- This topic has 1 reply, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”DavidCMurray”][quote=”kwhite1″]
David, not sure how to take on your statement, almost sounds like you are a defender and advocate of China? I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I do know this….the Chinese do not allow you to speak freely, own firearms, they regulate your child output (limit 1 I think), and regulate a large part of your life. You sure you would be ok with that life style? What would you do without beng “allowed” to voice your opinion on this wonderful discussion board?[/quote]I’m not defending China or its policies at all. What I said, and what I meant, was that we Americans have been led to view China through a prism that may not render a totally accurate image. During the Cold War, China, whose existence the U.S. denied for many years, was a primary “enemy”. The government’s propaganda machine spent years vilifying China in all our eyes. That image remains unchanged for many of us. It may, in fact, not be an entirely accurate image. That’s what I said and that’s what I meant.
Facts are, a very large part of my life is already regulated (mostly for the good, but not entirely). My “child output” was voluntarily restricted to zero (one fewer than the Chinese limit), so who cares?. I wouldn’t own a gun whether it was legal to or not. And while it’s an interesting passtime to participate in this forum, and while I do enjoy sharing some of what I’ve learned with others, I could live comfortably without it, as I did for many, many years until 2006.
Truth be told, China may be at the forefront of population control and for that your descendants may thank them profusely. If through firearms control they achieve a firearms death rate to match Great Britain’s, future generations of Chinese will be grateful. And if my thoughts and yours were stifled, who’d be the poorer?
[/quote]You mentioned the gun death rate of the UK, granted it is lower, but……is offset by the suicide rate, which is multiplied x’s higher than the US. Guess they are depressed they can’t own guns? It’s a great stress relief!
Are you ok with your life being regulated? I personally have an issue with people telling me what to do and when to do it. Guess that’s why I only did 4 years in the military. I guess for some folks that’s ok, but for others who can actually thing for themselves it’s not. I just know that when I screw up I am responsible, I don’t blame anyone else but me, don’t look for handouts, bailouts, assistance in anyway. And trust me, I have made millions and lost millions, didn’t get a bail out? It was all my doing, both good and bad. So the Chinese way is not for me.
David makes points that would be hard to argue with. The US has been vilifying China my entire life. China has also supported our enemies around the world so they also earned some of their reputation. I find it funny that talk of China manipulating its currency as a bad thing coming from the biggest manipulators of them all. How about gun control. How many high ranking politicians have spoke of hunters not needing assault weapons, it has nothing to do with hunting. Guns are to defend us from our own government and foreign enemies. Without guns there would be nothing to keep the government off the backs of its citizens. We may not need these protections today but do we deprive future generations of that ability with a short sighted viewpoint today. 49% murders in US were from hand guns, 2.5% were from assault weapons including all rifles, 4% were from clubs and hammers. Whats the real story? Could it be an attempt to take more of our rights away. I wounder what caused the other 44.5% of murders in the US?
Kwhite, of course I’m comfortable with living in a regulated community, and in uncountable ways, so are you. Otherwise, how would you like to meet me face-to-face one day out on the Interstate? In a zillion ways, large and small, our lives are literally enabled by regulation.
I, too, am skeptical about the practical effect of banning ownership of assault-type weapons, as I am skeptical of the benefit. But if you think that you or I, or you and I and everyone we each know or have ever met, are capable of standing up to the power of the government, you are clearly deluding yourself. In a hostage or other standoff situation, you might hold out for a while, but in the end, the police or military force of the government would always prevail, to your detriment.
If you don’t believe that, please reflect on the record — Ruby Ridge, Waco, Dog Day Afternoon (based on a real event), and every other such event. When did any individual, including the Los Angeles bank robbers a dozen or so years ago, ever prevail against a police swat team? Sure, you might kill a cop, but they’ll get you before it’s over.
So you’ll need to make another argument for the ownership of all this firepower to convince any thinking person. Mere enjoyment might be such a rationale.
How about the revolutionary war. In small numbers fighting the government seems a true uphill battle, sounds like an argument for having more firepower rather than less.
By the way, I just saw Gerald Celente on tv. If anyone is interested, I believe he has a fantastic grasp on currencies,metals and future trends. He is the publisher of Trends Journal and worth the read.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]Kwhite, of course I’m comfortable with living in a regulated community, and in uncountable ways, so are you. Otherwise, how would you like to meet me face-to-face one day out on the Interstate? In a zillion ways, large and small, our lives are literally enabled by regulation.
I, too, am skeptical about the practical effect of banning ownership of assault-type weapons, as I am skeptical of the benefit. But if you think that you or I, or you and I and everyone we each know or have ever met, are capable of standing up to the power of the government, you are clearly deluding yourself. In a hostage or other standoff situation, you might hold out for a while, but in the end, the police or military force of the government would always prevail, to your detriment.
If you don’t believe that, please reflect on the record — Ruby Ridge, Waco, Dog Day Afternoon (based on a real event), and every other such event. When did any individual, including the Los Angeles bank robbers a dozen or so years ago, ever prevail against a police swat team? Sure, you might kill a cop, but they’ll get you before it’s over.
So you’ll need to make another argument for the ownership of all this firepower to convince any thinking person. Mere enjoyment might be such a rationale.[/quote]
Mere enjoyment is a wonderful reason in my opinion. But to further the argument, is it not in the realm of possibility that as the economic crisis worsens, and the crime rate rises that there will be a need for such defense of your family? I am not sure about you, but I would fight to the death for the protection of my wife and daughter against all attackers, whether they be roving gangs or the Chinese. When I joined the military, I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That oath does not expire. In order to honor the oath I swore to uphold, I would need the utilities afforded by said enemies.
One does not bring a chili power and a kitchen knife (India) to a gang fight, no matter what the gang is.
It is obvious that we see the world differently, I see it as a dangerous place and evil lurks around every corner, you see it through rose colored glasses and everything is hunky dory. I would rather be prepared and not need it than need it and not be prepared.
“Better safe than sorry”, eh? I can live with that, but if you think you can hold off any number of bad guys (the unprepared masses, the BATF, the FBI, or the Chinese) for any length of time, I’m afraid you’re deluding yourself.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]”Better safe than sorry”, eh? I can live with that, but if you think you can hold off any number of bad guys (the unprepared masses, the BATF, the FBI, or the Chinese) for any length of time, I’m afraid you’re deluding yourself.
[/quote]So are you saying that there is a possibility that I may have to attempt to hold off masses, BATF, FBI or the Chinese?
Singularly, very difficult I agree, but as a community, possible. They still would win eventunally, starve you out, but possibly make difficult enough they move on to a less disruptive target.
Question, what lengths would you go to protect your family? Anything less than everything possible is not in my personal vocabulary. David, when the chips are down, you want me on your side, and I want to be surrounded by people like me. This country was founded by people just like that, history repeats itself, time and time again.
[quote=”kwhite1″][quote=”DavidCMurray”]”Better safe than sorry”, eh? I can live with that, but if you think you can hold off any number of bad guys (the unprepared masses, the BATF, the FBI, or the Chinese) for any length of time, I’m afraid you’re deluding yourself.
[/quote]So are you saying that there is a possibility that I may have to attempt to hold off masses, BATF, FBI or the Chinese?
Singularly, very difficult I agree, but as a community, possible. They still would win eventunally, starve you out, but possibly make difficult enough they move on to a less disruptive target.
Question, what lengths would you go to protect your family? Anything less than everything possible is not in my personal vocabulary. David, when the chips are down, you want me on your side, and I want to be surrounded by people like me. This country was founded by people just like that, history repeats itself, time and time again.[/quote]
Just the bad guys knowing you will defend yourself has merit. I don’t worry about having someone break into my house, they need to worry for their safety should they try and have even less worry for the government assaulting me in my home but the government knowing the masses are armed gives them reason to think before acting.
“. . . the government knowing the masses are armed gives them reason to think before acting.” makes absolutely ironclad perfect sense.
If the government knows that somebody is, in fact, armed, they’ll think very carefully before acting. And when they do, they’ll act with overwhelming force.
The government learned the hard way that the Branch Davidians at Waco were armed to the teeth, so when they undertook the final resolution, they came with insurmountable force, as they would do in your neighborhood or mine.
If you want to go down in history as the soulmate of the young man who stood up to the tank in Tinnamin(sp?) Square, it’s your call. You can see what a difference that made.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]”. . .
If you want to go down in history as the soulmate of the young man who stood up to the tank in Tinnamin(sp?) Square, it’s your call. You can see what a difference that made.
[/quote]Standing on priciple is not always the easiest path, often it is the most difficult path. Having the moral compass to always do the right thing is what should resinate. Standing up for the kid that gets picked on, standing up for those that cannot defend themselves. I would rather die over doing the right thing than live as a coward and “submit” to the way that goes against my moral compass.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]”. . . the government knowing the masses are armed gives them reason to think before acting.” makes absolutely ironclad perfect sense.
If the government knows that somebody is, in fact, armed, they’ll think very carefully before acting. And when they do, they’ll act with overwhelming force.
The government learned the hard way that the Branch Davidians at Waco were armed to the teeth, so when they undertook the final resolution, they came with insurmountable force, as they would do in your neighborhood or mine.
Sorry about stepping on your comments. I didn’t know how to fix the problem.
You are correct a small number against the government would not work well for you. I’m thinking in the terms of the founding fathers. Suppose the US economy tanked and riots broke out so the government moves to relocate huge numbers of its citizens to fema camps or just feels they wish to get rid of the useless eaters, now there is a force not so easily defeated and lets take it further what if the police and military were ordered to shoot thousands or millions of its citizens. There is a good chance the military would not follow an unlawful order, so now the government calls their pals the Chinese to help put down the rebellion. Think in terms of a world order (Globalism at its finest) Now wouldn’t you wish that the masses be armed. That’s way out there but you or I don’t know what the future will bring and because we don’t have the problem today, what about 100 years or more Why loose the rights the founding fathers put in place for our protection.
[quote=”jmcbuilder”][quote=”DavidCMurray”]”. . . the government knowing the masses are armed gives them reason to think before acting.” makes absolutely ironclad perfect sense.
If the government knows that somebody is, in fact, armed, they’ll think very carefully before acting. And when they do, they’ll act with overwhelming force.
The government learned the hard way that the Branch Davidians at Waco were armed to the teeth, so when they undertook the final resolution, they came with insurmountable force, as they would do in your neighborhood or mine.
Sorry about stepping on your comments. I didn’t know how to fix the problem.
You are correct a small number against the government would not work well for you. I’m thinking in the terms of the founding fathers. Suppose the US economy tanked and riots broke out so the government moves to relocate huge numbers of its citizens to fema camps or just feels they wish to get rid of the useless eaters, now there is a force not so easily defeated and lets take it further what if the police and military were ordered to shoot thousands or millions of its citizens. There is a good chance the military would not follow an unlawful order, so now the government calls their pals the Chinese to help put down the rebellion. Think in terms of a world order (Globalism at its finest) Now wouldn’t you wish that the masses be armed. That’s way out there but you or I don’t know what the future will bring and because we don’t have the problem today, what about 100 years or more Why loose the rights the founding fathers put in place for our protection.[/quote]
JMC, the issue is that people like David (not specifically him), are fine with anything that happens as long as the government check still shows up. We have a morality problem in the US, no one cares about anything but themselves. When your neighbor is hauled away, they duck behind the blinds so as not to call attention to themselves. This all started about 30 years ago, I remember my neighbors, when growing up, would straighten me out when I did something wrong, then my Dad would whip my ass for acting up, nowadays, if your neighbor said something to your child for acting up, the neighbor would be in court with a lawsuit.
There is no accountability anymore, it’s not my fault, it’s my parents for not hugging me, it’s my employer, it’s everything but my actions. That is why we have these nut jobs shooting up people and kids. Every single one of these people were on a mind/mood altering drug. I don’t want to deal with my child, the kid gets ridalin, xanax, or whatever the cool drug of choice to be on now.
Society has degraded beyond repair. How many times have any of ya’ll gone over and checked on your neighbor? If they are doing ok, have them over for dinner, cook dinner and take it over to them. Helped them in a crisis, prayed for them, prayed with them? Now the President of the US wants to sidestep the Constitution, the media is all about guts and blood, one upping the next story. As long as it does not affect you personally, it’s just a news story. I blame OJ Simpson, it showed that $ can cure everything. Attorneys were the start of the decline. My coffee is too hot, I just won 10 million $, it is pathetic that no one take responsibility for their actions, ever, not our government (Benghazi), not companies, not people. It is just really sad.
I agree 100% with you KWhite. I would ask you and David to please google Agenda 21. 1992 UN Conference on environment and Development. Look at Wikipedia description. Pay close attention to the US section. This will make the hair on your backside stand strait out!!!! George Bush signed this agreement!!!! You can’t make this crap up. Think about how far this has evolved in the last 20 years. Look at the players named. Think about the implications on currencies and the current currency war that is ongoing. This is no joke. If you have read even the small Wikipedia description of agenda 21, must put you into a very small group of people that have even taken the time to have some insight into the globalist agenda.
For those who want to purchase real estate, and both, seller and buyer, are from the U.S. the solution would be to keep the money in the U.S. Until now buyers have sent money to C.R. and after the closing money was sent back to the U.S. Since the transaction is getting so difficult, we have had cases where the money was kept in the U.S. where it went from the buyers to the sellers account. Only money for fees was sent to C.R. Attorneys can fly to the U.S. to pick up signatures (in the higher price ranges it may be worth it), or Escrow companies can be hired. Another advantage when no money shows up on C.R. accounts, nobody knows the real sales price. Transfer taxes can be kept low, like in the old days.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
