, suffering, extreme violence and death are not unique to armed people

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Hitler DID disarm people. He set strict gun regulations, and the populace had to register their weapons as for "sport hunting". He disarmed the jews right before going after them. The only people with guns were of white Aryan race. He disarmed logically all countries he invaded.

    US's case is different, as the Tyrants' target is the population... NOT other countries or races

  • a_no_n

    um...EVERY invading country disarms the local populace...that's called tactics.

    lol you talk about hitler and then refer to Obama as a tyrant...have you no sense of perspective at all, or has it been completely drowned by your paranoid victim complex?

  • BobotheAmerican

    No thats called strategy.

    ty·rant [tahy-ruhnt] noun
    1.
    a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.

    This is exactly what Obama is doing with his executive orders to bypass congress, he has used more of them than all other presidents along with the spying on the general populous.
    EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED:

    Teddy Roosevelt: 3
    Others Prior To FDR: NONE
    FDR: 11 in 16 years
    Truman: 5 in 7 years
    Ike: 2 in 8 years
    JFK: 4 in 3 years
    LBJ: 4 in 5 years
    Nixon: 1 in 6 years
    Ford: 3 in 2 years
    Carter: 3 in 4 years
    Reagan: 5 in 8 years
    Bush 1: 3 in 4 years
    Clinton: 15 in 8 years
    Bush 2: 62 in 8 years
    Obama: 923 in 3+ years!
    And the majority of them are to do with the military and other agencies control over citizens.

    Why dont you worry about your own screwed up country?

  • 191145

    This documentary, should be required to be watched, and then tested on, with a minimum score of 75% required for seniors to graduate high school .

  • 191145

    Having the knowledge that your being ruled by tyranny, is a wakeup call ! Having the knowledge and the MEANS, the ability and the understanding to defeat tyranny, is FREEDOM ! Yes guns can protect you, me, your children and mine. Don't expect me to be fooled ! Be prepared for the worst, and hope for the best, and if you are not, you will cease to exist along with your books, knowledge and most of all, those who depend on you for protection ! Just a thought. Long Live the Republic ! MOLON LABE !

  • 191145

    The suggestion was so obvious ! Do not allow yourself, or the nation to be disarmed ! As long as we have the 2nd amendment, they cannot succeed.

  • 191145

    Friends are like cops, always there till you need one ! Nothing against your friends, so you need your own gun or two. I would suggest for you, a rifle and pistol chambered in the same caliber.

  • Mads Djervig

    Guns are good for stopping tyranny. But useless in preventing it. Only an educated public will stay away from tyrannies. So I think yóu should be more worried about the poor state of your public education system, than your rights to keep firearms.

  • Can't wait to say I told u so

    idk, I think they have enough of the sheeple brainwashed and asleep.

  • a_no_n

    Yeah...problem is you're completly removing all context from those figures.
    because if Obama didn't bypass congress, he would literally not be able to do anything because the right wing of the country is refusing to co-oerate on him with anything...For every one of those orders there's a fillibuster from the right.
    more than Two thirds of all the fillibusters in American history have been taken out by the right wing against Obama.

    I wonder why you chose to ignore that little fact?

    If the right wing want to continually shut down government proceedings, you can hardly blame the president for bypassing them.

  • BobotheAmerican

    "more than Two thirds of all the filibusters in American history have been taken out by the right wing against Obama." Yes because he is trying to pass bills that are chipping away at rights we have and not willing to give up. By the shear numbers that he has used is inherently wrong. Besides your numbers are way off, nowhere near 2/3rds because for most he didnt even put them before congress, get your facts straight.

  • a_no_n

    Oh dear...how wonderfully hysterical. Name one right you've lost since Obama took office.

    So in your mind, universal healthcare is chipping away at the rights of americans, but the deregulation of the banks causing the 2008 crash, the invasion of Iraq that lost the US Afghanistan and the rest of their money, and the patriot act that gave the NSA godmode isn't?
    you've got a very strange perception of what rights are.

    Most of the scandals and issues Obama has had to deal with have been the fallout from Bush and his misadministration.
    The very people who directly caused most of Americas current problems are also the same people who are working their hardest to make sure Obama can't do a damned thing to clear any of it up.

    No president in history has had to put up with the preschool levels of bullsh1t that Obama has had to put up with.

    it's a bit rich for someone ignoring half of the facts to be telling me to get my facts straight.

    do you get your information solely from Fox news?

  • BobotheAmerican

    Universal health care that isnt even working and wont. The fact that the government is ORDERING me to buy something off of their list. The fact that the TSA and other agencies namely FEMA are set up for military engagements against Americans. The nullification of posse comitatus. Habius Corpus is effectively gone, is that enough for your non resident ass? Just because you dont have them across the pond doesnt mean we dont want to keep them.

    Not to mention the fact that everything Obama promised he has lied about and not done.
    Again a person that in no way has to deal with any of his repercussions running on at the mouth gfy.

  • a_no_n

    still waiting for you to list a single right that you've lost.

    It's also hard to keep your promises when half the people you have to work with outright refuse to work with you.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Then, I guess, you should redefine those you call friends...

  • Horst Manure

    Get well soon.

  • Horst Manure

    The yanks are just as fanatical with religion as the others are ,until ALL give up religion there will never be peace.

  • shafawn

    Or at least that was communism says. By the way what is communism's death toll? The
    Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently
    killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost
    43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are
    due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China
    up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which
    alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst
    megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North
    Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.
    ALLLLLLLL of these countries passed rigid anti gun laws disarming the public prior to the murder of millions.

    Have a blessed day :)

  • Horst Manure

    Thank you for confirming what I was trying to say.
    From a country were 1 in 140 are in jail because are prisons are run as a money making factory.

  • shafawn

    Communists are strictly ATHEISTS.. like you.
    Or are you an anarchist that would have us release all the criminals? Saying that prisons are money factories is pure delusion by the way. The prisons are so full to over flowing that local jails house felons because there is no room in the prisons. If prisons were money making machines we would not have a problem with over population in prisons and nowhere to put inmates would we? Wouldn't millionaires be growing prisons since they are so lucrative?
    GET OFF THE CRACK.. Your avatar suits you

  • Dell_Conagher

    If American citizens spent every spare penny they had for the next twenty years and used the money to buy weapons there is still a greater chance of hell freezing over than there is of its citizens being able to overthrow the largest most sophisticated military power the world has ever seen. Americans might want to slash military spending for a couple decades to give themselves a fighting chance.

  • Horst Manure

    Do some searching and get back to me when you find out I am right ..You can buy shares in companies that run prisons..your government has kill more than any other dictator.

  • shafawn

    You made the claim so you should provide the proof. Where did you read such a thing? Who is your source?
    Prisons all over the world are in fact over crowded due to increased lawlessness.

    The
    answer the federal government now uses the media to push on the people
    of the United States is NOT more prisons to make more money. Their
    answer is to get rid of the laws so more criminals walk the street and
    more victims live without justice.
    AND while they push for that resolve they are determined to disarm law abiding citizens thus creating more victims.

    Our government is a menace and a tyranny!

  • Horst Manure

    The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria’s Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and $4 a day and don’t need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.

  • shafawn

    The Center on Sentencing and Corrections reports the total price to taxpayers in the 40 states that participated in their 2012 study was $39 billion dollars annually.
    The people of the United States are NOT benefiting from prisons. If
    there are companies benefiting from prison labor that is an issue with
    the corruption of congress who passed the law to allow it. That still
    doesn't mean that prisons are money making machines full of innocent
    cheap labor.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Wow, you like to spin other peoples' comments to your advantage... Just in case you're a little slow I'll rewrite that last comment for you.

    Yeah... First of all, I never mentioned Obama, You came up with that... Reading comprehension anyone? I generalized on whoever makes the decisions

    You're last comment to @ArmyVet, which I replied to, said: "...the "tyrants take the guns" argument is provably false, I trust you won't be using it anymore."

    I used Hitler as an example to prove tyrants DO take guns, hence, proving your statement wrong... Have you no sense of perspective at all, or has it been completely drowned by your delusional imagination?

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Let me point out to you Obama re-signed the NDAA less than a month ago.

    Keeping his promise was pretty damn easy... JUST DON'T SIGN!!!

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I believe he already listed a couple... Please work on your reading comprehension guy.

    Did you completely ignore his example of Universal Healthcare being forced on people? People LOSING their right to chose for themselves?

    You asked @BobotheAmerican to list a SINGLE right Americans have lost... You've got it, so Take It.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    I find curious how much you just LOVE standing up for Obama... Wonder why that is

    'He's sooo innocent in all of this' 'Mr Goody Two-shoes Barry is working hard for your rights...It's all the rest of politicians "who are working their hardest to make sure Obama can't do a damned thing to clear any of it up."

    Yeah... I'm sure Obama is working his butt off to clear things up. LROFL

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Funny how a_no_n is so energy-invested in standing up for Barry, even when not mentioned

  • Pepe Alvarado

    PS. Disarming the people (which is the MAIN TOPIC) would be another right taken from Americans... And guess what, it's being pushed by your favorite administration

  • Pepe Alvarado

    "Poverty is the worst form of violence"
    - Mahatma Gandhi

    Capitalism has killed WAY more than communism. Poverty ridden sickness and hunger kills more people than any war with guns.

    PS Hello Shafawn! Still waiting for your replies! Guess you stop replying when logical arguments are made.

    Have a blessed day :)

  • over the edge

    do you support any measure of gun control? also please show me where the U.S government tried to disarm the populace? not regulate but disarm.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Communists are strictly atheists? Where do you get such a non-sensical belief?

  • Pepe Alvarado

    If prisons are private... And the owners receive Tax-payers' money from the government... Then there is profit... Therefore prisons ARE money making machines.

    Pure logic... No delussion

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Most forms of 'control' are inefficient, as anyone willing to do otherwise can easily do so. As Plato once put it, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

    I am in no way in favor of violence or guns, but my wishes of a gun-free world are impossible with the technology we have

  • docoman

    shafawn, have a look up on the internet the ratio or % of the total prisoners in the USA with regards to stated religious beliefs. Interesting research. Seems you Christians have been very busy there in the USA. Not to mention it makes a mockery of your 'atheist/communist/christian morals' BS argument. Get ON the crack, get on the Jesus wagon, and go to jail... there's a new motto for you. Not that you guys need one...
    Are the prisons there tax exempt too? If not, they're lagging behind the example set by your Church.
    There's your 'profit margin' there. ;)

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Didn't mean to imply the government has already tried to disarm US citizens... Just that things appear to move that way, or at least to be regulated enough, to make the citizen's means of defense against any tyrannical power meaningless

  • over the edge

    if a tyrannical government came to power (in the U.S) and the citizens rose up against it. the only factors that would change the outcome are. who the military supports and if outside governments get involved. the citizens can have all the assault rifles they want the outcome would be the same.

  • shafawn

    There is no other country in the world that lives as rich + as many
    freedoms as even our poorest citizens. When the totalitarianism
    Communist heel meets the necks of the American people the money flow
    will completely dry up and it will effect the economy of the whole
    earth.
    Towns to province, parish to suburbs to cities over 3.794
    million sq miles of American people who are armed and know their
    terrains in their back yards .. yeah I think if we are armed we will
    stand a better chance than if we are helpless sheep disarmed by our
    government as Germany was disarmed in the 1930's and Russia was disarmed
    before 61 million people were murdered there .. same with Korea and
    China.. they are always disarmed first before the murdering begins.
    Disarmed people killed by their own governments is responsible for more
    deaths than all the wars combined.
    They start with killing the
    Jews. They always start with the Jews. That is how communism and Islam
    unites... mutual hatred of the laws of God given to the world through
    the Jewish people. But I believe also the Christians of the United
    States will be killed in the next world war.

  • shafawn

    What makes you think inmates are devout followers of God? I could say I'm a teapot but that doesn't mean tea will pour out of my mouth when it's open. Satan believes who Jesus is and that doesn't make him a Christian either.
    Lawlessness = sin
    People who live for lawlessness hate God and do everything they can to discredit Him and anyone who believes in Him. It doesn't matter if people who believe in God are tolerant or not. Atheists hate them anyway and Communism makes a political religion of hating God and Jews.
    Is the government your salvation? You are probably a Communist then.

  • a_no_n

    do you not see that you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing?

    If you can't see that the republican party are just as much to blame as the democratic administration then i honestly don't know what the point of carrying on this conversation is...I've no interest in having propaganda spouted at me thank you very much.

  • a_no_n

    No he hasn't listed a single right. he's whinged about a few beaurocratic changes that don't actually effect him, but not one single right has been listed that he has lost...your victim complex is absolutely pathetic.

    Considering America has one of the worst and most expensive healthcare systems in the developed world to begin with, the first stages of universal healthcare is going to have problems...that's just a result of real life (something right wing americans seem to be completely removed from these days).

  • a_no_n

    so because you can find one example that confirms your stance, you think it's justifiable to ignore everything else? we call that cherrypicking.

  • a_no_n

    How?
    to the best of my knowledge you can still buy a gun anywhere in America.
    how about turning off Fox News for five minutes and step out your front door to see the actual world for a change? maybe it'll calm your hysterical persecution complex.

  • docoman

    As expected, you reply with the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
    One problem for your reasoning. You've obviously judged that those in prison aren't 'true' Christians.
    That's 'Gods' job, and only his, to judge people isn't it? Or does that part of your scriptures only apply when you want it to?
    Matt 7:1-5, Luke 6:37, etc etc.

    Communists under your bed mate?
    You said; "People who live for lawlessness hate God".
    No, that's not what all of them say at all. Go do some research on Cardinal Pell, crimes/lawlesness and what the Church is doing now in covering up their 'lawlessness' around the child abuses that they've condoned and continue to protect criminals over.
    Is the government my salvation? Depends on what you mean by salvation.
    Yes, my government paid for and provided medical help that has saved my life. At no charge to myself. They also give me money to buy food and pay rent.
    More then you Christians have ever done for me. You want to take money (as if the chruch needs it), pay no taxes, be exempt from the same law everyone else has to obey, then still cry foul like a spoiled child always wanting more.
    No Mr. McCarthy, I am not a communist. lol.

  • shafawn

    Anyone who sincerely asks forgiveness gets it. That requires one to
    'repent' which simply means to turn and go a different direction. The
    problem with jail house repentance is the road they turn to go on is
    chosen for them as long as they are incarcerated. That's why many jail
    house conversions only last as long as the sentence but it IS possible
    to be a true conversion experience. However I would not take a random
    poll in a jailhouse full of men pleading for parole to ask if they are
    good Christians reformed now or not because they are likely to tell you
    anything you want to hear if it gets them out of jail.

    What
    the Bible actually says is .. Matthew 7:16,17 16 By their fruit you
    will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs
    from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad
    tree bears bad fruit.

    That
    is EXACTLY how you can tell if somebody is truly a christian or not.
    You look at the fruit produced in their life not the words of their
    mouth.

    Who
    we are NOT to judge are people who don't know Jesus and don't profess
    to. They are spiritually dead no matter what their works are because
    the only way to get to the Father is through the Son.

    You
    are speaking of the Catholic church when you talk about what 'the
    church' has done. I go by one law to judge if somebody is a Christian
    or not and that is the fruit produced. If it produces bitterness and
    pain then it is NOT a Christian no matter what it calls itself. That
    is the difference between religion and relationship with Christ.

    You
    have to go by what the Bible actually says and NOTHING ELSE and NOBODY
    or BODIES supersede the Word of God which is Jesus Christ.

    Ok as far as medical help in jail in the United States .. yes it is free to every inmate.
    As
    far as affordable medical care to citizens I am for that 100% but I
    don't think you understand what's going on in the United States with
    Obamacare. They are NOT taxing each citizen for medical care nor is
    this a medical care system for the poor. Each person is paying
    hundreds of dollars more up front every month for bear bones medical
    care. They lost their regular insurance and their regular doctors and
    have been forced into a new insurance that costs more for their
    families. On top of that they are forcing employers to help foot the
    bill for any full time employee which is causing private business to go
    under. How much more communist can you get than that?
    Enjoying our conversation so thank you

  • shafawn

    Pepe most studies put habitual offender at 83% and that's what I saw
    working in corrections as well but seemed higher than 83%. Usually none
    of those people are in their for the first time unless they are really
    young. And something else I learned is that it runs in families. We
    often had people related to each other we had to keep in different pods
    because they aren't supposed to be housed with family or anyone they've
    ever committed crimes with before.

    What that should tell us is.. lawlessness has increased whether or not a profit is made from it is another story.

    I
    personally believe the prisons and jails should pay for themselves.
    They should absolutely work to create goods to pay for their own housing
    and care instead of living off taxpayers who are already over burdened.

  • shafawn

    Because Communism is trying to bait and capture the whole world it is
    trying to at this moment give off an heir of religious tolerance but you
    know that isn't historically accurate.
    Stalin murdered 7 million
    Jews. Yes look it up and tried for decades to literally starve
    Christianity
    from Russia. Since 1949 China has embraced the Marxist atheism and
    communist ideology but tolerates Buddhism since it's roots are
    established since the 1st century.
    But YES Communism is synonymous with atheism.
    Marx
    and Engels wrote the manifesto after reading Charles Darwin theory of
    evolution. They used that theory for the basis of their new religion
    replacing God with man and government as man's salvation. Look it up ..
    it's fascinating. Lenin is basically God to them even though he force
    starved 6 million in 1921 and then suffered a series of strokes starting
    in 1922 and died in 1924. Enjoying our conversation so thank you

  • docoman

    All of that sermon in Matt 7 is common sense mixed with doctrine, in an effort to try to make the doctrine seem correct. There are not big 'insights' that only some deity could tell us. Now IF 'He' had said the Earth is a sphere, a ball shape, then you'd have something interesting.
    The point of that whole sermon was to not judge other people. The word 'recognize' is very different to Judge in this context.
    Yes, I was talking about the Catholic Church then. Not hard to apply it to any denomination, there's plenty of 'dirty laundry' to go around.
    We're getting way off topic, so if we want to talk religion we'd better find a more suitable thread. I'm quite willing to continue about religion elsewhere if you wish.

    You made the assumption I'm from the USA. I'm not mate, Australia. My current government I don't like, didn't vote for and never will. (compulsory voting in Aus)
    I haven't followed Obama Care, I don't know and to be honest don't care much about it, it's not relevant to me here, I'm busy with my own health issues here.
    But, my point responding to your question about them being my salvation is possibly relevant to you regarding Obama Care. It may not be the right way to do it, but a health system that looks after everyone, not just the wealthy, surely is more compatible to your professed beliefs then what the USA has now?
    Depends on what you mean by salvation. I don't agree with your position on 'God' etc, so don't require what you consider salvation.

    Back on Topic... Australia is one of the countries that has been supposedly disarmed. I legally own more firearms now then I did before the law changes, I'm just restricted on what I can have compared to then. As I have no need for any assault weapons I'm not bothered.
    Why would someone that believes in the Bible need weapons? Everything is according to 'His' plan anyway, so what's the problem?
    Edit- Which passage says 'Blessed are the well armed, for they shall keep their sh1t safe" ?

  • docoman

    Well then shafwn, explain Australia doing the same thing as Canada and gaining independence without a war. That our geographical position too is it?
    If you are going to talk population, then current numbers mean nothing, it's when they became independent that's relevant.
    Population density is what causes a war of independence is it? Logic would suggest that the more people you have, the easier it would be to demand independence. You're arguing against your own idea.
    And don't try and BS that the USA had anything to do with Australia becoming independent in 1901. Don't be a Yanker, get over yourselves.

  • shafawn

    What? You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying Canada gained
    independence without fighting because of demo-graphic ruff terrain over
    as big of a country as the United States with only a smattering of the
    population as well as the geographical position to the United States.
    No
    offense to Australia and I have every respect but historically the
    white race wound up there as a result of Britain's setting them adrift
    that they would never again return. It is therefore unlikely Britain
    would demand your allegiance on the other side of the world in a
    different hemisphere.
    A different type of geographical benefit.

  • shafawn

    Well if only the U.S. could have just peacefully protested and Great
    Britain would have just given up and left us alone eh? That would have
    been nice.
    I don't see what your point is? Are you saying Americans
    should disarm themselves and give up personal self protection because
    India's 1.237 billion people told Great Britain to leave them alone?
    How old are you?

  • docoman

    History doesn't agree with you shafawn. Guess who was among the first to declare war behind the British in both WW's? Among other wars. Guess who, after the USA, asks us the most to send our SAS to help?
    We already knew well before independence that Australia has big mineral resources, you think they didn't want to keep that? And you'll find if you research it, more free settlers came over before federation then convicts. ;) The first settlements were set up as prisons, granted, but that changed.
    That'd be like me saying everyone that went to the USA entered though NY and saw the Statue of Liberty. Part truth in there, but inaccurate overall.

  • terrasodium

    You'll have to comprehend the commenwealth countries really believe they are free , but have not taken any reponsibiltiy to recognize what freedom is on an individual level , they believe they have independence but have a monarchal system still heavily imbedded in their habitual nanny will protect me mentallity. their words are followed by contradictory actions . As far as the US is concerned politically , the republic appears to be overshadowed by a democracy, two ideologies that have been overtaken by parties and flap their wings in the same direction, and with militaries they can do anything with a sword except sit on them.asking any government of any color to be your gaurdian and savior is an invitation to tyranny. some have grown to love their servitude.

  • docoman

    Examples? What contradictory actions are you talking about?

    If you examine the only time the monarchal system has butted in here in Aus politics, if you dig enough you'll find the dirty little hands of the CIA behind it, not the Crown. It was a quiet coup against the Whitlem government. ( who pulled out from Vietnam, opened up diplomatic channels with China before the US, was going to nationalise our mineral resources against international wishes) And the silly voters here ended up backing that rubbish, loosing one of the best PM's we've had.

    What do you call " reponsibiltiy to recognize what freedom is on an individual level" ?

  • terrasodium

    ask your lieutenant govenor which contradictions your independence is hinged on.

  • docoman

    You mean the governor general? That's it?

    "their words are followed by contradictory actions ."
    What actions? Again, examples?

  • terrasodium

    library section, political philosohy come science, renew your card if you must. on your way there go into a local court house and look behind the adjudicator you will see a coat of arms , if it has your name on it you are then exempt from my comment.

  • shafawn

    No that is absolutely not true. You need to look that up. The United
    States wasn't prepared for world war 1 and only had a 300,000
    man military including all the national guard when it began. Due to
    allies looking to America for help we did get involved and suffered heavy
    casualties. We then went into the Great Depression in the 30's and did
    not want to get involved in WW2.

    The United States was accused of being 'isolationists' for not getting
    involved sooner in WW2 and of course Japan who thought they could take
    over the world. We were fighting Japan already when our allies accused
    us not contributing to the dire situation in Europe.

    You need to recheck American history.

    Glad to hear not all Australian ancestry is rooted in thieves and murderers etc.

  • shafawn

    The United States is being over run with Communists and you better understand there is a centrifugal force between freedom/liberty vs. totalitarian tyranny and when America falls in 3-5 years the rest of the free world will fall into it's vacuum.

  • docoman

    So you have no examples? Is your name on your coat of arms either?

    You do know we choose the Governor General now hey, and they're Australian, not English? The 'Crown' here.

    No argument from me about we should be a republic, and many Aussies feel the same. We've had at least one referendum I recall on the issue, and it comes up from time to time. Not so much when we have a conservative government in like now, and most of the last 20 years :(
    Sooner or later we'll change that, and become a republic. I believe our military personal have a choice of 'oath' they take, I believe because of exactly that reason. (I'll ask a mate that's ex-military, he did tell me I can't recall exactly)
    Apparently a lot of people can't see the point of the $ and time to change the system. I've never sworn allegiance to the British Crown.

  • terrasodium

    always a pleasure doco, good day to you, enjoy your bliss.

  • shafawn

    I'm not getting all the alerts to all these posts. But yes you make a valid point here I can agree with.

  • docoman

    lol, whatever mate, enjoy your smug non-answers. There is no lieutenant governor in the Australian Federal government set up. A State one will do it if required. Hence my question did you mean the Governor General. We were talking federal politics.

  • shafawn

    Ok no you are completely mislead here. Humanity is not a violent people?
    1. The conflict in Bosnia (1992-1995) brought some of the harshest fighting
    and worst massacres to Europe since World War II.
    What was the problem? Serbians were defending their right to exist against Muslim invaders. 100,000 people were killed.
    2. 1994: Genocide in Rwanda
    From
    April until mid-July, at least 500,000 civilians, mostly from the Tutsi
    minority group, were killed in Rwanda. My research said the Hutu
    killed the Tutsi because the Tutsi are taller and were considered
    superior. They got better jobs and better opportunity for education.
    The Hutu were jealous and murdered 500,000.
    3. 2004: Genocide in Darfur
    genocide
    has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the
    Janjaweed bear responsibility. What happened? 500,000 people have
    been murdered .. again in Africa. All of them are Muslim. Some
    research says the lighter skinned Muslims are killing the darker skinned
    Muslims. Other sources say they are different types of Muslims and
    they don't want the southern ones going further north. The fighting
    continues with peace keepers killed as recently as yesterday.
    HOW IS HUMANITY NOT A VIOLENT PEOPLE?
    There are MANY genocides .. I just picked the most recent.

  • shafawn

    What you say makes sense and you said it much more eloquently than I.
    When
    I read their rubbish it's like reading yellow journalism thrown up and
    digested again like a dog returns to his vomit. And the pity is that
    trash has become the food for U.S. universities even though the majority
    populace is center right. Our government ruff shods over the top of us
    and cheered by our own news outlets! I didn't realize how blatantly
    until they stood up in my face and told me our embassies were being
    attacked in 3 different countries, burned, looted and our civil servants
    murdered because of a sporadic response to a 20 min youtube video.
    Then they apologized TO THE BUTCHERS!
    And I knew... The United
    States has fallen into the hands of very wicked and evil people and they
    are capable of anything because there is nothing they won't do.
    I continue to buy ammo.. I don't know what else to do.

  • terrasodium

    fear has always been a powerful tool in the hands of tyrants, if you want real ammo liberate yourself through increased knowledge and turn off the propaganda machine by cancelling the 24 hour fearporn on the television, the talking hairdoes aren't employed to bring you the truth and there is no law to insure they do.

  • docoman

    What part is not true?
    You think Australia and New Zealand and Canada were prepared for war?

    It wasn't just current Allies looking for help. You should look up what the US sold to whom, and when. In WWI it wasn't an automatic given that the US would side with the British and French against the Germans. You had large German and Irish populations that were not fans of the British.
    Look up the 1st voyage of the U boat Deutschland in WWI, where they went and how they were received. What trade went on.

    You're a bit out on your version of events mate.

    More to the topic, IF as you suggest the US was so 'unprepared for war' at the beginning of WWI, how does that fit with the topic of needing to keep your weapons now?

  • jackmax

    Your knowledge of Aust military history is wrong!!!!
    We have alway contributed to the british war efforts since the Sudan in 1885, followed by the Boar war 1899=1902.
    We are one of the first to be asked to supply our military aid to both the british and the USA in both war and peacekeeping.
    Which counrty was the first to recieve a presidental citation outside the US and what conflict was it?

  • docoman

    Whatever age he is, he's got you covered mate. His point is clear, has been for quite a few posts. Armed rebellion is not the ONLY way historically to gain independence. And your claims that proximity to the USA and/or population density are the main factors in a country gaining independence just doesn't hold up. It's not only incorrect, it's absurd.

    You don't know your own basic, recent history let alone other countries. Your ideas on US history and war in the last century read like you got what you know from a couple of bad Hollywood movies.

    Many in the US probably should give up their weapons, guns and fools are usually not a good mix. But whatever shafawn, if you don't want to, or are unable to learn anything you should probably just keep doing what you said you're doing, keep buying ammo, pray, and watch out for communists. The trifecta of US stup1dity.

  • shafawn

    I actually gave up television 3 years ago and never looked back.
    However
    I do think we are living in the most fearful times since this country
    began. The experiment of freedom and free enterprise is not long for
    this world.

  • shafawn

    He is probably you because both your posts seem to geographically locate
    your heads in your rears. When the U.S. collapses in 3-5 years and
    possibly even sooner and the world experiences global economic melt down
    and catastrophic world war like we've never experienced in the history
    of the world and when your country is then living under the heel of a
    dictator's boot please remember I told you so.

  • docoman

    Hahaha, that's it? That's all you've got? You talk absolute rubbish, can't stay on topic, can't fool anyone but yourself, and now accuse Pepe and myself of being the same person. Care to ask the Mods to check us out? See if your latest BS is any more accurate then the other sh1t you've been dribbling? If you think you're correct, go for it d1ckhead.
    I don't recall reading Pepe until this thread, I like what I've seen so far. His logic is sound, he provides sources, and is tolerant enough to deal with fools like yourself. A polar opposite to reading your paranoid, inaccurate nonsense.
    I feel sorry for your sensible luntzmen, having to put up with gun toting religious nutters like yourself giving them a bad name too.
    3-5 years hey? I better get para.. paran...'prepared' like yourself.. get a new Bible and some more ammo.
    You can't even see the contradiction between your preaching and your 'communist / government / someone's coming to get me' paranoia. Trust in Jesus... but have a gun handy, just in case. Now that's faith ;)

  • shafawn

    You're not interesting or intelligent enough to aggravate me.. nice try though

  • docoman

    Must've enough to get you BS'ing about Pepe and I ;) lol
    Dropped your claim now have you?

  • docoman

    Having problems deciding now? Bit confused mate, too hard a question for ya? Or decided you're not correct and won't go for it?
    Are Pepe and I the same person or not, as you accused us of being?

  • jaberwokky

    People laughed at Nelson Mandela. People laughed at Mahatma Gandhi. People are also laughing at you. Which one is the odd one out?

  • jaberwokky

    The toll your inalienable rights are taking on the rest of the world is the reason you get to live like you do. Enjoy.

  • jackmax

    G'day Doco,
    I've notice that like all religees he doesn't like questions, even the easy one.
    I would like to find a bookie to place a bet against his 3-5 year prediction, I don't think my odds would be all that great though.
    Accusing you of being other members of this site seems to be the religee MO as far as I can see.
    I can not see why anyone needs the weaponary the the US citizens appear to be fighting for.
    The gun reforms we had here in Australia in real terms had little or no effect to the honest sporting shooter, if anything it has enhanced firearm awareness. I don't see the need for military style weapon for civilian use under any situation.

  • docoman

    G'day mate,
    same old BS excuses and accusations :) Amusing and sad at the same time they are.
    Yeah, I told shafawn about how it really is here after the firearms law changes, it wasn't what he wanted to believe so it got lost in the noise. If you find a bookie, I'll have some of that action mate ;)

  • shafawn

    What claim? You rant because you're inlove with your own voice. Maybe
    you're inlove with Pepe. I don't know and I don't care.
    I don't
    believe the crap you peddle and you refuse to accept anything I've said
    which is your right to believe or disbelieve, think or not to think, say
    or not to say.. I believe in freedom of choice plus I really don't care
    what you think. This conversation has run it's course. Adieu

  • docoman

    Where you said;
    "He is probably you because both your posts seem to geographically locate your heads in your rears."
    That claim dumba$$. Trying to lie out of it now ehh? Run Forrest! Questions too hard for you, is that why you don't answer any?

    I'll accept what you say when you show it's accurate, or at least makes logical sense. The only thing so far I can consider accurate from you is possibly your personal opinions on what you say you believe, which are all over the place. Most of the rest of it has been absurd cr@p. Even the one person you 'think' agreed with you on here didn't, you're just too stup1d to see it.
    Back at ya mate, I don't care what you believe either. I'll still point out you're full of sh1t if I wish. You can still babble on with BS, or run and hide from questions, that's your choice.

  • jaberwokky

    Alex? Alex Jones? Is that you Alex?

  • jaberwokky

    Agreed

    Edit: I agree.

  • jaberwokky

    Can you say absolutist?

    You may need to look up the definitions of both correlation and causation. When you're done with that I'd suggest looking up the definitions of both communism and atheism and reading a few books on the history of each of the aforementioned. Also when you're done with that you might benefit from a freshers course in critical thinking and analysis.

    Have a heathen day :)

    Edit: I was wrong in my last reply, you're not Alex Jones are you? You're Bill O'Reilly, right?

  • shafawn

    And you may look up the history of your beloved religion of Communism

  • docoman

    Thought you said you'd finished with the conversation here, said "Adieu" . Can't keep your own word for even one day?

  • jaberwokky

    You guys are so funny some times. You're perfectly comfortable with saying things akin to your "What makes you think inmates are devout followers of God? (a verifiable fact! )" statement when it suits and then "There are no atheists in fox holes( proving my last assertion )" when that works. Whatever tool the job calls for I guess. A rational mind would see this as a cognitive dissonance but to you it's probably just bread and butter.

  • BobotheAmerican

    1.Just how does "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" take its toll on the rest of the world?
    2.Where does he(Shafawn) mention "inalienable rights"?

  • thisismyspamemail

    It is also odd that where ever I see unarmed victims...I see suffering and extreme violence and death. Criminals do not obey the law and not own firearms, but the victims of the criminals do. I do not know joe the plumber. You simplify it to the extreme. It is true more people are murdered with blunt objects. Will you then remove joe plumber's wrench so he can no longer kill his victims? I have known more than one person who's life was saved because they were a law abiding citizen that was not a criminal...that owned a gun. If you want to stop the violence and suffering remove guns from soldiers and polices officers and security guards....idiots and criminals. Law abiding people do not go around using guns to kill others in most cases. It's the criminals. People that do not follow safety precautions with fire arms are also risky. If I have a gun and someone tries to harm me or kill me I would use it. Rather to be safe than sorry in my opinion.

  • thisismyspamemail

    Hell they got a big chunk of our bail out money to the banksters so if they are willing to give up their right to self defense then it is their own funeral.

  • thisismyspamemail

    Sometimes people stop replying because there is stupidity and there is ignorance. When you hit both in the same peabrain....there is no use arguing. :p

  • jaberwokky

    1. When it's pursued at the expense of others, of course.

    2. You'll have to excuse that last lazy comment of mine. Not quite sure why I decided to use the term "inalienable rights" but I might have had more wine than I though at that stage. What I was alluding to was the misguided notion of American exceptionalism and how that morphs with the lie of spreading Democracy and what that entails.

    I wouldn't be surprised though if a substantial slice of the populace saw this as their inalienable right either.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Oookkk.... NO propaganda in any of my comments.

    Please show me, where did I write ANYTHING about either party?

    My previous response to you is refering to your constant mentioning of Obama. YOU brought party-ism into this conversation.

    I agree that "...the republican party are just as much to blame as the democratic administration". If you really think that way, why do you keep standing up for Obama? Because it seems like you are "spouting propaganda", the same thing you said you did not like.

    PS ... a curious observation: you call the republicans a PARTY, and you call the democrats an ADMINISTRATION

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Forcing you to pay for healthcare is equal to losing your right to CHOOSE NOT TO pay for that insurance.

    Please just think about it

    PS ...there you go again with your left/right mentality, pushing your propaganda

  • Pepe Alvarado

    For one, searching for the ban of assault weapons, and the already restricted magazine capacity. Registration of guns is the first step towards dissarmament, you already know where they are, so it's easier to get them.

    How about using a little common sense for 5 minutes and taking a breath before you spit out nonsense, judgment and insults? Maybe it'll enlighten your turbid mind.

  • a_no_n

    except it isn't...The only people saying that are the people making and selling those guns!

    and how can anyone in their right mind not support the registration of guns?
    Have there not been enough school shootings yet to proove to you that having them unregistered is a dumb idea?
    if a few hundred dead kids aren';t enough evidence for you then you're a psychopath.

    How can you talk to me about common sense when you're spouting quite literally the dumbest tin foil hat wearing nonsense i've ever heard in my life.

    You're so paranoid that the government is going to come and get you...why? Is it because a black man is in charge? do you think he wants to rob your house or something?

  • a_no_n

    and forcing people who can't afford insurance to die horrible deaths is...what exactly?

  • a_no_n

    i'm guessing you don't know what the word propaganda actually means...either that or you're purposefully misrepresenting it because you've painted yourself into a really stupid ideological dead end.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    We're talking about rights being lost under the current administration... There is your example

  • Pepe Alvarado

    .???? I'm guessing you don't know how to follow a train of thought and all you've got up your sleeve are weightless insults and misleading accusations... Peace to you

  • a_no_n

    gosh that red herring you just threw at me nearly hit me in the face. A train of thought doesn't keep constantly changing the subject like you do!

    Please tell me what your interpretation of the word propaganda is.

  • a_no_n

    lol no it's not...It's really not, it's an embuggarance for some i'll grant you that...But to say it's a lost right is...hysterical. And anyway it certainly isn't for the millions of Americans below the poverty line who now have access to healthcare.

  • susan g

    "Forcing you to pay for health care"

    And just who do you think is FORCED to pay for your health care should YOU choose to not provide it for yourself?

    Who do you think pays for that heroic saving of your life when you are brought to the ER with massive traumatic injuries from an automobile accident I'm sure you thought you could prevent and would never happen. Then there are the months even years of rehab to bring you back to a hopefully normal life.
    Who pays for this?

    Automobile INSURANCE is mandated. We don't let people drive cars without insurance to pay for what ever damage they might cause.

    It's no different with health care. In fact it makes even MORE sense.
    "

  • dewfall

    I always feel a bit sad when I see people getting shirty about paying for each others health care. Not going to pretend that I entirely understand the system there but it seems devisive and unkind. The UKs government is breaking its neck to dismantle our health service, outsourcing, privatising and underfunding where it can. I think most Brits would express a great pride for what we have and if (when?) push came to shove, would fight tooth and nail to keep hold of it. Even if it is suffering at the moment.
    Sorry, had to edit - jerky Internet! :)

  • susan g

    So let me get this straight, You feel sad when in your opinion people are getting shi_y over having to pick up the slack, and I don't care how you spin it, whether increased taxes, increased insurance premiums whatever, it's the insured who end up paying for those who are uninsured.

    Then you went on to say you think it's just divisive. Let me tell you what's divisive. I live in a state in the US that is practically bankrupt from providing health care for the uninsured. For many of these people it's not a priority for them. I worked in a county hospital that treats the uninsured. These people come in and they have new iPhones and iPads., nice cars etc. but paying for health care doesn't provide any immediate gratification. Especially when you know there is the county hospital if all else fails. In the US we don't let people die in the streets. Not usually anyway.

    But you live in a country that provides you health care and you're telling us US peeps to suck it up and pay the billions for the uninsured. Huh? Does this make sense. Does this sound like I'm being unreasonable when I say EVERYONE based on what you can pay should have to pay into a health care policy. Why doesn't it make sense to spread the cost around? This is what the ACA is based on.

    You have to have everyone participate. Because otherwise there will always be the ones who want to buy their toys before worrying about health ins,

    And don't you Obama haters jump on here and tell me it won't work and it's too expensive etc.etc. After a disastrous start it's getting underway. It's starting to function welll. Much to the Teabaggers and the GOP's chagrin. As more and more enroll the cost will come down. Don't forget a few years ago when the exact same plan was a Republican one they thought it was great.

  • dewfall

    I do pay for my healthcare - my taxes take care of that. And no, I don't mind picking up the slack for those that can't, for whatever reason, work to pay their own taxes. We do share the cost. What's wrong with sharing? Haven't checked in a while but I believe they're cost of our health service ran to ninety odd billion last year, about 2 thirds of that pays staff. Averages out at about £1700 per person, I don't pay less if I use it less but nor would I pay more if I used it every day of my life. While I'm not using it, someone else is - that doesn't take from me. I might walk out of my house tomorrow and get smacked down by a number 7 bus, then it's my turn to take advantage of a system that offers care, free at the point of access and not in the least dependent on my ability to pay. Better that somebody gets use from something I'm not using than letting it go to waste. Beautiful, and as it should be in my opinion. So yes, when I see adults behaving like spoilt children, I do feel sad. And so what if the poor amongst us manage to afford an ipad, there are plenty of ways that could benefit a family. Free wifi everywhere now, might as well use it. Don't worry, I doubt starbucks spend too much of your dollar on other peoples Internet access ;) I know a homeless chap that begged himself enough money to buy a second hand smart phone. Life changing bit of kit for a man with little else to his name.
    Shirty = irritated. Maybe a British thing? ;)

  • susan g

    Your comparison of US healthcare to the way healthcare is delivered in the UK is comparing Apples to Zebras!

    You are attempting to make this an issue of the have's not wanting to help the have nots. It's not.

    In the US we have a system that provides for those who need everything from food to housing to healthcare. It's called medi-caid and medi-cal. The aid is given out based on need, I'm completely supportive of this help that is given to this less fortunate. No problem at all with this.

    And then we have a large segment in US society that don't get health ins, through their jobs. Then there are those that can't afford ins, it is very expensive. Then there are those who maybe could afford to pay some of the cost but choose not to buy ins,

    What Obama care does is subsidize the people based on their income, thereby making ins, more affordable. If it works as planned and the more that enroll the more the cost is spread around so that EVERYONE will SHARE in the responsibility of paying for their health ins.

    There will ALWAYS be the ones who have no job, 6 kids, no home etc. They will rely on the social services that each state provides through tax dollars.

    Hope this gives you a better understanding. I don't like to be labeled mean spirited, stingy, and unwilling to help those in need, Nothing could be farther from the truth. I donate my professional medical services to the indigent regularly.

    The problem that 44 million don't have health care in the US goes way beyond the issue of just a few thousand poor and unfortunate, not having health insurance.

  • susan g

    You DO pay for your health care? Really?

    So if you are unlucky and get cancer or are in a bad accident that costs hundreds of thousands to treat you, do pay for that too?

    You say your cost averages about 1700 per person. I assume that's a year right?

    I currently with a pre existing condition pay $1,200.00 PER month! THAT'S paying for health care.LOL
    You have socialized medicine. The cost is spread over ALL citizens thru taxes.

    The U.S had nothing of the sort.

  • susan g

    Geesh! Thank you for having so much insight and you don't even live here. :-)

    But you are absolutely right about fixing a badly broken health care system. It's not that the medical treatment and facilities are bad. It's the way healthcare is delivered to the people.

    As for Obama care and it's very rocky start, that was almost assured given all the negative efforts that were coming from the GOP to derail it. Things are up and running much more smoothly now as more and more people are being able to access health care. Some for the first time in their lives.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    The ratio of people involved in the type of accident you describe, to the people who never do is huge. Money spent on those cases pales in comparison with the money that will be received by 300 Million insurance payers... If you don't pay for insurance, life or otherwise, it is your risk. It is not the governments duty to provide for you, and neither is obligating you to be responsible to yourself.

    Goes the same for autoinsurance, forcing you to prepare for a hypothetical situation. There are other possible measures to take to make the accident causer pay for damages made.

    Any type of universally forced service has proved to be more expensive for the consumer. As forcing people to buy takes incentive from companies to provide attractive packets. Countries that force insurance on their citizens, have more expensive policies, and of lesser quality than countries who let them function as the market is intended to.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    You're also already paying taxes, which are your "payments" for services provided by the government.

  • dewfall

    Haha! When I compare apples and zebras I better understand how one is not the other. I know which I'd rather scrump ;)
    I'm not attempting anything in particular, just trying to work out exactly where one or the other might fail. I don't think your unkind and I have no reason to doubt your generosity, sorry if I gave you that impression. My apologies :)

  • dewfall

    Yes! Really! I pay National Insurance! Thought you might like this, Nye Bevan on the NHS and it teething troubles from his speech to the Institute of Hospital Administrators, 1950.

    Apologies for length!

    As the Chairman said, it is five years since I last addressed your Conference. Looking back over those five years I get the impression that I have lived an awful long time in the course of it. Very many things have happened since then, and if I attempted a retrospective view, then this Conference would last a very long time. In the meantime, the National Health Service that we were then bringing about has come into actual being, but perhaps that is a slight exaggeration, it is coming into being, because there are some people who have a sort of romantic attitude towards public affairs and think that secular institutions have a sort of heroic birth, whereas we know very well that the conception is painful, the period of gestation is unpleasant, and the birth lasts an awful long time. One of the difficulties of course that is an inevitable accompaniment of planning in a democratic community is that our plans are bound to be controversial; no matter how amiable the Minister is who is responsible for them, they are the subject of political controversy, and by that very fact alone their inception is almost certain to be accompanied by a good deal of polemics. In the case of the National Health Service very deeply entrenched emotional attitudes were disturbed. The traditions of the medical profession go back a very long way, and it was too much to hope that so drastic a thing as the National Health Service could be accomplished without very much disturbance. However, I am now reconciled to what happened because as Iread the newspapers about what is happening in other parts of the world where similar attempts are being made to launch a National Health Service of a very much more modest kind than we have here and when I read what is being said about it by members of the medical profession, then I realise the controversy which took place between the British Medical Association and myself were a series of comparatively friendly exchanges compared with what is happening elsewhere.

  • over the edge

    you stated "You're also already paying taxes, which are your "payments" for services provided by the government." you do realize not all government services are fully funded by taxes right ?
    you go on to state "Any type of universally forced service has proved to be more expensive for the consumer." could you back that up? i lived in Saskatchewan for three years and they have government auto insurance. i never had lower insurance costs before or since. also for some individuals the cost might go up but when you weigh that against those who couldn't previously afford it, or those who because of a previous condition could not get insured i think it is a fair trade off.

  • susan g

    You Brits are so civilized. No really you are! :-)

  • dewfall

    When we're not eating each other alive ;)

  • susan g

    Life insurance has nothing to do with health insurance. Who do you think pays for medical care for the uninsured? It's not only the fact that people who don't have medical insurance tend NOT to get routine and preventative health care. They wait until the sh_t hits the fan before they show up sick as a dog in the emergency room, by then what could have been averted is now a million dollar hospital admission. It's not only the person's risk by not getting health care. When you decide not to pay for your own health care you are then SHIFTING the risk onto the government i.e. tax payers.

    Let the market function as intended? Sure because the insurance companies only care about the health of their customers right?

    Never mind just let them deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions and so what if they arbitrarily decide to DUMP you because you've become to big a risk. Or how about they can just refuse you coverage all together? This was business as usual before ACA.

    I guess you don't happen to live in a state that has a especially high number of uninsured motorists. I guess you also have never been in an accident where the person who caused it also didn't have any auto insurance. Or the money to pay for the damage they caused. Driving is a privilege not a right and if you intend to operate that car on the public roads you must show proof that you can pay for any damage you may be responsible for. It's the ONLY fair way. There are just too many irresponsible drivers who just don't give a sh_t.

  • dewfall

    $1200 per month for Susans insurance would be about £8000 (yearly) here. She's paying over 6G a year more than I do.

  • thisismyspamemail

    Seriously monetary systems should be outlawed instead of self defense. There would be a serious decrease in crime. A needs based society needs serious consideration.

  • wrong

    you are pretty delusional... for some reason, Americans like to speak about communism, yet they'd never experience it, you are seriously annoying those of us who have. after spending a good portion of my life living under communism I had the opportunity to live stateside... needles to say, I'm not there anymore. I now live in a country with a socio-democracy in place and I can guarantee you, that most Americans would love to and most of all SHOULD enjoy the benefits that I reap from living outside of the US. The US is the only country where people still don't have universal healthcare, higher education is overpriced, people don't have universally accepted and standard vacation and sick days... we get 26 vacation days guaranteed by law, sick days, paid maternity and paternity leave, free uni education at very high levels... and that's most of the developed countries in the world... living outside of america's borders makes you realize how it's not the greatest and most wonderful place on earth, and your poor... they do not have it better then the poor in most developed countries... that's a fact.

  • shafawn

    I have lived outside America's borders sweetheart and I'll take the United States over any other 7 days a week and TWICE on Sunday!! Every person I've ever talked to who lived under Soviet Russia had a very much different story to share than yours. Right now both Europe and America are on the brink of economic melt down. Europe closer than the U.S. but if either does it will drag the other down with it. And because America has been the super power and had such influence socioeconomically it has been responsible in leading, encouraging freedom world wide in many countries including demanding humanitarian rights and different types of sanctions placed when people are being mistreated by their governments.
    When America collapses there will be a huge vacuum left in it's wake and the entire world will be sucked into a totalitarian government. Which is exactly what they want... watch and see

  • shafawn

    For you to seriously believe that .. it means you also believe governments are kind and good and looking out for the best interest of their people and all they want to do is put people first and share and share alike .. we are just one big loving family here on the earth :) :) <3 <3 <3
    That can't happen young idealistic person because greed rules the earth. There will always be people who figure out how to get stuff for free and take advantage of somebody else just because they can. There will always be poor people and rich people. There will always be haves and have nots.

    What you want is Utopia and that is not possible on earth.

  • joe

    Are you kidding me with that statement, Vietnam kicked our asses and IED's have been a real thorn in our sides in Iraq and Afghanistan. All we need is Unity and the desire NOT to be ruled by an upper class of greedy,corrupt, crooked, no moral compass. political, pyscopaths or I could have just said the people in DC right now.

  • Rights of Man

    "All we need is Unity and the desire NOT to be ruled by an upper class of greedy,corrupt, crooked, no moral compass."

    Your right, that's all we need. We don't don't need guns, we only need to stand in unity against our oppressors.

    Gandhi and MLK did it without guns

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Forget the whole thing about car insurance, it is a topic you and I will disagree with and is not the topic of the documentary.... a_no_n asked an example of a right being lost, and I gave the example of chosing the right to NOT PAY health insurance. Whether health insurance is beneficial or not is irrelevant in the point I'm making to a_no_n

  • a_no_n

    How's Americas death toll looking these days?

  • a_no_n

    communism isn't a religion it's a political philosophy.

  • a_no_n

    the difference is that Joe the plumber can't walk into a school with his wrench and murder dozens of children in a matter of seconds.

    Joe the plumber with an assault rifle can.

    Ironicly enough, i'd rather be safe than sorry is my argument FOR gun control!

  • a_no_n

    I'm coming at the health care argument from the other end of the scale.

    In Britain we ad a well running health care system that is at the moment being slowly dismantled, destroyed and and sold off so that our current conservative government can try and adopt a private system.

    The thought of having to pay to visit a doctor sends chills down my spine. it seems barbaric.

  • a_no_n

    I come from Britain, where i don't have to worry about seeing a doctor because it doesn't cost me anything at the point of service. Instead i pay 1.50 in national insurance taxes each week to be covered by one of the best healthcare providers in the world.

    £52 a year, and i'm covered for everything you can imagine. from a cough to cancer and beyond.

    please think about THAT! before you want to try dousing me with more of your rightist mentality and propaganda.

  • Pepe Alvarado

    Still missing the point, it could be the best deal in the world, people should still HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE IT. .................................................................................. P.S. I don't believe in the left/right paradigm that feeds your hate

  • a_no_n

    hate? how am i the hateful one when i'm the one who wants everyone to have health insurance?

    You're the one opting for the poorest to die on the streets, and yet i'm the one who'se feeding my own hate...do you even know what the word means?

    You know what...sometimes there are more important things in society than the individuals wants and needs...it's this little thing we humans have built up called "Civilisation".

    Personally i don't think you have any right to deny your fellow citizen healthcare...which is exactly what you're doing by promoting this idiotic idea of a "Choice", when really all it is is a choice to have healthcare or the choice to go bankrupt when you get sick.

    like i say, it's barbaric.

  • WagePeace

    Pathetic inside the control grid thinking breeds more of the same.

  • Gaia ODea

    Look, you think hunting rifles, even concealed pistels is WHAT keeps the USA 'free?' If so, you are nuts. The USA kills more people both domestic and foregin, than anyone else. Get to a DEprogrammer and DeBrainwashER asap.

  • Gaia ODea

    You notice Norway, Mexico, Japan, and MOST other countries who have gun control, do NOT have anywhere the murder rate as USA. So ok everybody and their Grannies go out and purchase a stockpile of firearms and SEE what happns. You live in another 'reality.'

  • Gaia ODea

    OK....so let's start 'shooting practice 101' in second grade. AT LEAST,then there would be a society that is 'gun educated.' For you miss the point, just everyone going and purchasing weapons would KNOW how to use them. As of now, few know how to use a gun. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO this is NOT some old JOHN WAYNE movie......pathetic...good bye i cant watch another moment of this doc.

  • Cheeba Man

    Probably not good examples...

  • J.G. Howard

    It must be sad to be you. Greed rules the earth? This is the teaching you have for young people? It's not idealistic to have an outlook that recognizes people are inherently cooperative. It's also important for young people to recognize that not all older people have such a negative opinion of humans. Sorry shafawn, you made a choice to believe that- and it is this choice that puts you on the wrong side of history. Young people will fare much better understanding the true cooperative roots of our survival. Its what got us this far, and its what will save us from this cancerous idea that there's nothing you can do about greed.

  • Michael

    It is you sir who are living within an alternate reality. An alternate reality where violent criminals obey gun laws and lay down their weapons once legislation is proposed. Before I get to that though let me remind you that the U.S. is ranked 28th in gun violence per 100,000 people and we have the most guns. Only the law abiding will obey gun laws criminals couldn't care less about them if they even know about them. This is why D.C. and Illinois, who have the most stringent gun laws, also have the highest crime and murder rates. Gun control does not work! I used to be like you, screaming about "sensible gun laws". Then I realized that all they do is take the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves away. They create easy targets for those who break the law. The ability to defend yourself and the lives of those close to is a moral imperative. Taking away that right is remarkably immoral. It plays into the hands of the violent. Continue to live in your fantasy world where criminals obey the law and good people don't need deadly force to defend themselves. Continue to think that it makes sense for the government and the police to have guns to defend themselves but the average citizen cannot be trusted to do the same. Continue to think that the police will always be right there for you if you need them and not minutes away when your life and the life of your family depends on seconds. I live in a fantasy world? You sir have never even had a taste of the real world!

  • Michael

    Only the ignorant would compare real life with a movie. The country used to teach shooting in school until people such as yourself began whining about it. The average gun owner, remember there are 80 million of us in this country, is responsible and takes the time to learn how to use their weapon and safely store it. People like you don't take the time to look into the number of lives that guns have saved. You only see and accept without questioning the terrible reports that the MSM put in fromt of you. They don't report the defensive use of guns or the incidences of self defense that happen everyday. They don't report the possible mass shootings that are averted by responsible gun owners or the 200,000 woman who repel rapist every year using handguns. No! They appeal to the simple minded with their sensationalism! One or two accidental dishcharges that result in a death is much more interesting than a man who pulls his gun and stops a crime from ever happening. A 15 year old who accidently shoots his sister is much more sensational aand will attract many more of the simple minded than the 15 year old who defended his sister and home from multiple invaders with an ar-15. Stories like that don't conform with the preferred narrative. Use your mind and stop being a tool. I know this will probably upset you but you, like the majority of people who rely on emotion instead of logic to shape their positions, are completely wrong about this issue. Guns are a fact of life and society. They are used for good far more often than not but you would never know that unless you took the time and possessed the integrity of character to look into and accept what you find.

  • Michael

    I'm sorry but the U.S. is no where near even the top 10 in murder rates. You may want to consider the "deprogramming" and start checking your facts, they are readily available. As for guns keeping the U.S. free, it is not the only thing. However, it is and was intended to be the last resort in order to protect all of our other rights. This is the purpose of the second amendment. If the government disregards all of the other amendments the second will be there to fight for them. It is the peoples teeth. You have brought a whole lot of leftist talking points without a smidgin of facts and logic. You have parroted stereotypes and MSM propaganda and you tell some one else to get deprogrammed? As far as foreign kills I'm pretty sure that the late Sadaam Hussein, who killed around a million Iraqis, the thousands killed by Syria, the brutal rape of teenagers and thousands killed by Muammar Qaddafi's regime, don't even come close to our mistakes. And thats what they are, mistakes. Our kills in war require no need for apology.There has been collateral damage in the action of killing monsters and they were mistakes unlike the actions of the previously mentioned. What world do you live in? There are bad people and bad countries in this world who the U.S. will address when possible. Do we always do so selflessly? No, nut again this is reality! If you think the U.S. is worse than some of these countries I mentioned than you sir are an i*iot. Your anti American propaganda has spoiled your critical faculties. The world is not a nice place and there will always be people, atleast for the foreseeable future, who seek to take away your way of life. Would you defend the actions of ISIS and criticize our bombings to save the KURDS. Step into the real world buddy. It is bloody and violent and will remain that way until tyrannical people like ISIS are wiped from the earth.

  • dtownprof

    You don't think it is? The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that allows people to protect themselves. Yes, the US military has overwhelming firepower and, if there were a revolution in the US, most of the revolutionaries would die. However, in conflicts around the world we have seen where superior firepower does not always win.

    And if there is no 2nd amendment, the Constitution is toothless.

  • humansoul

    take out the zionist infiltrators out of our governments and media easy they are the terrorists

  • humansoul

    and just ignore trolls

  • bluetortilla

    So why aren't our rag tag militias marching on Washington to take down the tyranny that the federal government has become? Today we protect the right to bear arms to even our psychotic youths so that they might go on shooting sprees. To kill people, even children, with no agenda, no cause, and certainly no well-maintained militia behind them. What of protecting the rights of the people, of re-establishing justice? You cannot argue the right to bear arms unless you are willing and capable of using them to overthrow tyrants!
    Which NOBODY is doing.
    I find this documentary very self-serving, have your cake and eating it too. Congratulations loving brothers.

  • bluetortilla

    Good point except for Mexico!

  • bluetortilla

    No, but it is the number one terrorist. It reigns bombs on innocent people incessantly. These aren't mistakes- they know full well what's going to happen. And 'collateral damage' is a euphemism for the acceptance of mass murder as part of military strategy. It is repulsive, unacceptable, and only encourages the peoples of the world to hate the U.S.
    This has nothing to do with gun control, but it is my opinion that many U.S. citizens are self-pitying isolationists who refuse to see the horrendous damage their foreign policy wreaks on innocent people in many parts of the world. All the generations since WWII, it would seem, are brainwashed. Heads out of the sand please. Your government is not protective or kind. It is brutal and oppressive.

  • Simon Bar Sinister

    My sentiments exactly. The reason no one is doing anything is because they are too afraid of losing their creature comforts, such as an iPhone, access to the Internet, and ability to waste money on useless crap. It's fun to protest until they realize they've got to give up something. No one is willing to die for a cause any more.

  • Simon Bar Sinister

    Good grief, what a boring narrator. He sounds like he's narrating something for a high school civics class.

  • breggetta

    This documentary is a mix of good information with a lot of hidden propaganda. Do your research on some of these "so called" shooters used in the documentary...

  • muky

    No way!!Bin Laden has been helped by the U.S. Gov.?!

  • The Anti Idiocratic Party

    the cities in America with gun control have much higher violent crime rates than the cities without. And I don't know what news you are looking at but Mexico is an extremely violent place with people being killed by armed drug cartel members all the time. These people have no way to protect themselves and the unalienable human rights, other than a relying on a corrupt government. That is one of the many reasons they are flooding into the united states in the first place. get your facts straight.

  • Yellowbeard

    Thanks for restating your comment. For The inalienable rights you speak of are supposed to be for everyone, not just Americans. And the Document that spawned those rights came from the ideas of a Democratic Republic (not democracy, There is a difference) who's ideas revolved around staying out of foreign entanglements. The Monster that the world sees today is not the freedom loving America or it's people, it is the giant totalitarian machine that has taken control and rapped itself in the flag. Many Americans don't want anything to do with this machine, and are smart enough to remember what happens to those who surrender there defenses to it. Please do not blame good people and honest ideas for the actions of the evil and powerful men who control the Current world empire, No matter what uniform those men hide themselves behind.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    standing behind any believe without strong factual evidence could be classified as religious fanaticism, Much like your comment! I Am a "yank" and i am not fanatical or religious. And being a person who tries to look at things rationally, i would have to say that there is a large number of fanatical and even dangerous anti-Religious people in the world as well. I'm not a believer, but I don't think removing religion is going to cure the world of violent crazies. In fact, I would say many of these religious teaching have helped keep humanity from doing much worse to each other. Removing peoples ideas of the unknown isn't going to solve anything, removing the ideas that you can dominate others with their ideas is another story entirely.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    Just thought i would give you some knowledge...from a book. "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
    upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446. Just in case you didn't get that. A man world famous for his ideas and actions on peace, Condemned the idea of banning weapons from his people. Seems books don't protect against S*upidity either.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    So why would we want to give them the only thing that keeps them from kicking in our doors and taking us to some camp. As an American, I am appalled by the men that control my country. They are dangerous lairs that would do anything for more power, yet it's the common people that are always the ones targeted as the violent nut-jobs, unwilling to join a peaceful world. Unfortunately the world is not peaceful, and the good guys don't always win. I would be happy to give up my arms for a better world if it was a forseable reality, but the governments of the world, as well as the terrorist, the drug cartels, the gangs, and all the other dangerous and criminal people of the world are not in any hurry to give up theirs, so why am I the evil one for wanting to be able to protect myself?

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have
    been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make
    an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to
    say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as
    for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire
    city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror
    at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the
    staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had
    boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
    with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you
    knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good
    purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the
    skull of a cutthroat.”


    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,

    The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    This is a very generalist type of idea. under this thought, everyone in the world is guilty of the evils that persist. If Americans are to blame for what their out of control government is doing, then you are guilty for letting your counties let our country do terrible things. This is just a way to pass blame from the truly guilty to the people you choose to dislike for primitive tribal reasons. we are all people that want peace a prosperity, but making generalist attacks on people that disagree with you only separates the average person and makes standing up to the bigger problems imposable. Maybe they don't show it in the news where you live, but Americans have been peacefully protesting the "war on Terror" since it started, the polls show that the large majority are against it. yet the system keeps moving on without us. The people in control have figured out how to subvert the grass root strategy. If you don't think so, just look at how well the African Americans did. They won there fight to end segregation, but most still live in terrible ghettos, full of CIA supplied drugs (research freeway ricky ross), and most of the main stream media directed toward them, teaches selfish behaviors like drugs, violence, and the objectification of there women. Most inner city black men have the option of being a criminal to support themselves, or they can join the military to support themselves.So can you really say they won there fight. I Agree that the peaceful protest is the best "plan A" statagy, but to put all your eggs in one basket and hope the fox doesn't steal them is a dangerous idea.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    I agree on the education part, but why not worry about both. Or even better, we could start worrying about all our other problems first and stop trying to remove the final failsafe against tyranny in a time when it might actually be needed the most. The US government defense budget this year will be over 750 Billion dollars. One years worth of that fund could solve so many of the worlds problems, yet we suffer from bad schools, poor healthcare, poor food and water quality & quantity,as well as caring for the homeless and disadvantaged. we have problems with power, sustainable waste , and pollution. The economies of the world are in trouble. America could heal the world to the point that no one on earth could call us an enemy without being laughed at. Bu5t still Money has been pumping into an American army, foreign and domestic, since 911. No one wants this, but the people are not listened to, the media plays what it wants people to think,the Federal Government does as it likes, and the people begin to feel alienated and powerless against there own social structure. So in a time when the worlds largest super power starts to resemble the new Reich, I would say it that not only is it the right for the average person to be able do defend himself by modern means, but it is also their duty, to the ideas of true peace and freedom.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    Firstly, everyone seems to forget the fact that not only did the colonists have single shot rifles, they also had canons... that shot explosives... that could take down naval ships, buildings or large areas of a battle feild. So obviously they had more in mind than just the basic single shot rifle of the time period. If you research the weapons of the revolutionary war, you will see that they were very creative with there canon artillery as well as there methods for using them. Where they able to predict exactly how weapons would evolve, of course not. But to say they couldn't imagine the thought of weapons improving beyond there level of understanding in the future is nonsense.

    As for the second question. It's not about invasion. it never was. The basic official oath says to "support and defend the Constitution against All enemies, foreign and domestic." They The Founding fathers knew very well that the future threat to the people could come from within just as well as from an external source. And look how right there where. The American government has turned into a Monolithic death machine. The surveillance state here is beyond anything the nazis cold have hoped for.And if you think the average America wants this to happen, you are buying into someone else propaganda. It is true that there is a serious violence problem in America, but outlawing weapons will not make that go away. It will just take tools out of the hands of honest people who have the right to protect themselves and there families. If you think I'm wrong look at mexico. They have gun bans, yet Illegal, gun totting, drug cartels murder and terrorize helpless Unarmed Mexican citizens every day.

    As for your third question, you are passing the blame from persons, that choose to commit violent criminal acts, to a lack of ideological law That goes against the basic concept of the personal safety and freedom stated in the constitution. Their rights where not infringed by the system or the law abiding gun owners of America, these people where the victims of the lawless. Most victims tend to look towards ways to protect themselves after they have been abused, That is why they "put up with it". As for the law part, That's like saying I am the victim of the fact that they never made a utopia law. If only they passed that law we could all be free from our troubles. This it a fairy tale idea. Banning guns in this country wouldn't stop gun violence, it would multiply it a hundred fold. This would be seen as the ultimate political tyranny and people would resist violently. Think of all the honest, normal, people that would be hurt. Gun control isn't a magic wand, you need to think about the repercussions of your actions.

    And finally for the part about the penis extension business. I only pull out what I have when i need to use it. You on the other hand seem to afraid to pull yours out at all. So afraid in fact, you don't even want me to be able to pull out mine. So i have to wonder which of us is truly lacking in that department.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    people use guns to protect their counties, their government officials and their office Buildings, they use them to protect their banks, their money, and their business. They are used to protect multiple forms of mass travel as well as large events and gatherings. Yet the citizen's children at school are protected by a law and a sign that reads " Gun free zone". So where do most mass shootings take place? I can tell you, it's not at the gun store. If the staff members at those schools had the right to carry, the news stories would have read much different.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jong IL...

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    our dance into tyranny is a two step, first the left, then the right. It has been like this for a while and it has always been bad, but to claim that one man taking control of the largest and most well armed system in the world will be a good thing for everyone is just plan insane. He is no better than his bush counterparts. and he will be no better that the next republican that Will be elected when Americans goes to the ballot box, completely unhappy with Obama. Then all those new dictatorial powers will be back in the hands of a person like bush. You don't seem to think these thing out very well before you start spewing you insults and ideologies, do you.

  • BOOOOMMMM!!!!

    Also, when you have Government barry care, you will be under their rules of health, you would have to take the drug they choose to give you and undergo the plans and treatments they desire. I don't trust a government that does everything so poorly to be in control of my livelihood. They have proven to be untrustworthy at almost every turn. to trust them with ones health would be a poor idea

  • a_no_n

    well that seems like hysterical garbage.

    Tyranny? Really? Americans have been so comfortable for so long that enough of them seem to have completly forgotten the meanings of such words.

    Yes Obama truly is evil, what with making more healthcare available to the poor and all...a real monster.

    You say you're completly unhappy with him...why do the Reupublicans who keep shutting down government not get similar displeasure?

    If anything Obama's term has shown us just how counter-productive and dysfunctional the US system is.

    You compare Obama to Bush, i think that's because you've got an incredibly short memory and don't remember what Bush's term was actually like.

  • a_no_n

    oh great, another history revisionist that thinks Hitler was a left winger.

    Hitler was far right...even schoolchildren know this simple fact. The Nazi's were a nationalist party...Nationalism is right wing. Granted in your warped mind where everything bad is left wing that probably isn't the case, but here in the real world it is.

  • a_no_n

    What? That rant makes zero sense!

  • a_no_n

    wow...that is a great big wall of words alright.

    I'll try and answer all of your misinformation though.

    1/ you've danced around my point not addressed it. my point still applies.

    2/ You had just finished a civil war! That line of the constitution was to protect you from the British, not justify your average Joe keeping fully automatic assault weaponry under his pillow.

    3/ Outlawing weapons won't make gun violence go away, except for places like the UK and Australia where that is exactly what happened when gun bans were introduced.

    4/ try to avoid emotional propaganda words like tyranny, and normal people...it cheapens your argument by making you seem like a paranoid hysteric

    5/ Nice internet tough guy speak...you seem like a real macho man...not at all compensating for anything are you? Again, it's hard to take you seriously after reading drivel like that.

  • FollowTheFacts

    ...going through my saved links for documentaries, trying to see if they're worth watching to begin with – the comments help me get an understanding of content...if the idea is that an armed population somehow guarantees benign government, that is a ludicrous notion – just observe present day US....case closed
    But if that isn't enough for you – take Saddam Hussein's Iraq – the citizenry was armed beyond anything imaginable in the US and guns were everywhere to be bought and sold...and Americans still believe he was a tyrant I'm sure....
    Point is – if the US government wants to crack down on its own armed citizenry – they'll do it and there won't be anything stopping it.
    Those that think otherwise – ask this – you got a gun and you believe this will help to protect you from tyrannical government, so...are you prepared to shoot first? – Because if you aren't, then it's all a wasted effort....
    bluetortilla below seems to be on the same line...I won't watch this documentary and will delete link – Thanks all....

  • Phleb

    "The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official."

    Per usual, the lib wants to twists facts. I do know the history of gun confiscation in Germany and you are wrong.... no debate.

  • a_no_n

    Seriously?

    First of all that's a complete lie. Whilst Hitler did restrict the sale of guns to Jews (as he did for pretty much everything) Hitler actually RELAXED gun laws for German citizens...
    For someone who "Knows the history of gun confiscation in Germany" you seem to be completely ignorant about what actually happened.

    As per usual with the right wing, you think you can completely re-fabricate history to suit your agenda.

    You have no clue about the gun law in Germany, you only know what you've heard proven liars like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ranting about over the radio!

    Gun laws in Germany now are actually stricter than they were in Wartime Germany.

  • Phleb

    Your words:
    "Whilst Hitler did restrict the sale of guns to Jews (as he did for pretty much everything) Hitler actually RELAXED gun laws for German citizens..."

    Oh, so those Jews weren't German citizens?
    You've just exposed yourself to be a shadow-Nazi.

    The only people allowed guns in Germany were the ones killing and torturing other citizens and other countries populations they invaded.

    Vale, stulte!

  • a_no_n

    What?

    Do you know anything about history at that period?

  • a_no_n

    Hold on a minute...Do you actually know who Hitler and the Nazi's were, or what they did?

    Do you have any knowledge of world war 2 era Germany?

    By Nazi law Jews could not be German citizens...that's not my opinion, that's what actually happened...I realise that people like you have trouble distinguishing opinions from facts, especially when it comes to petty point scoring but please...let's not be THAT pathetic...your strawman argument is grossly inappropriate!

  • a_no_n

    Do you have any statistics to back that up?

    the UK (which has incredibly strict gun legislation) has a gun crime rate of 0.04...that's per 100,000 citizens by the way.

    Basicly the evidence everywhere else doesn't correspond with your claims.

    Also it's worth noting that over 90% of the guns the cartels are shooting come straight from America where there's absolutly nothing whatsoever stopping them from legally purchasing them.

  • Phleb

    Which ridiculous, holier-than-tho comment should I reply to?

    "Do you actually know who Hitler and the Nazi's were, or what they did?"

    Sure..Hitler was a psychopath/sociopath bent on world domination by way of Socialism. The Nazis were/are mindless puppets of his ideology.

    I'd have to write my own book to tell what they did...but we KNOW what they did ..don't we?

    "By Nazi law Jews could not be German citizens...that's not my opinion, that's what actually happened."

    In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records (gun registration) to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued.
    Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

    During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews.

    Maybe you don't understand citizenship, being a "subject of the crown"

    When a tyrant comes to power and issues laws that take away citizenship, a free people would call that unlawful, unjust and ignore or fight against the tyranny.

    You want to argue, oh well...the Nazis made them non-citizens, so we can't use them in the gun-control debate is bullsh!t.

    Watch the documentary "The Flat" those Jews that left Germany still felt like citizens of that country and even brought Germany to Israel in their tiny little flat.

    and last....

    "Do you have any knowledge of world war 2 era Germany?"

    I do, actually. My ancestors escaped Nazi Germany. They were being persecuted for helping Jewish relatives and friends. Their diaries from that era are in our safe deposit box.

    Better research "straw-man argument" again, you have it wrong!

    By acknowledging Hitler's Jews as non-citizens of not only Germany but also all the countries they invaded, making "the Jew" a citizen of NO country very easily places who you are and what you believe...and I stand by my words for you - Shadow-Nazi!

  • Phleb

    Again you should come to the US and talk to some of these "below poverty level" people.
    They still can't afford it.

  • a_no_n

    great...you're another one of this wierd cult who thinks Hitler was left wing, even though he always claimed to be right wing, and referred to himself and his movement as a conservative one.

    There's something really chilling about people like you who think it's ok to rewrite history so that it better fits in with your current political agenda.

    You've also cherrypicked everything you want and need from history and discarded everything else...like the relaxation of gun laws for Aryans...apparantly that no longer happened because it doesn't fit in ith the narrative you want to spin.

    "My Ancestors escaped NAzi Germany"

    So what? that doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert in the subject...we call that an argument from authority and it's a logical fallacy...To be honest it kind of feels like you're spitting on their misfortune by rewriting the events surrounding it to suit your modern partisan politics...

    Ulitimately you seem to think you have some kind of papal infallibility, as if absolutly anything you think or say suddenly becomes fact because YOU said it...You've told me i'm wrong, but you haven't really explained WHY. Sure you've ranted and given me a list of highly cherrypicked and dubious statements, but nothing even remotely convincing.

  • a_no_n

    i doubt you've ever spoken to someone in that position.

  • a_no_n

    or perhaps because deep deep down the vast majority of people know that having a black man as a president is no reason to turn traitor and attack your own country?

  • a_no_n

    "The average gun owner is responsible"

    this is true...it's why more than 80% of gun owners support the introduction of a firearms register.

  • a_no_n

    mexico gets most of it's guns from the USA, where they are purchased legally.

  • Phleb

    Again, You are woefully ignorant. I work with
    neglected and abused children and their families, and hear their problems daily.

    Don't assume ... you come across *******.

  • a_no_n

    yeah...i know this may be hard to believe but, i don't believe you.

    It's awfully convenient that you just so happen to work with poor people when we start arguing about it...you're family are also all holocaust victims...if we start talking about cars is Steve Mcqueen going to turn out to be a long lost uncle of yours or something?

  • Phleb

    I couldn't care less whether you "believe" me, You still come across as id**tic when you make false assumptions.

    You tend to be the know-it-all blow hard when your narrative is questioned. Then you deflect when you have no facts to back up your argument/opinion.

    Vale, stulte!

  • a_no_n

    "You deflect when you have no facts to back up your argument."

    He says whilst deflecting away from the argument...

    Seriously, are you actually that much of a hypocrite or are you messing with me? Can you not see that that is exactly what YOU are doing?

    You haven't provided one single scrap of evidence either...Or do you not hold yourself to the same standards you demand from people you argue with?

  • Phleb

    LoL!

    You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you.

    Please stop, the ignorance is killing me!

  • a_no_n

    Yeah...i know you think that's an argument, but it really isn't. It's the debating equivilent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "Nyah Nyah can't hear you."

    Rather than trying to make each comment into a soundbite, why don't you actually try telling me why i'm wrong...

  • a_no_n

    yeah...i didn't think you'd be able to.

  • Guest

    ...

  • a_no_n

    really...name calling? is that the best you have?

  • Phleb

    Look n!t-wit... the debate was gun confiscation in Germany during World War ll, you admitted, in your own words, that it indeed happened.

    Debate over.

    The rest of your comments have been pure drivel, nothing of substance.
    Get over yourself.

    Read a book.

  • a_no_n

    hmm...not content with rewriting history you're also rewriting the argument.

    You said that Hitler took all the guns, that wasn't the case, i corrected you on that thoroughly debunked bit of nonsense.

    Your comments appear to be nothing but insults, so i don't know who you think you are talking about "Substance" right after calling me a nitwit...As i've said, you're a massive hypocrite. you set these standards that you can't even be bothered sticking to.

    You've given me nothing except propaganda that was probably first published by smith and wesson to convince gullible m*rons like you to put their profits above your own wellbeing.

    If you want to talk about substance, you should try displaying some yourself first!

  • Phleb

    "You said that Hitler took all the guns, that wasn't the case, i corrected you on that thoroughly debunked bit of nonsense."

    Nope...not what I said.

    This is what I said:

    "The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The
    same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of
    Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding
    persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing
    acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities
    discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food
    and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be
    executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official."

    and then you said:

    "First of all that's a complete lie. Whilst Hitler did restrict the sale
    of guns to Jews (as he did for pretty much everything) Hitler actually
    RELAXED gun laws for German citizens..."

    And I'll make the statement again.... When a tyrant comes to power and takes away citizenship from their political dissidents and groups of people like the Jews, the gypsies,
    the homosexual community etc.... and strips away their ability to arm/defend themselves is unlawful and unjust. But then you want to state that NO GUNS were taken away from "German Citizens" since Hitler declared them non-citizens and use that to debate gun control is asinine.

    My comments appear to be nothing but insults?
    It's hilarious actually. I started reading these comments that were posted over a year ago and you come off as the (insert derogatory name) Without having to scroll back up... I remember you calling someone "pig ignorant." Why the baby act now? You want to dish it out...but bawl when someone offers it back to you. You ARE a N!t Wit...
    I won't respond anymore..you're ridiculous.

  • a_no_n

    Oh i get it now...you're comparing yourself to the Jews during the Holocaust.

    Lol and here i was thinking you were being a massive hysteric.

  • Phleb

    Lmao!!
    The only people I've heard died tragically, were our Vets! You know the ones under government controlled healthcare.

    You are absurdly misinformed.

  • Guest

    ...

  • a_no_n

    As I suspected...you can't.

    Your criticisms are meaningless without explaination.

  • Captain_Hook

    What is most likely to kill you are the things that are legally included in everything you eat and drink by corporations that are more interested in your purchasing habits than your well-being. A weapon is no defense. Knowledge is.