gun question.

Anon

QuestionAuthority wrote:

do you honestly think they have enough personnel to declare martial law in America? My neighbor is a state patrol officer.. after talking to him last weekend, as he just got off his 14 hr shift he told me they are at the lowest staff they have ever had.. due to budget cuts. The state cannot afford to keep patrol officers. Sorry.. I just dont see it as a possibility of martial law being declared in the United States.

But then again.. just my opinion.

I mentioned my same concern in an earlier post. All the essential services personnel are already working insane hours under difficult conditions. Where's all the extra man power going to come from. It's just not there.

the wolf

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I mentioned my same concern in an earlier post. All the essential services personnel are already working insane hours under difficult conditions. Where's all the extra man power going to come from. It's just not there.

read this ! Please !! its from the Army Times ! i have two friends that are in this brigade!
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

catefrances

the wolf wrote:

if you read this you will get the Army's offical stance on this.

no matter the reason, its still the first time EVER that this has happened.

this comes from the Army times.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

im not just making this shit up. im just saying what we are being told is maybe not the full truth. i actually have two friends in this unit.
one is very unhappy with his new assignment. thats all he would say about it.

please dont think that i think youre making all this up. i dont. like you im trying to make sense of it. but unlike you im trying to do so from a distance.

this bit is interesting:
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

the wolf

catefrances wrote:

please dont think that i think youre making all this up. i dont. like you im trying to make sense of it. but unlike you im trying to do so from a distance.

this bit is interesting:
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

thank you for at least reading it. im not saying the sky is falling here. this all started as a "what if question" and got blown way overboard. i then felt the need to defend my OP. which then led to me saying why i defend it blah blah blah. i really feel like im catching shit for asking a "what if question"

im not sayin i believe we have ML. but i HAVE researched it for my book. and what i found was shocking... at least to me. and then this happened with our troops, two of which are close friends of mine, and they cant comment on it to me. i find ............odd is all.

thats all i was trying to say the whole time.

you can all put your torches down now.

Anon

the wolf wrote:

read this ! Please !! its from the Army Times ! i have two friends that are in this brigade!
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the sensible thing to do. We need to be prepared for anything that can happen. Of course they should maintain focus and train for any possible events. What do you suggest they do when they come home from Iraq. Have a permanent vacation till we decide it's time we should fuck with some other country? Or how about they go build their own lunar lander, with blackjack and hookers? Maybe that would suit you better. No cause for hysteria then!

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved
What a good idea. Again, let's get hysterical about this too. An earthquake is coming an earthquake is coming! You get my point.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
They may be called upon..... What a surprise, we have the crappiest foreign policies going around and the rest of the world basically hate our guts, and some of you people are sitting here acting all surprised that we would even attempt to have extra resources available to manage the situation in the event that one of this things may happen. That's just common sense.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”
Thank you Col Cloutier, it makes me feel good too.

sponger

In all fairness, I spent a big chunk of my childhood living on a military base, and I never felt as though my rights were in danger of being violated. In fact, I got a lot more respect and common courtesy from the base MP's than I did from the black & whites.

dunkman

Cosmo wrote:

...
I believe we may be bearing witness to the decline of America as the world's leading Super Power. I also believe that History will record that this place and time is when we lost our grasp and the power of China rose to take our place.
Is it the end of America? NO. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago when Britania was the world's greatest Super Power. Did they disappear? NO. They remain a great country that enjoys Freedom and Democracy (they just need to let go of that bullshit figurehead Monarchy they got that the old guard is clinging to).
We have no one to blame but ourselves. Our greed and arrogance is our downfall. We were given a once in a lifetime opportunity to solidify our place as the World's Leader... a benevolent, caring Super Power who had more friends than enemies... but, we squandered it with our arrogance and self-righteousness. We **should** have... could have lead the world... but we decided to go it alone and lost the respect of both friends and enemies along the way. America has lost her way and we need to get her back on track. We may not be the leader in the future... but, it will not be the end of America... unless we let our arrogance destroy us.

what a post!

unsung

catefrances wrote:

anways if there were 3 of them, one of them would have already taken out the biggest threat(YOU) by punching you in the face whilst you slept before hogtie-ing you in another room BEFORE you were able to grab your weapon of choice.

Only IF they can get by the Rottweilers without them barking, highly doubtful that would happen though since they sleep on the floor next to the bed.

unsung

scb wrote:

Wow. So are you saying you would kill for your family but you wouldn't steal food for them if it came to that? And if you did, you should be killed?



God forbid he had climbed into my house when I had my gun, because I would probably have panicked and shot a harmless, unarmed man - my friend's son even. Regardless of legal rights, I couldn't live with myself if that happened. It's very sad to me that some people place such little value on life that they could.

One, I don't steal. I also know that it would never come to that because I'm set financially. I also have family to turn to if I really needed the help.

You say the guy was harmless, how would I know that? I'm not a mindreader how do I know his intentions? Would I shoot someone immediately? No. I'd also hold them until the police arrive. However if I was threatened by someone who said they were going to kill me or did not stop when I told them to I would use force by whatever I have to use to eliminate the threat.

There is a difference in knocking on someone's door and asking for help as opposed to breaking in at 3AM and taking things from me. I earn what I have and I'm not going to stand by and watch some society sucking leech take that from me.

69charger

dunkman wrote:

really? cos in the US alone 4 kids die per day as a result of playing with their daddy's penis... sorry i mean gun.... I say paint them yellow and put them into fruit bowls next to the bananas.. have a wee game with the kids of 'guess which one is the gun?', if they're going to shoot each other they may as well have a game out of it.

'the worst thing you can do'... hmmmm surely the worst thing you can do is leave the gun next to the TV, make them play Grand Theft Auto for 12 hours straight, watch all 3 Rambo movies back to back, give them 4 litres of Red Bull, turn them around 16 times and then point them gun and say 'hey remember that jock at school who gave you a wedgie... go find!!!' I fear that would be worse.

I took my kids up the forest last Sunday, and showed them where fish live, trees grow, had a play on the death slide, ran around in the trees and played some games... you take yours to a gun range? to show them how to kill?

its really no wonder the worlds fucked.. i'm surprised its only 4 kids a day who die..

So I take it you didn't read the rest of my post.

Great!

69charger

Cosmo wrote:

Guns are for pussies.

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

unsung

69charger wrote:

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Awesomeness.

dunkman

69charger wrote:

So I take it you didn't read the rest of my post.

Great!

obviously i did... i clearly refer to it at this point... "I took my kids up the forest last Sunday, and showed them where fish live, trees grow, had a play on the death slide, ran around in the trees and played some games... you take yours to a gun range? to show them how to kill?"

dunkman

69charger wrote:

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Sigmund Freud: America is a mistake, admittedly a gigantic mistake, but a mistake nevertheless.

dunkman

unsung wrote:

Awesomeness.

This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner:

Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.

Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud's ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture "Symbolism in Dreams" in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis on some internet forum pages

Collin

acoustic guy wrote:

I did not read others posts but I am 100% sure that many in here are against guns. I own three.
I rather have them and not need them, then need them and not have them. When I lived in Atlantic City before I was married I had some serious shit go down in my back yard with the cops and some thugs so right after that I bought my first one. Then, after being married a man broke into my home and was hiding in it when my wife came home. I was at the gym. Thank god she left shortly after and he only stole a few things and ran out. After that I bought another. The other is one I bought b/c I like it.
Its not gonna happen again to me or my family.

You bought a gun to protect yourself and your family. You were at the gym while someone could have killed or raped your wife and taken all your stuff. You were completely powerless even though you owned a gun. The situation would have been exactly the same if you had two or three guns at the time.

So you can say it's not going to happen to you and your family again, but we all know that's based on wishful thinking instead of reality. You have no control over such things, no one does.

_

unsung wrote:

One, I don't steal. I also know that it would never come to that because I'm set financially. I also have family to turn to if I really needed the help.

I said if it came to that. Saying it would never come to that is not an answer.

I'll ask again: Would you steal food to keep your family from starving if it came to that?

If not, I dont' buy your whole "I'll do what I have to do to protect my family" line. If so, how can you find fault in someone else who does the same thing?

unsung wrote:

You say the guy was harmless, how would I know that? I'm not a mindreader how do I know his intentions? Would I shoot someone immediately? No. I'd also hold them until the police arrive. However if I was threatened by someone who said they were going to kill me or did not stop when I told them to I would use force by whatever I have to use to eliminate the threat.

There is a difference in knocking on someone's door and asking for help as opposed to breaking in at 3AM and taking things from me. I earn what I have and I'm not going to stand by and watch some society sucking leech take that from me.

I understand what you're saying and I know that it's easy to feel that way. I choose to not kill people against their will, and particularly to not set myself up to kill someone who is not a threat. I guess we just disagree about that.

But the part I find sick - and this is outside the issue of protection - is your assertion that property is more valuable than life. I know this is the American Way, but I think it represents everything that is wrong with the world.

acoustic guy

My buddy is a cop, he just told me that their is a brigade in the military that will never deploy because their job is to be ready for martial law. He said he doubts it would happen but they have a contingency plan in place if it did.

the wolf

acoustic guy wrote:

My buddy is a cop, he just told me that their is a brigade in the military that will never deploy because their job is to be ready for martial law. He said he doubts it would happen but they have a contingency plan in place if it did.

thank you. this is all i was saying. this is the first time in history we have things in place like this.

acoustic guy

Collin wrote:

You bought a gun to protect yourself and your family. You were at the gym while someone could have killed or raped your wife and taken all your stuff. You were completely powerless even though you owned a gun. The situation would have been exactly the same if you had two or three guns at the time.

So you can say it's not going to happen to you and your family again, but we all know that's based on wishful thinking instead of reality. You have no control over such things, no one does.

My wife now knows how to use one first of all. And second that is a stupid reason not to own a gun. Don't own one because you might not be their to use it? Dumb.
And if it did ever happen again, and I was home, my family would be protected.
Screw me once, its your fault.
Screw me twice, its mine.