Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Gee…. heaven forbid we should secure our border and make this less of an issue. If we would restrict the movement of drugs and guns across border I don’t believe we would have them all congregating at the border. This is the front gate to the land of prosperity, haven’t you heard. USA will give you free food, free health care, free education, 3 years of unemployment income, and you don’t even have to pay taxes. Come one come all!
I believe a larger concern will be how the USA reacts to the construction of Russian /Iranian missile sites in Venezuela. This is coming and I don’t believe we will take it lying down. Then again this administration will probably borrow the money from China and then loan it to Chavez to fund it.Sprite said;
“Spin it any way you wish, the ultimate decision to put on a uniform and kill is made by individuals. Shame on you for blaming a government. Governments are a known abuser of people and the only way they can get away with wars is by the acquiescence of INDIVIDUALS who are fanatical patriots or apathetic citizens. I have no compulsion to honor weak-minded or despicable behavior by others.”You need to try a little harder, you seem to spew nothing but hate and discontent.
And upon the complete Islamination of western Europe, who would you have stand in the face of Sharia.
I think the article was informative. I would rather have some knowledge than be ignorantly unaware. Some how ” I told you so…” will echo a little hollow should the time come. Let us pray we never see the day.
No, they will let you leave you just will not be able to take your money with you, and of course you must check in every year with your tax payment. You best make any financial moves soon before they confiscate everyone’s 401K to support all the union and government pensions, including Michigan’s.
Didn’t Chavez just nationalize 4 oil platforms owned by US/Foreign companies. Hard to believe the US Administration would stand up against anyone other than its own citizenry .
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)
I’ve been to CR 6 times in the last two years and have used Economy each time with great results out of both San Jose and Liberia. They have a satellite office in Nosara as well. I’ve used the little Dihatsu’s (real work horse for it’s size), Rav 4’s Motero’s and recently the 15 passenger van. no problems and quick turn around.
Interesting how the thread went from robbery ,theft and assault to why didn’t the victim have health insurance for heaven sake. Shame on him.
I hear ya. And I acknowledge that most wars have been faught along religious fault lines. But I would put forth that a moral conscience is only derived from moral teachings.And as George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable results…..And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”
Reason by itself can not explain reason. Science cannot, by itself, explain why there is science. Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, the existence of the universe, the existence of life, but they can not explain why they exist. They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they can not explain why there is consciousness.
Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it can not address the spiritual nature of man. In this respect, science is a dead end around which the Atheist refuses to reason.
Reason itself informs man of its own limitation and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself
