Home Forums Articles How To's FAQ Register
Go Back   Xoutpost.com > Off-topic > The Lounge
Fluid Motor Union
User Name
Password
Member List Premier Membership Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Xoutpost server transfer and maintenance is occurring....
Xoutpost is currently undergoing a planned server migration.... stay tuned for new developments.... sincerely, the management


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:39 PM
JonK's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Calio
Posts: 884
JonK is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
I love your little toy. Where can I get one? My 11 year old niece's B-day is coming up.

Looking at our declining national murder conviction rate, I am sure people like to be at giving ends, instead of receiving ends.

No pun intended! Very mature discussion on a sensitive subject. I am so proud of you all.
__________________
BMW The Ultimate Oil-Leaking Machines!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

  #52  
Old 12-27-2012, 04:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Question for those of you that would like gun control and even elimination...Why? Is it to save innocent lives?


JCL hit the nail on the head..."I've been and read it as well, to try and understand the genesis of the position that there is a right to be armed. Obviously that right is enshrined in the second amendment. But when I read it I don't think about Cowboys and Indians, I read the phrase about a 'well-regulated militia' and think about government tyranny, putting down the English kng, and so on. So what I want to know is, where is the well-regulated militia? It appears to be required in order to justify an armed populace. And that regulation by militia leaders would presumably include putting those that don't keep their guns secured into stocks every now and then. Those that support gun ownership would appear to have an obligation to participate in that well-regulated militia. And by extension, if they believe the government of the day is not responsive to their desires, they have an obligation to take those guns and overthrow the government. Is that the country that 21st century Americans want?"

Unfortunately, the word militia has a negative connotation today...it implies "extremist" or "radical right wing". Amazing how a system can turn things inside out!

When FEMA teaches that Christians and the Founding Fathers of America are/were terrorists...we've got big problems. Fed training video: Christian and founding fathers called terrorists - YouTube

But here's the best...

Gandhi has written about self defense and training in arms...Prison Planet.com » Gandhi advocated the right to bear arms; use of ‘violence’ to defend innocents against bullying, oppression


Here are a few quotes from the above article...

“I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword.

"When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

"Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor". – M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-27-2012, 09:15 PM
JCL's Avatar
JCL JCL is offline
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 11,853
JCL will become famous soon enoughJCL will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynashracing View Post
It seems to me that using Ghandi's writings to justify gun ownership is the height of cowardice. It twists Ghandi's teachings to suit a narrow view.

"Ghandi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way, to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second was to stand and fight by force of arms. Ghandi said that this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was the best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight by non-violent means."

Full essay here: Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths (Gandhi, Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, Non-Violence, Satyagraha)

So it appears that Alex Jones et al stopped reading partway through, and thus twisted the message. For some reason I am not surprised.
__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver

2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCL View Post
It seems to me that using Ghandi's writings to justify gun ownership is the height of cowardice. It twists Ghandi's teachings to suit a narrow view.

"Ghandi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way, to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second was to stand and fight by force of arms. Ghandi said that this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was the best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight by non-violent means."

Full essay here: Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths (Gandhi, Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, Non-Violence, Satyagraha)

So it appears that Alex Jones et al stopped reading partway through, and thus twisted the message. For some reason I am not surprised.
I don't see it as being twisted. I would prefer the third way as would most. However, there are violent people who wield violent weapons...I don't think the third way will work for those individuals/govt's/countries. Hence the reason for arms training.

Gandhi also said the following. Maybe you have commentary for it as well?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Ghandi
"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446


I posed a question as to why people want to confiscate or limit guns. Anyone care to respond?
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-27-2012, 10:45 PM
TerminatorX5's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Stafford, VA & Harrisburg, PA - USA
Posts: 5,735
TerminatorX5 is on a distinguished road
in the absence of firearms one can take on an offender with bare hands even if the offender has cold weapon - I had taken on person with a knife with my bare hands and have a scar to prove it ( I was stupid, young kid, but there was no other choice, either live as a jackal with tail between legs or die as a lion... not that I am a lion, it was still stupid, i could have talked him out of it, but I was young... and stupid)... if he had a handgun or any other firearm, and I had a firearm (and you can see that I am not shying away from guns, I used an AK-74 when I was in service), I would have thought hard before engaging the enemy...

It is that bravada speaks so loud: "if it were I, I would have kicked his a$$, I would have done this and that. that bastard would have no chance if I were there"... nonsense - by the same token, our highly trained military personnel with all the intel and field situation awareness would have eliminated all the Talibs... which is not the case, as we all know... In many cases a non-lethal response is sufficient to subdue the offender in a non-military environment...
in that case, we should abolish the police, the sheriff department and the whole plethora of other law enforcement agencies, and return to the old days of militia - which brings us back to the very beginning.. the 2nd amendment...

These replies of keeping the arms, the right to bear arms - they underline the notion that there is NO legitimate law enforcement offered by the duly elected government, or that the response offered by the law enforcement is not adequate and that there is a valid need to carry arms in order to defend yourself from alleged criminals, as the government has no ability to do so...

think about a road rage, when two otherwise perfectly normal, sane, law-abiding citizens with clean bill of health and with a duly registered guns get so enraged at each other... Neither is a criminal, neither is a looney-case, both are respected members of society... but... something went wrong, one of them felt threatened for whatever reason, pulled a gun, the other one saw the gun, pulled his gun, in the result we have 5 innocent bystanders dead, both guys are totally dumbfounded in the police custody...
now, think if they had no firearms... I personally was deputized by one of our agents in NYC during UNGA 61 when two limo drivers did not settle on some food from a street vendor, and one of them went for a tire iron... yeah, someone could have been killed but the case ended with some bruised egos and couple real bruises... While our agent held back one guy, i held back the other guy, with the tire iron... if the llimo driver had a pistol - i'd be far away... and the crowd would have been long gone too... no pistol = street entertainment... lol.. nobody dead...


also, i have a feeling that I will be unsubscribing from this thread real soon - it is going off on some empty tangent... deja vu...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-27-2012, 11:22 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 215
tynashracing is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 View Post
in the absence of firearms one can take on an offender with bare hands even if the offender has cold weapon - I had taken on person with a knife with my bare hands and have a scar to prove it ( I was stupid, young kid, but there was no other choice, either live as a jackal with tail between legs or die as a lion... not that I am a lion, it was still stupid, i could have talked him out of it, but I was young... and stupid)... if he had a handgun or any other firearm, and I had a firearm (and you can see that I am not shying away from guns, I used an AK-74 when I was in service), I would have thought hard before engaging the enemy...

It is that bravada speaks so loud: "if it were I, I would have kicked his a$$, I would have done this and that. that bastard would have no chance if I were there"... nonsense - by the same token, our highly trained military personnel with all the intel and field situation awareness would have eliminated all the Talibs... which is not the case, as we all know... In many cases a non-lethal response is sufficient to subdue the offender in a non-military environment...
in that case, we should abolish the police, the sheriff department and the whole plethora of other law enforcement agencies, and return to the old days of militia - which brings us back to the very beginning.. the 2nd amendment...

These replies of keeping the arms, the right to bear arms - they underline the notion that there is NO legitimate law enforcement offered by the duly elected government, or that the response offered by the law enforcement is not adequate and that there is a valid need to carry arms in order to defend yourself from alleged criminals, as the government has no ability to do so...

think about a road rage, when two otherwise perfectly normal, sane, law-abiding citizens with clean bill of health and with a duly registered guns get so enraged at each other... Neither is a criminal, neither is a looney-case, both are respected members of society... but... something went wrong, one of them felt threatened for whatever reason, pulled a gun, the other one saw the gun, pulled his gun, in the result we have 5 innocent bystanders dead, both guys are totally dumbfounded in the police custody...
now, think if they had no firearms... I personally was deputized by one of our agents in NYC during UNGA 61 when two limo drivers did not settle on some food from a street vendor, and one of them went for a tire iron... yeah, someone could have been killed but the case ended with some bruised egos and couple real bruises... While our agent held back one guy, i held back the other guy, with the tire iron... if the llimo driver had a pistol - i'd be far away... and the crowd would have been long gone too... no pistol = street entertainment... lol.. nobody dead...


also, i have a feeling that I will be unsubscribing from this thread real soon - it is going off on some empty tangent... deja vu...

No doubt hot heads will use a weapon of convenience and regret their action later...if left alive to regret.

It's really the innocent lives that are lost that cause us much grief...would you agree?

Ha, nice jab at the end. No worries...I'm about done with this thread...just one more point to make.
__________________
2002 4.4 Sport
134k miles and counting
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-30-2012, 03:02 PM
noncom23's Avatar
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Big D
Posts: 6,521
noncom23 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
Obviously this is an extremely complex problem and I am of the firm belief that it has very little to do with guns. They are just the instrumentality. The root of the problem is the inability of some people to cope with life, their depression, their sorry lot in life, or whatever. It astounds me that someone who is mad at Mommy, or got fired from a job, or just feels like the world shits on them that the response deemed most appropriate is to kill innocents or anyone at all for that matter. Before we even get to the issue of gun control I think the bigger issue is this and more broadly, society in general, and some people's view that responding with unspeakable violence is appropriate.

Mental illness is a tricky thing as far as gun control goes. There have been calls for the mentally ill to be prohibited from owning or possessing guns. Fair enough but first, what exactly the definition of "mentally ill"? Secondly, how is it to be determined that once someone is mentally ill that they not get a gun? There is not currently and possibly no way to integrate mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment with a background check. I think there are practical impediments to that as well as federal and state privacy laws concerning medical records. Also, how would it ever be recorded, if it could at all, if someone seeks psychological counseling for dark thoughts? They could go under a false name and unless there was the need for a Tarasoff warning, the psychologist would never report such contact. The bottom line is that creating some kind of database of the "mentally ill" is near impossible. Even being able to keep them from buying guns is difficult and when a mentally ill person can murder the owner and take her guns, access cannot be prevented.

As far as so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, they are menacing and scary looking but are not the problem. Since the Clinton ban sunsetted and such weapons and magazines were again legal federally (but still banned by many states), there was no increase in crime. In fact, I can tell you as a criminal justice professional that very, very few violent crimes if any are committed with such weapons. I'm talking about the crime that happens every day, not the tragic events like Newtown or Colorado. Furthermore, bans on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines already exist in many states. As a matter of fact, Connecticut has a ban on "assault weapons".

There are millions of guns and millions of "assault weapons" and even more millions of high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding owners. It may seem trite but it is true that it must be considered that the vast, vast majority of these guns never kill anything more than paper targets. I know that at moments like now when the world mourns 27 lives lost that even one "assault weapon" seems like too many but the fact that millions are owned without lethal results cannot be ignored. The suggestion to take them way from lawful owners is downright unconstitutional. The United States Constitution forbids uncompensated takings from private citizens, whether it be a gun or your land. Taking in that manner is un-American. Couple that with the Second Amendment and that idea goes nowhere.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." I totally agree with this. I do not envision vigilantes slinging guns all over town looking for a gunfight. The notion of armed police in schools is not new at all. Many schools have "School Resource Officers". It was mentioned that Columbine had such SROs in the schools and that didn't help. Perhaps it did help to prevent even more death. Perhaps if Adam Lanza was confronted by a police officer or other armed person he would have not killed as many people or at all. Perhaps if James Holmes had encountered armed resistance he would have retreated. I have heard from law enforcement sources that the shooter in the mall in Oregon was confronted by an armed citizen whereupon the shooter took his own life, resulting in two tragic deaths but it could have been far, far worse.

The thing that we should all agree on is that these mass killers are cowards. Why else would they do what they do? Why else do they choose the most helpless of victims? Because they are cowards who do not expect resistance, if there was someone there, a good guy with a gun, if nothing else, the killer's focus changes from offensive to defensive. He could be distracted enough to allow for people to escape. He could be forced to retreat in the face of live fire in his direction. He could be neutralized. The notion that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is stating a simple fact. You do not repel a gun attack with a stern finger wag or good intentions. The simple fact is that to stop a lethal attack requires use of lethal force. If you don't like that, too bad. That's how it's done. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It is the truth. I have participated in "active shooter" training at schools to prepare for such events. It's an unfortunate reality we have to do this but I can tell you, it is necessary and when you're in the heat of the moment you realize what it takes to end such an attack and it requires enormous violence of action to end.

Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a little one and every time I hear the news or read of the murders it makes me sick to my stomach and brings tears to my eyes. I am also a gun owner and work in law enforcement. I believe in peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. I see the results of what criminals do to law abiding people. Criminals are not stopped by any rules, waiting periods, or background checks. Criminals do whatever they want and hope that their victims do not have the will or the means to defend themselves.

So what do I think would help? I believe that we do have to have a frank discussion of the issues and chief among them is what our society values and how our society has changed. Is it video games? Movies? Television? I don't have the answer to that but as I stated earlier, we have to address the fact that some people choose to solve their problems with violence. I believe in background checks. It is an overused generalization that there are gunshow loopholes and that you can buy a gun on the Internet without any checks. There are some states that are more lax on background checks but by and large, most states have background checks in place, even at gunshows. Buying guns on the Internet does not mean it arrives on your doorstep. Purchases like this must be completed at a local federally licensed dealer. The Internet seller must ship to the dealer where the buyer will complete paperwork and any background checks. I have made two such purchases. So, I would agree that background checks are a good idea across the board.

The biggest issue is the mental health issue. It seems inevitable that after such a shooting that the shooter is remembered as being "odd" or having some sort of mental instability. Why is it always after the fact? Well, is it realistic to preemptively detain someone because a classmate thinks he is strange and possible dangerous? I don't think we can do that. Mental healthcare is woefully underfunded and too few resources exist in general much less for those who might be prone to a mass shooting. The question would be how we would improve those resources and how we would identify those who need it to prevent shootings. Is it possible? I sure hope so.

For those who do not understand why we own guns, that is not for you to understand just like it is not for me to understand why you like a certain kind of music, food, vacation destination, or the way you choose to vote. Your not understanding why gun ownership is enjoyed does not mean it should be abolished. Saying that there is no purpose to owning an AR-15 style rifle and high capacity magazines is your opinion and I would beg to differ. I find I have many purposes to owning such rifles, the relevance of which you would disagree but none the less, it is my right to own them. Your disagreement is of no consequence to me just as you might dismiss some of my views that do not concur with yours.

One final point: My daughter goes to school. It is terrifying to think that someone would harm her or the other children. That is a reality whether it be a gunman or a kidnapper. The world is a pretty crappy place sometimes. Do I want to go to the school and stand guard? Absolutely! Would I be armed while doing so? Absolutely! If a bad guy with a gun were to visit, a good guy with a gun would try to stop him.
Well put. I totally agree.
__________________
Mike F
Current: 2017 Grand Cherokee HEMI
2017 Kawasaki ZX-14r
2017 Harley RG Ultra
2017 Harley Fatboy S
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-30-2012, 08:56 PM
Thunder22's Avatar
Wait... what?
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NY/NJ/LI
Posts: 11,157
Thunder22 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by blondboinsd View Post
Nobody Is trying to take all guns away but it's high time we ban assault weapons and large scale ammunition. There is no logical reason for someone to have it. Period
That's just your opinion, and expressing it so childishly doesn't help anyone see your side of the discussion. Period. ; )
__________________
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-31-2012, 09:33 AM
brian5's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 2,925
brian5 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder22 View Post
That's just your opinion, and expressing it so childishly doesn't help anyone see your side of the discussion. Period. ; )
Unfortunately, I think the majority of those with guns in USA need to have the sentences kept short and simple so that they can be understood. I don't think that they are generally on this forum though...
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-31-2012, 10:32 AM
rebound's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: You don't rate to know
Posts: 2,296
rebound is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian5 View Post
Unfortunately, I think the majority of those with guns in USA need to have the sentences kept short and simple so that they can be understood. I don't think that they are generally on this forum though...
Stereotype much?
__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric5273
You have to get over the whole 9/11 thing buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Churchill
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:17 PM.
vBulletin, Copyright 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved. Xoutpost.com is a private enthusiast site not associated with BMW AG.
The BMW name, marks, M stripe logo, and Roundel logo as well as X3, X5 and X6 designations used in the pages of this Web Site are the property of BMW AG.
This web site is not sponsored or affiliated in any way with BMW AG or any of its subsidiaries.