Ah, yes, the Germanic thing. Must be some truth to it.
One of my favorite expressions is "Put a gun in the hands of a German and he will turn towards France."
Posted by: shelly at May 14, 2007 07:43 AM (2nDll)
Posted by: reagan80 at May 14, 2007 09:37 AM (iXkL1)
Mighty proud of you, Annie.
Six days. Shit, I'm getting all verklempt.
Posted by: Matt at May 14, 2007 11:31 AM (10G2T)
Wouldn't the same be accomplished and more reliably if every building had at least one armed officer patrolling at ALL times? I am not suggesting that I support that idea but you gun slingers would think nothing of instituting such measures to save thirty people a year in a country of 300 million but are nonplussed each morning by 60 dead Iraqis and 3-5 GIs. Maybe there should be gun stations similar to fire extinguisher cabinets in school rooms. The teachers could be trained and given a key so they might shoot the Chos of America. A police state at home must be some kind of antidote to the fear the GWOT induces. The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism rather than allocating greater funds to increase mental health services. We know Cho was in the system and 1. Should not have been allowed to buy a gun and 2. Had social services been more proactive and had more practitioners he might have been properly treated.
The point about other means that a sicko might employ is not a strong one for gun defense nor does it convince me that this is not a particularly American phenomenon. Bombs are not effective unless they are made with some skill and are not easy to hide. Without high explosives they are pretty crappy and most pipe bomb makers only have access to gunpowder from emptying bullets or fire crackers. The Columbine kids may have had pipe bombs but it is another thing to say they would have been lethal and that the attack would have gone fwd if there were no guns available. Furthermore, bombs do not give these killers the same psychological involvement that guns do. The actual shooting is very important. A satisfying release of rage and compensation for feelings of sexual inadequacy do not come from detonating a bomb. Why do you think women so rarely commit gun crime?
Posted by: Strawman at May 14, 2007 03:43 PM (et8nf)
"We know Cho was in the system and 1. Should not have been allowed to buy a gun and 2. Had social services been more proactive and had more practitioners he might have been properly treated."
shoulda coulda woulda is exactly my point. He wasn't supposed to have a gun, yet he had two. We rely on the system to protect us and the system turns out to be incompetent. Why can't we rely on ourselves instead?
Oh I like your idea about gun stations, actually.
Posted by: annika at May 14, 2007 04:09 PM (zAOEU)
Correct as usual lady. This was the first thing I thought when I heard about the shootings.
As an eternal optomist I'd like to think there are still those who would have jumped this guy, but you may be right.
Posted by: Mike C. at May 14, 2007 04:51 PM (2nDll)
"A police state at home must be some kind of antidote to the fear the GWOT induces. The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism..."
Do you make this shit up, hoping to get a good laugh? (Cuz sometimes you are hilarious. Really.) How a person gets from a citizen exercising his/her 2nd Amendment right to defend him/herself to a slippery slope towards fascism is beyond me.
Citizens living in democracies, Straw, avoid totalitarianism (i.e. communism, fascism) by the very fact that they are allowed to exercise freedoms such as the 2nd amendment. Interesting how left-wing totalitarian societies always manage to get the guns out of the hands of the people very quickly. (The Left never wants a challenge to State power.)
Straw, I issued you this challenge about a couple of years back and you failed miserably. You only have a few days left, so maybe you can figure it out this time: Please define fascism and then demonstrate how we are slipping down that slope. I'm betting you can't answer the first part of the challenge and the second challenge really can't be answered intelligently because it is not happening. Well, at least not until gov't lovers like you take over and decide you know better than the average citizen.
God help us from all you people who think we are too stupid to take care of ourselves.
Posted by: blu at May 14, 2007 04:51 PM (o6U00)
you gun slingers would think nothing of instituting such measures to save thirty people a year in a country of 300 million but are nonplussed each morning by 60 dead Iraqis and 3-5 GIs.
Start right off with the non-sequitor yeah! Who needs a fucking warm-up? Appetizers are for pussies.
And your pious "concern" for the GI's is as fake and transparent as a Hitlery Cuntlin smile. You HATE
soldiers and every part of the military (except for being government paid). Soldiers discern between right and wrong - make a stand - and fight for it too. Plus, at least 80% of them vote Republican.
Yeah, leftists LOVE
the troops. We can so feel your genuine care and good intentions.
The RW mentality strives for increased protection and militarism and willingly goes smiling down the slippery slope toward Fascism rather than allocating greater funds to increase mental health services
"First they came for the shrinks, then the loonies, and then everyone else! If only we listened to that brilliant sage Straw!"
*Weeps uncontollably as Halliburton jackboots throw all the humanoids into the ovens*
The actual shooting is very important. A satisfying release of rage and compensation for feelings of sexual inadequacy do not come from detonating a bomb.
No wonder this sage is so afraid of them coming for the shrinks, HE'S GOT THE ANSWERS!
Freud is alive! Hookers for every psycho! No more crime!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 14, 2007 11:50 PM (Jq2oa)
Yes indeed, soldiers know from right and wrong. You want to explain the 25 civilians they slaughtered in a vicious rampage in Haditha? Or how they concocted stories about the bravery of J.Lynch and Pat Tillman? Very brave, very forthright.
Yes, right and wrong are definitely getting a workout in Iraq.
I don't hate soldiers Red, I hate what they do. Soldiers are fabricated by government. Young men and women who are fresh from their proms and hitting the bong in their parents basement make a career choice. They are not soldiers. They are generally nice kids, a little dim for the most part with the concomitant opportunities, but harmless until their government juices them up with lies, false notions about the global struggle and their role in it, gives them a purpose they lacked six months ago, promises of high tech training, travel and college assistance. Then gives them a weapon, body armor, and a haircut and sends them to some godforsaken shithole and tells them they're on an important mission from god that's linked to protecting the folks back home. Then they get to do bad, morally reprehensible things and think they are doing good and have become better people for it. Some get to be killed, more get maimed and they think it has a purpose. They get shipped back either in a box that nobody is allowed to see, or a hospital plane and are left in the hands of the VA where they disappear into the back wards of Walter Reed. And the fucking republicans accuse the Dems of not supporting the troops because they are insisting that they be spared all of this.
Although, now there are many soldiers and more every day that are coming to the realization that they have been duped. That this war had NOTHING to do with the GWOT and was an attempt by America to reposition its influence over ME resources in the fight with China. That is the real fight of the 21st. century. We will always be skirmishing with the Islamists who will never quite the struggle regardless of how many you kill. But China is a relentless force with a long view that seriously threatens the underpinnings of our way of life and our PBF
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 10:06 AM (et8nf)
"You want to explain the 25 civilians they slaughtered in a vicious rampage in Haditha?"
Conviction first, trial afterward? Not to mention that it is the military holding them accountable in the first place.
Posted by: MarkD at May 15, 2007 01:14 PM (5vbH6)
The facts seem pretty clear, and yes trial first, but the outcome seems like it will only be a question of sentencing.
The military is holding them ONLY because someone squealed and a reporter followed up. The local comamders were content to put through a report that they all died as a result of the same IED that killed the two GI's in the first place in spite of the inconsistant wounds on the civilians.
Lying is the first thing that goes on in this military, then the truth leaks out, then they get promoted out of the area. Its the real Bush doctrine.
Posted by: Strawman at May 15, 2007 01:25 PM (et8nf)
| Add Comment