Currency re-vamp

[The_Doc_Man]

ANYTHING can be used for good, evil, or neutral activities. Guns, drugs, needles (sewing OR hypodermic), apple pie, ...

What bothers me is that folks continuously confuse the object with an action based on that object.

Let's go back to first principles. According to the Great Forgiver, a stone cannot get into heaven. Why? Because it has no choices. It is the choices that we make that define us. A gun has no choice. It is pointed by its holder; the trigger is pulled by its holder; the bullet goes where it was aimed; it expends its energy where it meets resistance. Guns are not evil things. PEOPLE are evil things.

When you take away guns, you don't take away evil. BUT by taking away guns you make it APPEAR to others that you have done something good. To which I say, until you can address the evil PEOPLE in the world, you have done nothing. GET OFF the gun control kick and look at what you are really saying. By advocating gun control you show that you are TOO LAZY to address the real problem.

In a perfect world, there would be no crime and no need for guns except as recreational devices. Skeet/target shooting and the like.

In a SLIGHTLY less than perfect world, everyone carries a gun and every evil person knows it. Therefore, the evil they would perpetrate is stayed by fear.

In the world YOU are trying to build, evil persons with guns know they will not be opposed with deadly force. So they do what they damned well please. Including express all the violence within themselves. Because they see themselves as the wolves among the sheep.

I personally see a world with lots of guns as somewhere in between the world you want to build and the ideal world.

By the way, that's one of the reasons why I feel it is safe to say that worship must be down world-wide. Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

 

[dan-cat]

I personally see a world with lots of guns as somewhere in between the world you want to build and the ideal world.

I have to say that I don't share your vision of this fear-based utopia.

 

[bwrobel]

how about a world with great gun safety and awareness? that's what I'm talking about

 

[Rich]

Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't.

I think you need to go back a little here Danny, would you like a list of the posts here that said he did, even before Col. joined the forum.
Please do a little research before jumping in with such rash remarks

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Firstly, thanks for the insults. I don't consider myself or my thought processes to be 'lazy', as I believe my arguments have shown. I won't bother asking why you dropped down to the level of name-calling, as there are already too many threads that have degenerated to that level.

Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

When? At what time ever in human history was violence not committed?

Even if that statement were true, surely it only applies if the God or Gods you happen to worship say that killing is wrong? What about the thuggee sect? Unquestionably religious people who embrace killing, as they see a valid reason for it, within the context of their own religion. Muslim fundamentalists? The KKK? Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland?

Perhaps you mean everyone should be made to have the same religious beliefs? Christianity, for example? 'Cos removing 'wrong' religions has been tried before, with little success.

Also, some of the worst atrocities ever committed have also been carried out by Christians who believed they were doing God's will (the Inquisition, for example). There is little evidence that believing in 'God's vengeance' or whatever you wish to call it, will, on it's own, lead someone to be less violent. Least of all if you also believe that the people you are killing are dying at his behest. The best you can hope for in the real world is to minimize the damage that violent people can do. Controlling the availablity of weaponry is one way to do this.

Another way, as you suggested, would be to arm everyone. That would work up to a point. That point being the second that someone develops a bigger gun or lashes out in a fit of passion (when fear of consequences doesn't enter into it). Did the arms race and the cold war just pass you by? The East and the West weren't peaceful because of any love or fear of some divine entity. It was fear of each other, plain and simple, and if one side had been able to find a foolproof way to kill the other there were plenty of lunatics who would have taken it. Arming everyone doesn't cure anything, it makes people more inventive and raises the scale of the problem.

 

[Rich]

Just where the burden of proof lay.

The burden of proof lies with those who use their belief in fairy tales as a justifiable excuse for their actions.
Now why does the name GWB spring straight to mind?

 

[dan-cat]

I think you need to go back a little here Danny, would you like a list of the posts here that said he did, even before Col. joined the forum.
Please do a little research before jumping in with such rash remarks

If you could provide the posts contained within this thread, then that would be, how can I put it, relevant

 

[dan-cat]

Now why does the name GWB spring straight to mind?

...because you're obsessed with him

 

[Rich]

If you could provide the posts contained within this thread then that would be, how can I put it, relevant

It was an open conversation, I don't see where Colin said it was restricted to this thread, do you?

 

[Rich]

[ Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?

Does that taming include the natives who just happened to get wiped out on the way by gun ho lust?
Still you never know in a couple of centuries you may all become civillised

 

[dan-cat]

It was an open conversation, I don't see where Colin said it was restricted to this thread, do you?

I don't see where Colin or yourself have ever restricted yourselves to the thread at hand. Short attention spans perhaps

 

[Rich]

...because you're obsessed with him

Oddly enough no, and within the context of this thread, it was because he stated quite openly that God was on his side during the invasion of Iraq, just like every other bloody homicidal maniac throughout history.
You proove that God had a hand in it and it was his will or that he or she exists at all

 

[Tasslehoff]

Fear of God stopped folks from doing harm to others - but now it appears to me that the fear is no longer there. It must be because true belief is down. With all the negatives thereof.

I think the fear of God is down because the Church doesn't have a license to burn people anymore.

 

[dan-cat]

You proove that God had a hand in it and it was his will or that he or she exists at all

Why should I, it was Georgey's claim

 

[Rich]

Short attention spans perhaps

No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?

 

[Rich]

Why should I, it was Georgey's claim

So you don't believe it then?

 

[Bodisathva]

No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?

Uh...yes, actually. With all but the best of friends, the rule of thumb is no discussion of politics or religion and if you consider sports to be a close relative of either of the two, leave that off the table as well. (Of course, this rule normally only applies when visiting drinking establishments or activities in which alcohol will be part of the festivities)

 

[dan-cat]

No it's called the art of conversation, do you guys have a list of restricted subject matter when going out with say friends for the evening?

No, but we do consider an individual changing the topic at will to upset the flow of the evening...

 

[Rich]

No, but we do consider an individual changing the topic at will to upset the flow of the evening...

then you need to put less water in the glass

 

[dan-cat]

So you don't believe it then?

What Georgey's claim? What the hell do you think I am, brainwashed or something?