quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Unless you have seen the face of war and experienced it first hand then STFU. I was involved in the first gulf war and the shite I saw would make your ass shite the bed. Yes some of the returning people come back from war pretty screwed up. Why do they?? Cause war is not like in the movies, its not like a fucking video game, the sounds, sights and the smell of war is something that will never leave me or the others.

As if this should be an excuse to unload on civilians.

The media gives the military a glossed over look. A catchy package insures someone will buy your product.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Mind control is either a good or bad tool depending on the result that you need: Want to quit smoking or make someone homicidal? Want to make someone buy your product or give away their liberties? Use mind control.

quote:

However, this behaivor should be dealt with swiftly. But most of you have no idea what it feels like to be in a real war. I still will never forget the smell of burning charred flesh or the smell of decaying bodies we found in Kuwait of the little kids that the Iraq Army threw in a hot 2x2 metal boxes just to punish thier parents. THis poor Marine probrobly came back home with issues, but most of the time our goverment doesn't give a flip about them after they are used up.

No reason for this Marine to be given the velvet glove treatment.

quote:

Alot of people like to point out returning soldiers mistakes, but it is the goverment not the soldier that makes the decision were to go and who to fight. Pawns. So do not take it out on a poor soldier that has screwed up, it is not his fault. I seriously doubt that he wanted to kill someone, if he did, he would of. He made a bad decision and now he has to live with it.

Let a jury decide his fate. He decided the fate of his neighbors already. Now let them decide his. The "woe is him" angle is not going to cut it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I think jumping to the conclusion that all servicemen are bad and messed up because they served in a war that you're against is rather selfserving in terms of making an argument, no?

People make decisions that they know bring consequences. This man knew he was going to be a killer in a war. No excuse for him.

I am not letting this one bad apple spoil the barrel though.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Like somehow we are supposed to understand that this kind of behavior is ok coming from "The Marine of the Year". Just where are those gun-control nuts now? You mean to tell me it's not okay for people to own a gun to protect themselves from people like him who still think they are in the sand?

Wtf, I think you're actually making a case against yourself by bringing gun-control debate into this. So, we should have all guns for the eventuality we might have to protect ourselves from "marine of the year" nutjobs? What are the odds of this, even in an America full of traumatised people who went to war?

On the other hand, I think it makes more sense to ban guns so those nutjobs don't get so easily access to them.

Even then, if you got a gun to protect from this guy, what would you do, shoot back and kill him? Is that good for your country, have more guns so people can kill each other more easily? (I know this isn't exactly the deepest argument, but it's 2:43 AM here, can't organize my thoughts in a better way)

Mind you, I'm not debating at all the situation of this guy, I'm calling him "nutjob" but I'm sure the horrors he lived was the factors that messed him up..

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 Is that good for your country, have more guns so people can kill each other more easily?

Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...).

Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all aggressors, foreign OR domestic ).

Last edited by donnybrasco on Aug-17-2005 at 06:28

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...). Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all agressors, foreign OR domestic ).

Very well stated

1st: All of those who haven't smelled human (dried, rotting) blood, seen corpses w/o a head or worse (with head, but no face): STFU
this does funny things with yr head, I can tell u.
it is the responsability of yr government to prevent shite like this from happening.It looks like they have other priorities though. (like preparing (through media, shame on them) for another invasion.

any of you know that your governement passed a law (or how do you call that) to invade HOLLAND???? not recognising the international Tribunal in The Hague. (if your GI's would e.g. rape a innocent women in Irak, the would have to answer there... )
I'm waiting for the day that they invade us for another thing like weed or abortion....

I have only one thing to say: solve your own internal issues before (violantly) forcing your way of life to others. (who do not want it!!!)

as far as that marine is concerned... prepping corpses in Irak should be reason enough for psychiatric help when returned... but nooooo! this is a clean war, your GI's do not suffer. (and if they do: they're tough!!!) BARF!!! every war is ugly. every war has casualties on both sides...

as for the right to bear arms: please do.... (please, please, please DO!!!) if all loony's shoot eachother all wise will survive...

I have no intention of insulting anybody, but if I did:I'm NOT sorry
and for the rest of you...: talking (writing) abt it never killed anybody.... discussion creates great minds. (or was it the other way around...??? (i shouldn't smoke i/t morning:-))))
:-)

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Well, not to turn this in to a gun debate, but more un-armed people have died at the hands their own governments throughout history then were EVER killed by a few "nutjobs" and armed criminals (think Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc...). Given these stats, I'd rather take my chances at being a victim of random crime, versus one of genocide (hence, the true meaning of our 2nd Amedment is about protection from all aggressors, foreign OR domestic ).

So, you want a gun in case an Hitler-like dictator invades America and comes to kill you?

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 So, you want a gun in case an Hitler-like dictator invades America and comes to kill you?

Invades or starts from within...all those on this board who are so afraid of GW becoming this would understand that I'd think.

Hey, I didn't write the Constitution, but that's what the 2nd Am. is about...if you've ever read up on it, you'd know. I also happen to agree with it. Anyone who thinks things like Dictatorships "can't happen here" is a moron with no appreciation for history, or our founding father's who understood this concept as they broke away from England's "Royal" Dictatorship.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Invades or starts from within...all those on this board who are so afraid of GW becoming this would understand that I'd think. Hey, I didn't write the Constitution, but that's what the 2nd Am. is about...if you've ever read up on it, you'd know. I also happen to agree with it. Anyone who thinks things like Dictatorships "can't happen here" is a moron with no appreciation for history, or our founding father's who understood this concept as they broke away from England's "Royal" Dictatorship.

Ok, I would be worried too if i lived in America as the way Bush connects religion to the state freaks me out a bit. However, i can't really understand your logic, it feels too much paranoid. In the possibility of a massive turn over of the situation in America, Bush isn't going to come to your house to kill you personally. No dictator rules by himself, they need to have military power that backs them up. Owning a gun doesn't really give you any protection of yourself against big military power.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by paranoik0 Owning a gun doesn't really give you any protection of yourself against big military power.

It's been proven throughout history that a small-armed populace can overcome a larger military.

U.S in Viet Nam, Soviets in Afgahnastan, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising , etc...

In Switzerland, they have an assualt rifle in every home by law! Staying armed to the teeth is how they stay Nuetral...did anyone here just think that the world respects their nuetrality for no reason other than because they say they're neutral? No, it's because they back it up with arms!

You want to subject yourself to the law of averages throughout history which show that FAR more people are killed by their own governments than are ever killed by random armed criminals, then I wish you luck. Me, I'll stay armed, thanks.

He must've been looking for job security as a mortician...


[[[smoke]]]

\'the right to bear arms\' is a terrible blight on the US constitution. is why inalienable rights should never be placed in a largely static legal framework. the founding fathers could not possibly comprehend the advances in military technology that has occurred since.

whilst i am keen to visit the US and take advantage of your laws to go to a shooting range and play with some M4s, G-36s, 249s etc, im bloody glad australia has the tight restrictions on guns that it does. a fatal shooting here makes national headlines coz its a relatively rare event. id favour safety & security over the \'right\' to carry a gun any day.

but the US constitution has made it impossible to ever allow proper gun control, let alone enforce it and remove the thousands of weapons in criminal hands across the country.

___________________

quote:

...the founding fathers could not possibly comprehend the advances in military technology that has occurred since.

First off, see above post re: the right to bear arms.

Second off, it stands to reason that when the right to bear arms was written in to the Constitution, Flint-Lock rifles WERE the "advanced military technology" of the day. Civilans owned the same small arms as the military.

Today, a fully automaitc M-16 is not even legal to own by civilians (except by special license, and these are rare)...so right there, the right to bear arms has in fact, been infringed.

Tanks, Aircraft, Self-propelled grenades, rockets, hand grenades, and other weapons like these did not exist back then...and NO civilians today can own these weapons. So by definition, today's civilian "Militia", as it were, is no where near armed like our Founding Fathers were, relative to the military of today. To imply that a few civilians owning semi-automatic rifles with clips is somehow the same as a fully armed modern military is ludicrous.

Where you go wrong is in believing our liberal media's hype about the "rampant gun violence" in America. It's bullshit! You are MUCH more likely to die in car crashes and other, even MORE random accidents than you are by criminal mis-use of a gun.

What amazes me is how so many of you don't trust your governments, yet you're willing to turn over TOTAL CONTROL to them! And you say Americans are dumb for not wanting to do the same??