elohiym
Well-known member
The "death culture" develops in a culture that has sacralized the Second Amendment.
I disagree. The "death culture" develops in a culture that is willing to ignore and trample on the rights of others.
The "death culture" develops in a culture that has sacralized the Second Amendment.
Non violent men have always had to fend off those who attack them. It's not like they enjoy doing so. The "ugly truth" is there are evil men who walk among us.
I'm averse to hiding warfare behind moral platitudes like "self-defense".
How can you tell they are evil? You must be measuring them by some standard. :think:
I don't want to waste my time. You should always check out what is said on your own--if you are curious.really?
it worked in poland?
it worked in the ghettos?
do tell
Gays and Jews are NOT "elites impersonating the oppressed."I disagree. The "death culture" develops in a culture that is willing to ignore and trample on the rights of others.
If you cannot be accountable for your own violence, revenge fantasies and scapegoating of others, then there is really no point in continuing to talk to you--is there?OK. I don't think so, but OK.
Do you have a source?
If what you feel is actually true, then I agree with you, but I don't think it is true.
It wasn't an accident, but was probably in response to the Supreme Court's decision which explicitly ruled that the R.K.B.A. has to do with self-defense, and has precisely nothing to with involvement or lack thereof in any militia.
And so therefore, that is actually what the Second Amendment says, Constitutionally. It doesn't matter what you or I or the NRA thinks that it says.
It just so happens that the Supreme Court has ruled that it says what the NRA says that it says.
DJ
1.2
In 1989-90, 14 nations underwent nonviolent revolutions--and they were all successful but Red China.We do have a long history in this country of viewing not just violence as a first solution to interpersonal problems and conflict, but massive violence; maximum force.
A classic example is that of the proverbial movie cowboy "Al" walking into the saloon, and there cowboy "Bob" calls him "a lowdown yella skunk", and then they both jerk their guns and shoot, each intending to erase the other from the face of the Earth. It's an idiotically extreme response to the most minor of conflicts, but such absurd extremism has been written into the American consciousness as normal, and even heroic, by countless films and books with very similar scenes. And we see this extremist nonsense being expressed all the time in this country whenever we find ourselves at odds with some other culture or political system. Our first response seems always to be a desire to annihilate them from the face of the Earth. And never to 'work it out', because that's perceived as cowardice.
It's a bit of cultural insanity that we still have not yet acknowledged in ourselves, and so cannot overcome. But it is at the heart of why we are so violent compared to most other peoples of the world. And why we think we just have to have guns around us all the time.
In 1989-90, 14 nations underwent nonviolent revolutions--and they were all successful but Red China.
Britain's India colony of 300 million people was liberated nonviolently at a cost of 8,000 lives.
If only we would at least TRY to take the nonviolent route, first. And choose to see it as the more courageous option, I think we would be a far better nation, and a far more secure and peaceful people.In 1989-90, 14 nations underwent nonviolent revolutions--and they were all successful but Red China.
Jesus and the great prophets of the Hebrew Bible were realists.
Their insight about the weakness of the sword is borne out every day.
Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela have shown us the power of nonviolent resistance. Theologian and peace activist Gene Sharp has listed nearly 200 nonviolent actions around the world, but are ignored because news is addicted to the flash of conflict and war.
Britain's India colony of 300 million people was liberated nonviolently at a cost of 8,000 lives. France's Algerian Colony was liberated by violence and left one million dead.
So how'd that Bush-Cheney operation work out? ISIS, anyone?
Building a bunker to hide from the bombs of attackers is defensive. Attacking the airfields from which their bombers come is not defensive, it's offensive.
I only offered some historical data and statistics that any objective observer could agree with.
I cannot speak for the dead, nor will I. You and I must be unflinchingly honest: there is no way we can ever know what anyone seemed or did not seem about anything at the moment of their death.i'll bet it didn't seem "nonviolent" to those 8000 dead people
Nonviolent protest is part of our national DNA. It is always preferable to scapegoating others and solving problems by other means rather than giving in passively or fighting back aggressively.If only we would at least TRY to take the nonviolent route, first. And choose to see it as the more courageous option, I think we would be a far better nation, and a far more secure and peaceful people.
Actually, it does. And we can know this by recognizing the differences in our possible response. If someone attacks me, I can fend off their attack without attacking the attacker. Or I can attack the attacker. I have this choice because these are two DIFFERENT courses of active response available to me. One is defensive, and the other is offensive. And it's important that we understand that these two different courses of action exist, and that we do have a choice in how we respond.Attacking airfields is defensive, just as punching a mugger is defensive.
Going on to attack civilian areas or invading to hold on to the territory of the aggressor is offensive, just as chasing after the mugger you have beaten off and shooting him in the back goes beyond the reasonable force allowed for defensive purposes.
Using aggression in your defence does not make your actions offensive unless you are trying to do more than defend yourself and take something from the attacker.
If only we would at least TRY to take the nonviolent route, first.
The "death culture" develops in a culture that has sacralized the Second Amendment.
I disagree. The "death culture" develops in a culture that is willing to ignore and trample on the rights of others.
Gays and Jews are NOT "elites impersonating the oppressed."
If only we would at least TRY to take the nonviolent route, first. And choose to see it as the more courageous option, I think we would be a far better nation, and a far more secure and peaceful people.
Police action is not intended to "win." It's intended to keep the peace.Those were wars, too, but we engaged in them without any intention of winning them. So we lost. And it should be a lesson to us never to engage in warfare "defensively" again (meaning without the intention of winning).
I'm accountable for my own violence.If you cannot be accountable for your own violence, revenge fantasies and scapegoating of others, then there is really no point in continuing to talk to you--is there?
The OP is not about homosexuals or people of Jewish ethnicity. My point wasn't about them. Your response to my point doesn't make sense to me.