Messages

I like to wake up each morning felling a new man. -
Author: Jean Harlow

I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
Author: Douglas Adams

I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I have ever known.
Author: Walt Disney

I married the first man I ever kissed. When I tell this to my children, they just about throw up
Author: Barbara Bush

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.
Author: Groucho Marx

I never made a mistake in my life; at least, never one that I couldn't explain away afterwards.
Author: Rudyard Kipling

I never married because I have three pets at home that answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon and a cat that comes home late at night. -
Author: Marie Corelli

I once heard two ladies going on and on about the pains of childbirth and how men don't seem to know what real pain is. I asked if either of them ever got themselves caught in a zipper.
Author: Emo Philips

I played a lot of tough clubs in my time. Once a guy in one of those clubs wanted to bet me $10 that I was dead. I was afraid to bet
Author: Henry Youngman

If you work on a lobster boat, sneaking up behind someone and pinching him is probably a joke that gets old real fast.
Author: Jack Handey

If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Author: John Wayne

If your friend is already dead, and being eaten by vultures, I think it's okay to feed some bits of your friend to one of the vultures, to teach him to do some tricks. But ONLY if you're serious about adopting the vulture.
- Deep Thoughts (Saturday Night Live)
Author: Jack Handey

If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either.
Author: willy Cavett

In our school you were searched for guns and knifes on the way in and if you didn't have any, they gave you some.
Author: Emo Philips

In Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was pro da. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One.
Author: Yakov Smirnoff

In the first place God made idiots; that was for practice; then he made school boards.
Author: Mark Twain


fides quaerens intellectum

The following is info about why we should take out Iraq.  I don't agree with all of it, but much of it is very convincing:


OVERTHROWING SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE POLICY DEBATE
Max Singer
The Search for a Response to the Problem / The Political Base in Iraq for Overthrowing Saddam / Ahmed Chalabi and the Future of Iraq / The U.S. Role and Policy for the Future / How Much Military Force is Required to Defeat Saddam? / Can Saddam Prevent Defeat by Using His Weapons of Mass Destruction?



The Search for a Response to the Problem
Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, has biological weapons capable of killing hundreds of thousands of Israelis with infectious diseases such as anthrax. These weapons could be delivered either by missiles, by small pilotless planes, or by infecting the passengers of a plane landing at Ben-Gurion Airport with less than an ounce of agent spread through the plane's air conditioning system. Saddam also has at least several nuclear weapons that are missing only highly enriched uranium which he is likely to be able either to make himself or to buy this year.

Saddam is extremely brutal, ready to kill his own people, even his own family, without hesitation. He hates Israel and needs no excuse or reason to decide to kill as many Israelis as he can. While so far he has been deterred by Israel's ability to retaliate against Iraq with nuclear weapons, no one can be confident that he will be deterred in the future, particularly if he feels he is about to lose power or be killed.

In brief, Iraq under Saddam is one of the greatest dangers facing Israel, and there is no reliable protection against this danger except to remove Saddam. If Israel does not do everything in its power to protect itself from this visible threat, it will have to answer to its citizens and to history if Saddam succeeds in killing a substantial fraction of Israelis.

At the end of October 1999, the National Assembly of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the Iraqi umbrella opposition organization, met in New York City where more than 300 Iraqi delegates agreed on a policy of overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party through an uprising of the Iraqi people supported by military force from the INC and any other source.

The INC leadership team is composed of Ahmad Chalabi, who has been the operating leader of the INC since its founding, representatives of the INA (Wifaq) and the two Kurdish parties, and three independents who support Chalabi.

It might seem that the obvious thing to do is to give the INC the help it needs to overthrow Saddam Hussein. However, a number of policy-makers believe that an INC-led popular overthrow of Saddam is impossible, and that if it happened it might well lead to some bad results.

The Political Base in Iraq for Overthrowing Saddam
There are four major parts to Iraq. The north is populated primarily by Kurds, who are a very fractionated community. The center is populated primarily by Sunni Arabs, most of whom have loyalties to various tribal groups and clans. (The center also includes Baghdad which has a Shia majority and many Kurds.) The south is primarily Shia and includes the city of Basrah and access to the sea. The west is essentially empty, with a civilian population of less than 50,000 people, including nomads.

While Arabs are a clear majority (75-80 percent), there is a large Kurdish minority (15-20 percent). The Muslims are divided between Shia (60-65 percent) and Sunni (32-37 percent) communities. There are also other smaller communities such as Turkomen, Assyrian, and others.

Ever since Ottoman times, the Iraqi army has been controlled by Sunni Arabs, although the great majority of enlisted men are Shia, who fought loyally against the non-Arab Iranian Shia forces because they identify as Arabs and Iraqis. Since Saddam is a Sunni it is possible to describe Saddam's regime as a Sunni regime, but most Sunnis do not see the current regime as representing them, since there are no members of most Sunni tribes in the controlling group. The real power is held by men from Saddam's relatively small Sunni tribe of Tikritis. (A good number of Tikritis also do not support the regime.) Most Sunnis will not feel compelled to defend Saddam and the Baath party unless they are attacked by a force that excludes Sunnis and is explicitly anti-Sunni, or which proposes to exclude Sunnis from a share in power, or to persecute them because of Saddam.

The professional military leadership is in a similar situation. They have been subordinated to Tikritis, and while they have important positions in the current government, they have not been immune from execution or torture. A number have already defected to the opposition. They do not feel a need to defend the regime, except against a force that is explicitly against professional military officers. Most of them would not choose to defend the Baath regime in order to prevent non-Sunnis from having a fair role in the professional military leadership (though some observers insist that the Sunni officer corps will still not accept non-Sunnis as top officers, or accept a government not headed by a Sunni).

Since Saddam came to power, one Iraqi in ten has been killed or forced to leave the country. Most Iraqis who remain have suffered a decline in living standards as well as a loss in freedom and dignity. This gives a certain plausibility to the INC claim that the great majority of Iraqis will support almost any alternative to the current regime whenever it is safe enough to do so.

In 1991 a widely broadcast message from President Bush called on Iraqis to replace Saddam. A popular uprising followed in Iraq that was gaining control of 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces until the U.S. allowed Iraq to use its armed helicopters to put down the uprising. Some 250,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam in suppressing the uprising. Certainly this is likely to have made them more cautious about rising against the regime in reliance on the U.S.

The INC view, based on its widespread contacts with Iraqis in and out of Iraq, is that most Iraqis believe that Saddam can only be overthrown if the U.S. decides to make it happen, and that there is no point in supporting an effort to replace Saddam unless that effort has U.S. support that will continue until Saddam is defeated. The INC believes that the great majority of Iraqis favor and will join in a U.S.-supported effort to overthrow Saddam, as soon as they see results and evidence of U.S. commitment.

Ahmed Chalabi and the Future of Iraq
Backing the Iraqi opposition would be almost unthinkable if it were not for its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, a person of extraordinary integrity, competence, and stature. Chalabi, 55, is from one of the leading traditional Baghdadi families of wealth, power, and connections. He was educated in the West (Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Chicago) and is deeply imbued with Western democratic thinking and modern ways of doing business. On the other hand, Chalabi's family connections with tribal, clan, and community leaders go back generations, and he has been able to form a coalition of such leaders.

Saddam's long totalitarian reign has destroyed the modern civil and political institutions of Iraq. What Saddam could not destroy are the traditional attachments to family, clan, tribe, and ethnic and religious community, because those do not depend on formal organizations which can be penetrated or destroyed. The INC, and Chalabi's vision of how Iraq can make a transition to decent modern government, are based on these traditional sources of social strength.

The INC was formed in 1992 when the CIA decided that a small political opposition was needed to put pressure on Saddam in order to improve the possibility of organizing a coup within the Baath party. They knew that the Wifaq, the organization they had been funding and working with up to then, did not have the political acceptability among Iraqis that they needed, because it was limited to Baathists, and they asked Chalabi to work with the Wifaq to start a new organization that they suggested should be called the Iraqi National Congress. They wanted a small, tame, political organization; Chalabi used the opportunity they provided to build a very broad-based and independent organization committed to using a popular uprising to overthrow Saddam, and even to build a 2,500-man military force which the CIA prevented from acquiring modern anti-tank weapons. The INC, led by Chalabi, also started newspapers and radio and television stations, and became a major center of opposition to Saddam in northern Iraq from 1992 to 1996, meeting with representatives from all strata of Iraqi society through the porous borders. During this time the INC was funded primarily by the CIA plus roughly $8 million from Chalabi and his family.

From 1996 to the end of 1999, when some Congressional appropriations for the INC were dispersed by the State Department for the National Assembly meeting in New York, the U.S. government provided no money to the INC - and even prevented it from raising money. Chalabi has used personal and family funds to keep minimal operations going. Meanwhile, the CIA has continued to provide funds to the Wifaq and to others whom the U.S. hoped would supercede Chalabi as leader of the opposition.

Saddam tried seven times to kill Chalabi while he was operating in northern Iraq. He failed primarily because the INC was more successful in penetrating Saddam's secret services than Saddam was in penetrating the INC, which is the real test of the viability of an internal opposition movement. In August 1996 Saddam decided to throw the INC out of northern Iraq. He took the great risk of sending 40,000 of his best troops and 400 tanks to attack the INC in the U.S.-declared "security zone." Despite weeks of warnings from the INC and a number of days during which Saddam's force was an easy target as it headed north, the U.S. did nothing to stop Saddam. Instead it evacuated thousands of INC personnel and supporters by air, many to the U.S., to prevent their being executed by Saddam.

The U.S. officials, especially in the National Security Council and CIA, who made the decisions to cut off the INC, naturally became committed to the view that Chalabi was a villain, and they have been a major source of negative information about the INC in the U.S. government and elsewhere ever since. However, a number of CIA personnel who had been closely connected to the INC operation and have since left the agency are strong supporters of Chalabi, including James Woolsey, who had been the CIA Director until shortly before the CIA decided to drop the INC.

The reasons for the State Department's and the U.S. administration's opposition to Chalabi and the INC are complex. Some of the opposition reflects bureaucratic and personal considerations - especially in the CIA; part of it reflects the administration's reluctance to increase risk of a crisis with Saddam at an inconvenient time; and partly it may be a normal reluctance to be pushed into a foreign policy initiative of the Congress. The State Department story about the opposition being divided and unable to account for its money is absurd. The startling thing about the Iraqi opposition is how well it has kept together since the INC was organized in 1992. Even when the KDP deserted to Saddam to fight its Kurdish rival, it did not deny the authority of the INC as Saddam's opposition. In addition, all major Iraqi groups and individuals continued to support Chalabi's leadership, and the original INC principles, despite a year's effort by the State Department to install other leadership. All of this, as well as the superficiality of the conflicts and disputes within the opposition, was demonstrated at the INC National Assembly in New York in October 1999.

The U.S. Role and Policy for the Future
The U.S. government is now divided about Iraq. A strong bipartisan majority in Congress actively supports the Iraqi opposition's program of trying to topple Saddam. The administration argues for postponing action, and continues to rely primarily on the policy it has pursued for the last eight years of trying to stimulate a coup against Saddam by military officers.

Part of the administration's problem is that it cannot take even substantial first steps to overthrow Saddam without committing itself to go all the way to ensure his defeat. Any serious action requires cooperation from one or more of the other countries in the region, but these countries have to choose between accommodating themselves as best they can to Saddam or supporting his overthrow. After the failure of all U.S. efforts against Saddam since the Gulf War, Saddam's neighbors have decided that they have to accommodate him until the U.S. makes a real commitment to his overthrow.

As a result, when the U.S. administration responds to Congressional demands for stronger action against Saddam, it can point to the objections of local governments in the region to the INC or to proposed measures against Saddam. While these local objections are real, they are primarily a reflection of the administration's reluctance to challenge Saddam. If the administration changed its policy, so would the local governments.

If the administration decides to move against Saddam, it can choose to use a purely U.S. military effort or it can help the INC build a military force and use U.S. forces in support of the INC. This would take longer, but it would provide more legitimacy, better prospects for stability after the defeat of Saddam, and require a smaller U.S. military commitment.

It is uncertain how much an INC military force could reduce the amount of U.S. military force needed. If Saddam's forces are as strong and the INC as politically weak and ineffective as the administration has been saying, then the U.S. would not gain much by waiting while the INC created a military force. If the INC is correct about the weakness of Saddam's military, and about the INC's own ability to create a military force if they are allowed the opportunity, then the only U.S. military support needed might be airpower and standby support.

Both uncertainties can be resolved by testing. If the INC receives the political support it needs to have a chance to build a force, U.S. military experts will be able to judge in six months or so whether the INC is on the way to building a competent force. If INC military units again attack Saddam's army, as they did in 1995, we will find out whether Saddam's army is more willing and able to fight a serious military force than it was in 1995.

How Much Military Force is Required to Defeat Saddam?
An important part of the U.S. administration believes that the U.S. should not support any Iraqi opposition effort to use force in removing Saddam unless the U.S. is prepared to commit enough U.S. military force to defeat Saddam, in case the other effort needs to be rescued, or in case the U.S. decides that it cannot afford to be discredited by supporting an unsuccessful effort. (The U.S. twice abandoned efforts to defeat Saddam that had begun because of U.S. encouragement.)

While "how much force might be needed?" sounds like a military question, it depends a great deal on political issues. If one believes that a U.S. attack on Iraq would cause even Iraqi military units who are not loyal to Saddam to rally to the Iraqi cause and to fight bravely and with strong motivation against invasion by the U.S., if one also believes that the U.S. public and/or political leadership will require that the fighting be completed in a few days with practically no U.S. casualties, and if there is no political reason for limiting the military preference to have too much force available rather than to take any chance of not having enough, then a very large U.S. ground force would be indicated. U.S. commanders are likely to recommend perhaps three or more divisions of ground forces which, with supporting forces, would amount to a commitment of 200,000 or 300,000 personnel. This would be a major mobilization requiring a number of months and very large expenditures, and there is little chance that it will be politically feasible.

On the other hand, Colonel Scott Ritter (USMC, ret.), who had a great deal of contact with Iraqi forces when he served as an UNSCOM inspector and during the Gulf War, and General Wayne Downing, former Commander of U.S. Special Forces, believe that not many more than the number of U.S. ground forces currently in the theatre, perhaps a ground attack force of some 25,000 men, plus U.S. airpower, would be more than sufficient to march to Baghdad and overthrow Saddam's regime with low casualties and low risk of getting into serious trouble.

Such low estimates of how much U.S. force would be required are based on the following conclusions about the weakness of the Iraqi military, each of which is subject to dispute:

1. Most units of the Iraqi army and Republican Guards have become much less capable than they were in 1991 (when they were already less capable than in the Iran-Iraq war). Soldiers have received very little pay, and even inadequate food. Units have not been getting enough money or spare parts to maintain their equipment. Nor have they been given enough fuel and ammunition for adequate training. Very few army units have received the training necessary for serious mobile combat against a professional military force.

2. Few units of the Iraqi army are loyal enough to Saddam or to the regime to fight hard if they are attacked by a competent military force. Not only have there been defections, but other officers have sent word that they are ready to defect. The best evidence of the lack of loyalty of the army is that Saddam is unwilling to rely on it, which is one reason he does not make the effort that would be necessary to restore its fighting ability. Saddam relies on a few selected units of the Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guards, which are a constabulary, not a military force, and on the Fedayai Saddam, which is a special force commanded by his son that is not part of the professional military establishment and not capable of professional military combat. He has to keep his effective and loyal forces in the Baghdad area to protect himself and his regime.

3. Outside of the center of the country almost all of the army is deployed in small units at fixed bases. In 1995 when such bases were attacked by the INC force, they were defeated because nearby Iraqi army units did not reinforce the bases that were being attacked. The Iraqi army units are either incapable or unwilling to leave their bases to protect nearby units from being defeated. The Iraqi army's lack of mobility means that a mobile opposition force that is large enough to defeat the forces at a single base can gradually overcome a much larger force spread through the area.

4. The Iraqi secret police and security agencies are unable to survive where they are not protected by the army. In any area where the people believe that the army has lost, or is losing, control to an opposition force, they are likely to rise against the regime and provide support to the opposition. This popular support would make the task of an opposition military force much easier.

In response, U.S. military recommendations will probably be made by a consensus of all services, which cannot overrule the views of the Army about the size of the ground force required for any proposed ground attack. Because of the Army's rejection of the view that wars can be won by airpower alone, Army estimates of the size of the ground force required will not be calculated with great reliance on possible uses of airpower in support of the ground forces. Specifically, the Army will probably not be willing to rely on airpower to protect against even a slight possibility that a ground force unit could be endangered by the enemy massing troops against it. The Army is likely to estimate the enemy's ability to bring his forces together at a critical time and place using the assumption that the Air Force may at some point for some reason be unable to seriously reduce the enemy's ability to maneuver his forces enough to endanger some U.S. ground force unit. In many situations such a reluctance to take reasonable account of how the services can be used together can multiply estimates of the forces required.

There are a number of reasons why the U.S. military says and believes that a very large force is required for a prudent attack on Saddam. (i) If a small force is enough, doubt is cast on the Gulf War mobilization. (ii) If a small force is enough to overcome Iraq, which has one of the largest armies in the world, some would argue that the U.S. does not need as large a military structure as it has. (iii) Many officers are not comfortable assuming that the enemy is not as capable as U.S. forces. (iv) It may seem too much like racism to believe that a U.S. force can overcome a much larger Iraqi force. (v) Realistic analysis runs into deep Army/Air Force differences. Therefore, it may well be impossible to get the Pentagon to accept a reasonable estimate of the force required to defeat Saddam.

If the question is, "How much force does the U.S. need to mobilize in order to attack Saddam in a way that it is sure of winning and of minimizing casualties?," a case can always be made for the extra insurance provided by a very large force if it can be made available. But a very different question may be more relevant. Suppose an emergency arose and it became urgent to defeat Saddam: Would U.S. airpower and a ground force of 25,000 troops be enough to expect to win easily? Realistic analysis suggests that the answer is "yes." Whether the U.S. can afford to support an Iraqi opposition, despite the possibility that doing so could lead to the U.S. having to attack Saddam, is not the same question as whether the U.S. should plan to initiate an invasion of Iraq.

Can Saddam Prevent Defeat by Using His Weapons of Mass Destruction?
While Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are a potential danger to civilian targets, or possibly to U.S. regional bases, they are very unlikely to affect military battles because Saddam does not have forces capable of delivering them effectively against mobile military forces.

Any program to overthrow Saddam runs the risk that if it is successful Saddam will "retaliate" with nuclear or biological weapons as he goes down to defeat. But this risk cannot be avoided by refusing to try to overthrow Saddam, because the longer he is in power the more nuclear and biological weapons he will have and the better able he will be to deliver them.

There may be objections to a policy of supporting an INC effort to overthrow Saddam that might not succeed, and if it did succeed might produce serious instability in the region. But if one asks what can be done to protect Israel and the U.S. from Iraq, it is not at all clear that these objections are enough. The main alternative - seeking a coup from within the military leadership - has already failed for eight years. It is hard to see why the chance of "instability" is worse than Saddam is. While there may be good objections to all proposals, the job of leadership in response to a grave threat is to implement the best action available. INC confidence that it can make a major contribution to Saddam's defeat if given reasonable support in building its own military force has been rejected up to now primarily because of prejudice against the INC and bureaucratic overcaution.

*     *     *

Max Singer was a founder and President of the Hudson Institute, and is the author (with Aaron Wildavsky) of The REAL World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones of Turmoil (1996), winner of the Grawemeyer Award for ideas for improving world order. He lives half the time in Israel and in 1975-76 was Managing Director of Mahon Tevel in Jerusalem.


fides quaerens intellectum

I agree with Frank...Sept 11th was basically the day that many Americans woke up...and I think a lot of AMericans are even moe zealous about war now than they were before, which isn't a good thing.  I stand in the middle on this issue.  I see Adrian's point of view, which is indeed the truth (Universal Law, etc.).  But I also realize that we live in an imperfect world and regrettably, people like Saddam invite violence because they are violent.  I mean, if someone robs a bank and we get their liscense plate and photo do we not go after them because natural spiritual laws need to take their course?  Of course not, we arrest them and make them pay for the temporal laws that they broke.  The natural law will take its course whether the guy is in jail or not.

I think the the US should seek help form the UN for one more try o get inspectors back in Iraq and if Saddam refuses again...then what?



fides quaerens intellectum

I agree and disgaree with you Frank.  Yes, people die all the time, and in the most horrific ways...and we should care every time someone dies, but that would mean we would be mourning all the time, which is both absurd and impossible.  ON the other hand, it's not every day, or even every month or year that something happens like this.  Thousands killed, almost all of them "innocent" in that they were not soldiers, etc.  and you say "What's the big deal?"  Maybe if it happened in your country, or to your wife, or....you get the picture.

fides quaerens intellectum

Every....oh, about three weeks or so someone comes on here and starts talking about drugs and the "spirit world".  Let me just say this: there is a connection between the two, but it's not worth pursuing and will only lead to confusion and difficulty.  That's all there really is to say.  I don't mean to say that it's not worth talking about....I just think if you get into that stuff I guess you will have to come to this conclusion yourself, and you will...eventually.  If not you will become a "burn out" and will perpetually have little or no energy to naturally come upon.

-DT



fides quaerens intellectum

You know, I must admit that games like GTA3 have absolutely NO redeeming qualities and I feel these games are truly horrible for children to play.  I will not support games like that...I mean, I even think 007, and even the new one "Dead to Rights" are ok, but the whole point to GTA3 is to kill cops, support criminals, etc.  

Anyway, has anyone ever played "Halo" for XBox?  It's easily in the top 5 games of all time.  The detail and possibilities in the game are INCREDIBLE.  Check it out...it's worth getting an XBOX for Halo alone, but wait till you see some of the other games that are coming out for it:

Project Ego
Halo II
Brute Force

to name a few.

-DT

fides quaerens intellectum

The Book of Mormon
"The Education of Little Tree" by Forrest Carter


fides quaerens intellectum

You know, I never thought of it that way, but Age of Empires and similar strategy games do indeed teach economics, etc.  I remember in Junior High School we would play a game called "Carnival" or something.  You had to build an amusement park and then regulate the amount of workers, food, etc.  It was part of the math program.

Anyway, when it comes to t.v., I don't watch it often at all.  Maybe two hours a week, and usually that's news and occasionally a late night talk show...and that's for the comedy monologues.

Video games, like anything, are very negative when done in excess.  And there are games, usually the ones rated M, which give off a lot of negative energy.  I think for the weekends, or for an hour a day, games can be stimulating.  When I have kids, however, I am going to strictly reglaute how long they play and what kind of games they get their hands on.

-Dan

fides quaerens intellectum

Evidence indicating Al Queda's involvement was overwhelming!  THey ADMITTED TO IT!  People's obsessive need to find a conspiracy in all things will never cease to amaze me.  Of course there are always little sub plots and unanswered questions, but sometimes it only requires common sense to see the truth, scratch that, MOST of the time it only requires common sense.  I think some people think their way out of common sense...and I guess if sense was common, more people would have it and we wouldn't be blowing each other up.  In the end it's a tragedy, and because the world is the way it is, people are going to pay...even if it's not always the right people.

Nice retorts MJ-12

fides quaerens intellectum

Thank you for clarifying Adrian.  I was under the impression that if I brought up anything having to do with religion that I would be ostracized, or at least frowned upon.

I can tell everybody one thing: to be religious but know TRUTH and experience it is to know frustration intimately.  I am a relgious person, however I am not like 99% of "religous" people.  Would I be here posting if I were?  

An example of being stereotyped is the following (and may I just state for the record that I really appreciate and respect Frank, from his posts I can tell he is a wonderful, open minded person):

Frank said:
"I can see where Adrian is basically coming from: he simply doesn't want people contributing by talking about beliefs that have come about by anything other than hands-on experience."

Frank, believe it or not, my "religous" beliefs come from experience, believe it or not.  What I preach is what I do, and what I do is what I know...and for me to know, I have to have "hands-on/hard life experience".

I am not trying to stir up the waters or come through with a sword of blazing righteousness.  I just want people to know that belief systems cannot be avoided in life, and my belief system happens to be open ended, subject to change.  I believe not only in immortality, but eternal LIFE...and life is to live and learn and love, for eternity...worlds without end.

-Daniel

fides quaerens intellectum

Welcome!  I think you've found the place that boasts the most info. and has the most interesting discussions on the web!

fides quaerens intellectum

I was elated to find that Adrian had gone and created another place to discuss our existence...but then I found this:

"We will not engage in any sort of, dogma, doctrine, "belief system" cult, creed or religion, but rather to investigate, discuss, realise and pursue incontrovertible Spiritual and Universal truths and realities in their most absolute terms. Neither are we interested in any sort of, orthodox, dogmatic or religiously oriented or inspired "spiritualism", or in any form of "spiritualism" inspired in any way whatsoever by any sort of commercialism, sensationalism, or any sort of fame or media seeking oriented motivation."
                  -http://www.spiritualtruths.org

One of the first "spiritual truths" I found in this life is that truth itself can be found anywhere...  I know how Adrian feels about religion, you can find some friendly debates between he and I here in the astral pulse (the Lords is my Light, etc.) and I thought we had concluded that religous people such as myself (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) who see the big pciture and are open to ideas such as OBE, etc. are definetly on the right path...and although many might say "Any religion or belief system is hindering" I disagree.  I see their point, but what about a belief system that is open ended, such as that of the LDS church?

Anyway, I am still going to register at the new site...but if I attempt to discuss my beliefs am I GOING TO BE PERSECUTED like the preists of old who defied the Catholic church and taught people to read Latin so they could read and interpret the Bible for themselves?  I think the statement like the one I posted above shows the EXACT same close minded attitude that many religous zealots have shown in the past and show today.  Is the above statement not a creed or belief system itself?  Had I written the intro to the new website myself I think I might have just said "Come as you are and bring what truth you have found and share it with us, that we may learn and progress together.

I am still excited about the site and I wish Adrian the best.  I think it will be an additional blessing for us all.  I just wanted to share my thoughts.

-Daniel

fides quaerens intellectum

170 Million Reasons to Own a Gun



The following table is from page 7 of the September 11th, 1999 issue of The Economist magazine, and is titled A League of Evil. It shows that in the twentieth century, 170 Million citizens were executed by their own governments, presumably for political reasons, while only 37 Million were killed in warfare. The next time you hear someone say that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution refers only to the National Guard or that guns should be possessed only for ''sporting purposes'', remember this chart. The citizens of these countries did not have a Second Amendment.
 
 Now my response to my last post:

Civilians killed by governments in the 20th century, excluding war.
Deaths Excluding War Millions  Era
Soviet Union 62 1917-1991
China (Communist) 35 1949-Present
Germany 21 1933-45
China (Kuomintang)) 10 1928-49
Japan 6 1936-45
 
Total deaths directly caused by governments Excluding War 170  

 
 
 Deaths in War Millions
International 30
Civil 7
 
Total deaths in War 37

 
 
 Sources: ''Statistics of Democide'' by Rudy J. Rummel
(With The Economist additions for recent wars)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


A little humor to lighten the debate...
The Aesthetics of the Gun Debate
Marcus J. Ranum
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Going On?
For the last 14 years, since I first became a gun owner, I have been watching the Great Gun Debate play itself out in the American mind. I have a lot of mixed feelings on the topic since I:

- Only shoot targets
- Don't hunt
- Like serious military weaponry
- Used to live in a high crime area
- Now live in a low crime area
- Have been held at gunpoint 3 times in my life

I am libertarian enough to believe that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and conservative enough to believe that they should suffer for them. In short, politically, I am a radical righto-leftist.

Americans refuse to make up their minds about broad issues of national policy. Is it a fundamental human right, for example, to poison oneself with cigarette smoke? If so, then it's absurd that people are suing the tobacco industry. If not, then ban tobacco outright. Our lawmakers, since they are basically cowards who serve at the whim of an ignorant people manipulated by television, attempt to back their way into a position that makes sense by a process of stepwise legislation. It's OK to poison your lungs if you're over 18, and you pay a lot of taxes on the poison. It's NOT OK to consume LSD but it's legal to drink so much alcohol you fry every neuron in your head, etc, etc, ad nauseam.


A .22 plinking pistol made to look "bad".  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guns are used to kill lots of people in the US every year. They're much more convenient for killing than, say, a knife or a crowbar, and marginally more convenient than, say, a Buick or a gasoline bomb. Clearly, say the lawmakers,
GUNS ARE A PROBLEM and therefore SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT IT
Conveniently, they neglect the fact that the gun would not do anything if it was just left to sit there. I've had guns sitting unused in my safe for years and they haven't fired at anyone or even loaded themselves.

Anyhow, the lawmakers are on the job, and they're going to solve the problem of those nasty guns. Only, it turns out to be a bit difficult.

There happen to be folks like myself who own guns who appear to be completely harmless. There's also the matter of the second amendment to the constitution, but if the American People get concerned enough about a problem they'll waive their rights by not complaining. There are target shooters, hunters, security guards, instructors, all kinds of people who happen to have legitimate reasons to own guns. So what's left for a lawmaker to do?

Try to identify types of guns that are often associated with criminal activity and ban them.
How brilliant. This is like saying "Volvos are in a lot more accidents than other cars. Therefore let's ban Volvos." It's not the car – it's that people who are lame drivers with no taste in cars prefer Volvos. But, because there's a correlation, if Volvos are banned, there's a dip in accidents while Volvo owners all buy Econowagons, and there are no more Volvo-related incidents.

When a heinous crime is committed with a particular "type" of gun, there's usually a big hue and cry about that type of gun. Some guy uses an AK-47 to open fire on a crowd of schoolkids and there's a big push to ban AK-type "assault rifles" (rather than nutcases or even schoolkids). Now, 7 years later, a couple schoolkids open fire on more schoolkids, using a .30-30 lever action hunting rifle and a bolt action rifle, and USA Today actually ran an article asking whether there should be restrictions on hunting weapons. During my lifetime, I can recall so far bans on "mail order guns," "assault rifles," "Saturday night specials," "assault pistols," and – what's next? Just about everything except "gun toting crazies."

Defining a "gun toting crazy" is a hard problem. Do they wear camouflage? Do they drool on their shirts? Do they mumble? Or twitch? Senator Strom Thurmond does all of the above except wear camouflage – is he a "gun toting crazy?" Defining attributes of people is hard because you can't get into their heads, yet. So you define the properties of "bad guns" so you can separate the "bad guns" from the "legitimate sporting purposes" guns.

Dayglo-green Uzi is better than icky, nasty black Uzi. For some reason, Bill Clinton's bodyguards still prefer the black kind...  
How stupid can you get?

Bad Guns are Mean Looking Guns

Slowly, I realized that the lawmakers are legislating not safety, but aesthetics. There's not really anything that makes a FAL an "assault rifle" while a FAL with a thumbhole stock and no flash suppressor is a "sporter." My Uzi is no more dangerous than anything else that puts a 9mm bullet downrange. It's just a mean looking gun, is all. I think, truly, that the logic here is that Bad People are attracted to Bad-butt-Looking Guns. Nobody has articulated it yet, but that seems to be what's going on.



Sportster AR15 in people-friendly lime-green color scheme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clinton administration recently banned importation of the H&K PSG-1 rifle. I don't know if you feel safer knowing that. In case you're not up on these things, the PSG-1 is a semiautomatic sniper rifle; the finest in the world. We certainly don't want crazies running around with things like that! Oh, yeah, they cost $10,000. When was the last time you heard of someone sticking up a 7-11 with a $10,000 sniper rifle? Or, for that matter, with a FAL? My FAL weighs about 14lbs and is about 4 feet long. I suppose I could fit it under my trench coat to look inconspicuous. Yeah, right.

My Uzi'd fit under my trench coat. So would a Ruger 10-22 – a very sedate semiautomatic plinking rifle – with its stock sawed off and a pistol grip installed. Oh, of course, if someone did that, they'd be breaking the law. No self-respecting crazy that shoots up schoolyards is going to have the guts to saw down a rifle stock. So we're safe.

What do the PSG-1 and the FAL have in common? They are both Bad-butt-Looking Guns. Incidentally, those sedate Ruger 10-22s have spawned a huge aftermarket for stocks and bipods and cheap curb feeler crap that makes them look kind of like Bad-butt-Looking Guns if you squint.



Peptobismol-pink AK clone.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Guns are Pretty Guns

So, I have a simple proposal that would have as much effect on gun crime as a lot of the restrictions that have been passed in the last 13 years:
Make All Guns Pink.

That's right: Pink.

We know that psycho schoolkid killers think they are tough. They'd never use a pink gun. Have you ever heard of a psycho crazy using a pink weapon before? Absurd. Therefore, if all the guns are pink, we'll be safe. Safety orange and lime green will be OK, too, I suspect. No self-respecting psycho crazy'd be seen dead with a lime green .44 magnum.

Oh, and make it illegal to repaint them.

Do you feel safe, now?



fides quaerens intellectum

I see every side of the issue.  The following is a book review that I feel uncovers a lot of information that is very convincing regarding the anti-gun sentiment:

BOOK REVIEWS

The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?
by David B. Kopel Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992. Pp.470 pages. ISBN 0-87975-756-6.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,"
"God made man and Colt made him equal,"
"They'll get my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it."

The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy communicates a message similar to these bumper-sticker slogans, but does so by way of a painstakingly researched, thoroughly indexed and evenly argued piece of scholarship. This reviewer ordered The Samurai... from a catalog, not having seen it on bookstore shelves. The book is an important work in light of the recently passed crime bill and the seeming change in American public attitudes regarding gun control legislation. It is a shame that the calibre of careful explanation and advocacy shown in The Samurai... is not more broadly available to the reading public. As it stands, argumentation in the American gun debate tends to fall into sloganeering and the misleading presentation of aggregate crime statistics. Some persons who favor the adoption of stricter gun control measures will consider this book a danger. Others might have their opinions changed by it. None will take it as a sloppy or deceptive effort. The introduction alone--two pages of text supported by four pages of references--provides the student of the gun control debate, whatever his or her leanings on the subject, with an invaluable set of citations. If you have a friend who likes to read and likes to debate gun control, this book is the right gift.

Author David Kopel begins by stating a piece of reasoning adopted by virtually every advocate for strong American gun control laws.

The United States is the only modern democracy that does not impose strict gun controls.
The United States suffers a much higher crime rate than those democracies that impose strict gun controls.
Therefore, adopting strict gun controls like other democracies would lower the American crime rate.

Kopel describes selected foreign gun cultures (Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Switzerland) and analyzes aspects of America's gun history to describe how the American experience compares to that of other nations. Throughout his comparisons, Kopel argues against the suitability and practicability of gun control legislation in the United States. A few representative passages from the international comparisons--

"America experienced falling crime and homicide rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1980s, all periods during which per capita gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, rose."
..."Japan's gun control does play an important role in low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between numbers of guns and levels of crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against searches and prosecutions. The Japanese police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal restraints and particularly because of their social authority."

..."America's non-gun crime rate is over seventy times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between our two nations."

"British gun controls are strict, and British violent crime rates are low. Many Americans assume that these two facts are causally linked; however, there is little evidence that they are. British gun control has historically been concerned with political subversion, not with ordinary crime. Britain's years of lowest gun crime came during an era when gun controls were nonexistent. Increasingly stringent gun controls have been followed by increasing gun crime (although again there is no strong proof of a causal effect)."

"Regarding handguns, the contrast between America and Canada is profound. The RCMP estimated the pre-1978 pool of illegal handguns in Canada to be about 50,000; even if this figure is too low by a factor of ten, it is minuscule compared with America's illegal gun stock. In New York City alone, conservative estimates put the number of illegal handguns at over 700,000."


Beyond the comparisons between the histories of gun control legislation and their effectiveness in other countries, the author considers the American gun culture in depth. Subjects touched on include, among many others--the militia, race and ethnic relations, migration, urbanization, and the differences between gun-control and broader social controls. Kopel's style is not emotionless. The reader leaves the book with no doubt about how the author feels about the issue.

"America places more faith in its citizens than do other countries. The first words of America's national existence, the Declaration of Independence, assert a natural right to overthrow a tyrant by force. In the rest of the world the armed masses symbolize lawlessness; in America the armed masses are the law."

Kopel concludes, after arguing exhaustively that the gun control strategies of other countries are culturally unsuitable in America (and that they anyway could not be implemented given the vast numbers of guns and deep feeling about ownership) that America's only reasonable gun strategy is the promotion of responsible gun ownership.

To the readers of Low Intensity and Law Enforcement, David Kopel's The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy poses a broader question. The topic of gun control is rarely considered in the international military context. The issue is not debated in professional military literature as a military or foreign policy concern. It should be. Success in pacification, in restoring order to places where a military intervention and occupation has been deemed necessary, may at times depend not on securing weapons from the citizens, but on empowering citizens to achieve security by managing the use of weapons themselves. The Samurai provides a discussion of foreign experiences with gun control that suggests important answers about the relationship of gun control measures to overall social control and to internal violence. The most impressive possibility is that responsible gun ownership may be a more important ingredient than the restriction of private gun ownership in achieving social peace or the promotion of liberty.
Reviewed by LTC Geoffrey Demarest
US Army


fides quaerens intellectum

Well- describe your experience and you will probably  get some feed back.

BTW- what made you choose your name?  What does it mean?

-DT

fides quaerens intellectum

If I were the cild I would be thinking: "What is more important to my mom, her boy friend and job, or me, her baby?"

fides quaerens intellectum

A gun is a tool, just like a knife, an axe, a sword, a screw driver.  Of ocurse many guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill people.  Others are made for target shooting, clay pigeon shooting, hunting, etc.  When you buy a vehicle, for example, you must decide what you are going to do with it: travel, race, off road, or armed personnel carrier, etc.  Some of us live in places which are dangerous and therefore we feel the need to protect our lives and our interests from those who would willfully try to violate our rights.

I live in California and here we can own handguns, rifles etc as long as we follow certain rules.  I recently purchased a Glock auto-pistol (model 21, .45 ACP) to protect my wife and I.  Here is what I had to do:
1.) Take a course to prove my knowledge of firearms and firearms saftey.
2.)  Wait 10 days while they did my background check (one cannot legally own or purchase a firearm if they have any felon or even misdemeanors that are drug related or assault.

I feel that technology should not be kept from individuals.  Of course we can't have people owning fighter jets and nukes, but a tool to protect in the hands of a law abiding citizen is a positive thing.

Another story:
Intruder killed by homeowner
Man shot him after dialing 911 for police
By Jennifer Dobner and Brady Snyder
dobner@desnews.com and bsnyder@desnews.com.

Deseret News staff writers
Monday, May 22, 2000
Originally published at: http://www.desnews.com
WEST CENTRAL CITY -- A man trying to break into a West Central City home was shot and killed by the male resident of the home.
The intruder, who remained unidentified Monday morning, used his fists to break through the sliding glass door of the residence, in the 200 South block of 1300 West, about 2:40 a.m. and enter the house, Salt Lake Police Lt. Jim Jensen said.
The residents, a 57-year-old man and his 63-year-old wife, who were awakened by their barking dog, spotted the man outside and shouted at him to leave, but he responded by shouting at the couple in Spanish, the couple's daughter said Sunday night. After dialing 911 for police, the husband retrieved a handgun kept in the home and loaded it, police said.
When the intruder entered the home, he followed the woman down a hallway and was confronted by the husband, who fired at least two shots at point-blank range, Jensen said. The intruder was hit by one bullet and pronounced dead at LDS Hospital, Jensen said.
The dead man had been tentatively identified by police Monday morning, but his name was not being released pending that verification, Lt. Jim Hill said. The homeowners told police they did not recognize the man.
Sunday's shooting, which is classified as a homicide, will be screened with the district attorney, who will ultimately decide if the action was self-defense or warrants criminal charges, Hill said.
"From the standpoint of the police, at this point, it looks like a justifiable situation," he said. "The Utah Code is pretty specific."
Police are unsure if the dead man broke into the home in order to rob it or with the intent to harm the residents. It is possible the man was in the wrong place or may have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Hill said. The State Medical Examiner's Office was to perform an autopsy on the man's body Monday.
The couple's family, who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said Sunday they believe their parents would have been killed if not for the gun. "If they were unarmed, they wouldn't be here today. I don't think (the intruder) was there to steal anything, but he was there to hurt them," their daughter said. "Unfortunately, the elderly are the ones that often get victimized. I don't think they should be forced to put bars on their windows, but that's how older people have to live nowadays. We are definitely pro-gun rights. I'm going to go get one tomorrow."

Another Thug Done Gone
by Robert Waters

On November 17, 1998, at 3:00 a.m., Adrian Rodricka Cathey jimmied open the back door of an apartment near the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. He made his way through the house until he reached the bedroom where the co-ed he'd been stalking was asleep. But as Cathey attempted to rape her, the woman reached into a nightstand, retrieved a handgun, and blasted her assailant dead. DNA tests revealed he was the serial rapist who had terrorized the university community for nearly a year.

Police quickly ruled the shooting justified, and a spokesman for UNCC stated the university was glad "the menace is relieved."

Cathey, who had a history of arrests for sexual violence as well as attempted murder, had raped at least four other UNCC co-eds. Because serial rapists are notoriously difficult to capture, they average committing more than twenty rapes before being caught. The co-ed, whose name was never reported, undoubtedly saved not only herself but many others from the humiliation of sexual assault.

While no law enforcement agency keeps records on self-defenses with firearms, numerous studies have determined that large numbers of Americans use guns each year for that purpose. Thirteen surveys conducted between 1976 and 1994 estimated anywhere from 770,000 to 3.6 million self-defense cases each year involving the use of a firearm.

In every investigation into the issue, self-defense with firearms out-numbered deaths with firearms by wide margins.

Other studies have shown that many criminal attacks are never committed because the assailant suspects that an intended victim might be armed. In a 1985 study by the National Institute for Justice, seventy-four percent of felons reported that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot by the victim."

Yet those who would ban or severely restrict access to firearms will never address the subject of armed self-defense.

When several victims who had successfully defended their own lives with firearms testified at a Congressional hearing in 1997, Rep. Charles Schumer, New York, dismissed their stories as "anecdotes."

When Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University, published the results of more than twenty years of research indicating two-and-a-half-million self-defenses with firearms each year, anti-gunners claimed his figures were "exaggerated."

When University of Chicago professor Dr. John Lott, Jr. presented the most detailed study ever done on the effects of concealed carry laws in America, his work was dismissed as "flawed." Why? Because his research concluded that when citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, it helped reduce violent crime.

Why are the anti-gunners quick to try to deflect the subject of armed self-defense?

Because they know the issue is a loser for them. If Americans knew the number of lives that are saved with guns, they would overwhelmingly reject the arguments of the gun-banners.

But the following questions beg to be answered about the UNCC case, and, by extension, every other case in which a citizen uses a gun in self-defense.

Would the UNCC co-ed who killed the serial rapist have been better off without a firearm?

Would society have benefited had she not had a weapon with which to defend herself?

Should she have waited on the police to come to her aid, as most anti-gunners claim is the proper procedure when threatened?

Would she have been able to defend herself if she'd been required to keep a trigger lock on her gun?

How many future victims were saved by the armed co-ed?

Is self-protection an inalienable, unalterable right, or is it a privilege granted by government?

The last question is what dooms the gun-banners. Millions of citizens believe self-defense is a God-granted right and will not voluntarily give up the best defense available to them. Indeed, they consider it criminal to demand that they do so.

The co-ed at UNCC may have sat through political science seminars in which liberal professors weighed in on the dangers of guns. She may have watched with interest as President Clinton pontificated on his resolve to ultimately ban handguns. Had they known about the evil weapon lurking in the co-ed's drawer, anti-gun feminists on the UNCC campus may have attempted to brainwash her into getting rid of it.

But, in the end, the co-ed made a decision to protect herself.

Will anyone argue that she made the wrong decision? That her personal safety was less important than the politically correct opinion of the day?

That is the question Charles Schumer and President Clinton and the gun-banners refuse to answer.

Why?

Because to answer it would affirm the right and wisdom of Americans to keep and bear arms.
A Massacre We Didn't Hear About
by J. Neil Schulman
Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
The following article appeared in the January 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times.
This is the story you saw on the evening news:
At lunch hour on Wednesday, Oct. 16, George Jo Hennard of Belton, Tex. smashed his Ford pickup through the plate glass doors of Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, injuring some patrons immediately. While other patrons rushed toward the truck believing the driver was a heart-attack victim, Hennard calmly climbed out of his pickup, took out two 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistols, and started shooting people in the cafeteria's serving line.
 
Hennard continued shooting for 10 minutes, reloading five times. One of his pistols jammed repeatedly, causing him to discard it. There would have been plenty of opportunity for any of the cafeteria's customers or employees to return fire. None did because none of them were armed. Texas law forbids private citizens from carrying firearms out of their home or business. Luby's employee's manual forbids employees from carrying firearms.
 
Police officers were inside Luby's within minutes. But before they were able to corner Hennard in the cafeteria's restroom, where he turned his gun fatally on himself, Hennard had killed 15 women and 8 men, wounded 19 and caused at least five more to be injured attempting to flee.
 
The Killeen massacre was ready-made excitement for the media: a madman with a gun, lots of gruesome pictures. CBS News devoted an entire "48 Hours" Dan Rather report to it. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. capitalized on it in a nationally published column to call Congress cowardly for voting down more stringent gun laws the next day.
Now here's a story you probably didn't see:
Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.
 
Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber's chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.
The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.
 
The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney's customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.
Because Terry was armed, and used his gun to stop two armed robbers who had taken a restaurant full of people hostage, there was no drawn-out crisis, no massacre, no victims' families for Dan Rather to interview. Consequently, the story hasn't received much coverage.
 
Among those who rely on national news media for their view of the country, the bloody image of Luby's Cafeteria is available to lend the unchallenged impression that guns in private hands serve only to kill innocent people. The picture of 20 hostages walking out of Shoney's refrigerator unharmed, because a private citizen was armed that night, is not.
 
As we celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, it's worth noting that the Framers wrote the Second Amendment so the people's defense would be in our own hands, and we wouldn't have to rely on a "standing army" or "select militia" for our security. Though no police departments existed in America then, there's no historical doubt that the Framers had considered centralized public defense, and considered it not merely ineffective, but itself dangerous to public safety. Recent vigilante-type police attacks, such as the beating of Rodney King, lend credence.
 
Yet, it's fashionable to relegate constitutional protections to the dustbin of history. Judges sworn to defend the Constitution ignore its clear provisions, as do legislators. Virtually every major organ of society - both political parties, the media, the American Bar Assn., the ACLU - urges them to do so.
 
Today's "consensus reality" asserts that private firearms play no effective role in the civic defense, and that firearms must be restricted to reduce crime. The media repeat these assertions as a catechism, and treat those who challenge them as heretics.
Yet, we have before us an experiment showing us alternative outcomes. In one case, we have a restaurant full of unarmed people who rely on the police to save them. The result is 23 innocent lives lost, and an equivalent number wounded. In the second case, we have one armed citizen on the scene and not one innocent life lost.
How can the choice our society needs to make be any clearer?
 
It's time to rid ourselves of the misbegotten idea that public safety can be achieved by unilateral disarmament of the honest citizen, and realize that the price of public safety is, like liberty, eternal vigilance. We can tire ourselves in futile debates on how to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Or we can decide that innocent lives deserve better than to be cut short, if only we, as a society, will take upon ourselves the civic responsibility of defending our fellow citizens, as Thomas Glenn Terry did in Alabama.
My account of Thomas Glenn Terry's actions in this article was based on an Alabama newspaper account. I later interviewed Terry for a weekly radio program I was hosting and discovered that the account was mistaken on several points.
Postal clerk Terry was finishing a late-night dinner with his wife when the robbers came in and took over the restaurant. Terry hid his .45 Colt Government Model under his sweater, not seeing any immediate opportunity to use it. Terry's wife was captured with the other customers and herded off to the cooler, where one of the robbers proceeded to collect wallets and jewelry.
Terry did not hide under a table; he had separated himself from the other customers and managed to get to a back door in the Shoney's to see if it was open so he could escape and call the police. The door was chained shut. At that point one of the robbers discovered him and when the robber drew on him, Terry pulled his own handgun from under his sweater and returned fire, incapacitating this robber, who ultimately survived. The second robber heard the exchange of gunfire and also drew on Terry; it was the gun fight between Terry and this second robber which resulted in the robber running out to the parking lot, where he died from his wounds. It was at this point that Terry told the store manager to phone the police, informing them that an armed customer was present; Terry then proceeded to the cooler and released his wife and the other customers.
Both robbers whom Terry shot had previous armed robberies on their record, and one had murdered a motel clerk just a few days earlier. A third robber escaped as soon as Terry exchanged gunfire with the first robber.
The only national media outlet to cover this incident as news, just two months after the Killeen restaurant massacre, was the Christian Science Monitor. -JNS
Store clerk handed over cash, was shot
Mother of 2 was talking on phone to husband when wounded
By Patricia Lynch Kimbro and Sarah Webster
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITERS
Joseph Hewitt was talking to his wife, Carolee, on the telephone at her second job Wednesday night when a masked gunman robbed and shot her. The senselessness of the crime shocked police because the 23-year-old mother of two gave the robber the money he demanded.
``That's what I can't understand. Why did he have to shoot her after she'd given him the money?'' a stricken Hewitt sobbed yesterday at the University of Kentucky Hospital where his wife was clinging to life. She was in critical condition last night.
Police already had beefed up patrols in the area around the Pantry Fresh Market at 460 Squires Road in southeastern Fayette County because of the number of robberies there in the last few weeks.
It was the second time she'd been robbed. The first was six months ago when she was working as a cashier at a Dairy Mart on Walton Avenue near downtown.
``She knows how to act during a robbery,'' her husband said.
Hewitt, a parts specialist at Kentucky Motors, was at home with the couple's two young daughters, Ashley, 5, and Caithlyn, 3, when his wife was shot at 8:20 p.m.
``We were talking on the phone. I was telling her that I was going Christmas shopping to buy her presents when the man came into the store,'' he recalled.
Hewitt heard his wife scream, then the gunshot.
``In the background I could hear someone say it was a firecracker, then they hung up the phone,'' he said.
Hewitt jumped in his truck and rushed to the store. He arrived before the ambulance and talked to his wife.
``She said she had been shot in the stomach and that she was scared,'' he said.
By noon yesterday, his wife had received 23 units of blood and was being rushed back into surgery.
``They're having a hard time getting her liver to stop bleeding,'' Hewitt explained.
His mother-in-law, Carol Hufstedler, is keeping the children, who don't know their mother has been shot.
``I haven't told them, and I'm not going to tell them that she was shot. I need to tell them she's sick though. I guess I'll do that today,'' Hewitt said as he brushed away tears. ``All I want now is to bring her home for Christmas.''
Carolee's boss, Steve Ramsey said he's as bewildered as Hewitt.
``God only knows why he shot her ... He got what he wanted. Why? He must have been on drugs or something,'' Ramsey said.
Ramsey was in the store's back room and his wife was in the restroom during the robbery. ``I haven't slept a wink thinking about this ... worrying about Carolee,'' Ramsey said.
Late yesterday she was listed in critical condition as Lexington police urged anyone with information to come forward.


fides quaerens intellectum

I appreciate everything, and I mean everything, that has been said here.  Clandestino makes good points.

The following are a few stories of armed citizens who have saved their own life and/or the lives of others.  It wouldn't be easy, but just like Frank said, most people, when it comes down to it, could do it...because in the end, when someone threatens your life--it's either you or them.  

Unseen stories
by Robert A. Waters
April 24, 2002
On September 11, after two jets crashed into the Twin Towers in New York, the major television networks were faced with a crucial decision. Should they show the frightful scenes of victims jumping to their deaths from upwards of eighty stories? NBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS chose not to. Whether or not you agree with the networks, there is little doubt that their refusal to show all the news affected our attitudes about the attacks. Had those scenes been shown, American resolve to crush the terrorists might have dug even deeper.
The major networks affect opinion by what they don't show as much as by what does appear on our television screens. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the unseen side of the gun issue.
For instance, when was the last time the networks interviewed someone who used a gun in self-defense? Since these cases are almost never shown in the national media, millions of viewers assume that they never happen. School shootings, stories of employees going postal and gunning down co-workers, and even gang-related shootings are regular fare on television news. But because stories of armed self-defense are unseen, the implication is that guns are only used for harmful or criminal purposes.
Here are a few examples of stories you never saw.
On March 14, in a case that seemed a natural for national news, a football star was gunned down while trying to hold up a liquor store. Derrick Breedlove, a talented tight end, had recently signed a scholarship to play for Hampton University in Virginia. Scouts were already touting him for an NFL career. But when he entered the liquor store wearing a ski-mask and brandishing a sawed-off shotgun, Breedlove was shot and killed by a clerk.
On April 2, Virginia "Sue" Devoe was attacked in her Clintonville, Ohio home. Her former boyfriend, James Ryan McVey, kicked in the front door, dragged her through the house by her hair, and repeatedly kicked her. Then he attempted to kidnap her. That's when Devoe's 91-year-old neighbor came to her aid. Shirley Becraft drew his handgun and shot the intruder. McVey's death ended years of violent assaults on Devoe. A local investigator praised Becraft, saying, "It's hard to know where she would be now if he hadn't [shot McVey]."
On March 18, in Orange City, Florida, Robert Shockey waited inside Blockbuster Video for his son, who worked there, to close the store. The store had been the scene of a violent armed robbery a month before. Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, saw two ski-masked robbers burst through the doors. One carried a hunting rifle and threatened an employee. Shockey pulled his handgun and shot the gun-wielding assailant. When the second robber reached for the rifle that his accomplice had dropped, Shockey shot him. Police not only ruled the shooting self-defense, they stated that they planned to give Shockey a "good citizenship award."
And so it goes. On March 5, Bethan Scutchfield, a 71-year-old invalid from Colville, Washington fatally wounded a stranger who broke into her house and knocked her to the floor. On March 6, an 83-year-old San Antonio woman shot a teenager as he tried to break into her home. On March 3, in Pembroke Pines, Florida, two robbers pointed semiautomatic weapons at businessman Corey Dacres but the victim pulled his own gun and shot both of them. Dacres, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was not injured.
Keeping Secrets
By Robert A Waters
Posted: 09.20.00
March 27, 1999 wasn't a big day for national news. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN lead with stories about the continued bombing of Kosovo. After the lead story, the networks floundered to find seconds. They settled on reports about a scheduled baseball game between the Cuban National team and the Baltimore Orioles. Later, a CBS reporter dissected global weather patterns. Finally, the same network ended its newscast with a feature about a new law that would require reflectors on the bottom of truck trailers.
Not exactly the most compelling stuff.
But a story that would have riveted the attention of viewers was unfolding even as the evening news shows hit the air.
That afternoon, a twenty-seven-year-old Phoenix police officer named Marc Atkinson was tailing a white Lincoln Continental that he suspected had been stolen. It wasn't a high-speed pursuit - Atkinson was waiting for backup units to arrive before pulling the car over. Three very nervous Hispanic males were in the car as it tooled down West Thomas Road.
The Continental turned left on 31st Avenue, and Atkinson momentarily lost sight of it. As he rounded the corner, he saw that the car was stopped on the side of the road. Two men stood beside it with guns pointed at him. In an instant, Atkinson was cut down with a fusillade of gunfire. His last words to the dispatcher showed his professionalism. "Bail out!" he shouted.
The story could have ended with the murder of Atkinson.
But it didn't.
Rory Vertigan, an apartment manager and part-time security guard, had been driving behind the officer. As he turned the corner, he saw the ambush taking place. He watched in horror as Atkinson's police cruiser careened across the street and plowed into a street lamp. Vertigan braked to halt fifty feet behind the Continental.
He saw the assailants jump back into their car. But instead of trying to flee, they turned their attention to Vertigan. When two of the suspects aimed their guns at him and opened fire, he grabbed his Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol.
The suspects fired several more rounds at Vertigan, then backed their car into his Kia. Amid breaking glass and crashing metal, he leaned out the window and began shooting at the gunmen, using his left hand. In all, Vertigan fired fourteen rounds.
Later, Vertigan released a statement. "When I confronted the individuals in the white vehicle," he said, "they turned their guns on me. I was given no choice but to defend myself."
As the smoke cleared, the three men leaped out of their car and began to run. One of the gunmen, seriously wounded, didn't make it far. Vertigan, out of bullets now, tackled the suspect and held him for police.
The other gunmen attempted to hide in nearby businesses but were captured later that evening.
The Phoenix Police Department credited Vertigan with not only capturing one of the murderers, but of disabling the stolen car so they couldn't flee across the border.
The question must be asked: Why didn't this story make the national news? It was heavily covered in the Southwest, with television stations breaking into regular programming and interviewing everyone involved. The story was later picked up by both national wire services and newspapers across the country.
Even the search for the suspects was the stuff police drama is made of. One thug entered Bristow Optical holding a gun. The company's secretary dove under a desk and called 911. As officers converged on the building and other employees fled, the secretary kept police informed as to the suspect's whereabouts. With television crews recording every move, she was escorted from the building by police. Then officers entered the business and captured the suspect as he hid in a rest room.
Most Americans have grown up watching television. Much of our reality is shaped by the pictures we see.
Network executives learned long ago to make use of this phenomenon to promote their own political agenda. One of the ways they influence public opinion is through the omission of stories that would enhance the opposing viewpoint.
Because the national media refuses to carry stories about armed citizens who defend themselves and others, Americans don't get an accurate portrayal of the debate about guns.
It's almost like the media moguls have a secret they don't want us to know.
An exciting, heart-wrenching story such as this, breaking even as the evening news shows went on the air, would seem a natural.
But several things worked against it. First, Rory Vertigan was a member of the National Rifle Association and a strong advocate for gun rights. Second, a firearm was used to neutralize a murderous gang and lead to the capture of its members, something that seems to be taboo for the national press. Finally, a story such as this would have shown the world why many Americans choose to carry guns, and why our founding Fathers placed that right in the Constitution.
For whatever reason, the networks chose to spike the story.
And they wonder why they continue to lose viewers.
Source: Sierra Times
Blockbuster Robber Meets Florida Father
Originally ran here as:
Dad slays gunman inside son's store
by Rich McKay, Staff Writer
Orlando Sentinel
March 20, 2002
Dad slays gunman inside son's store
ORANGE CITY -- A father came to his son's rescue during an armed robbery attempt at a Blockbuster Video store Monday night -- slaying the gunman and wounding an accused accomplice with a .45-caliber pistol he kept under his shirt, detectives said.
It was no coincidence that Robert P. Shockey was at the store. Every night that his 20-year-old son, Gabe, closes up, Robert Shockey waited and watched. And he has been armed with his semi-automatic.
The reason is another robbery at the Blockbuster in January. During that crime, one of Gabe Shockey's co-workers was attacked and dragged around by his hair.
Shockey's son refused to quit his job, so the father did the only thing he could think of to protect his son -- watch.
"A lot of nights it'd be just him, and it's so dark there," Shockey said. "I'd go down, 10:30, 11 and sit in my car in the parking lot. I figured if there were cars there, it would help. If my son wasn't busy, I'd go in and talk to him.
"I don't consider myself a hero," he said. "I love my family."
Detectives say it was lucky he was there Monday.
Robert Shockey, a 50-year-old carpenter, was inside the Enterprise Road store about 11:45 p.m., 15 minutes before closing. There were no customers as Gabe Shockey went to the back office to tally up the day's receipts. Robert Shockey stood inside near the front counter talking to a young man on his first day of work.
From his DeLand home Tuesday, Shockey recalled the events. The door burst open and two men rushed in. Ski masks covered their faces. One brandished a rifle and both were shouting violent, obscenity-laced threats."They made it clear that they would kill us," Shockey said.
His son saw it on the monitors in the office and called 911. But the shooting happened just heartbeats later.
"It was fast -- an adrenaline moment," Shockey said. "I had no time to think, just react."
The gunman first pointed the rifle at Robert Shockey and then at an employee, identified only as Brian. While the rifle was pointed at the young employee, Shockey reached for the pistol tucked in his belt against the small of his back. He drew the weapon.
"I shouted, "Freeze!" he said. The man with the rifle -- standing only about 6 feet away -- turned and pointed it at Shockey.
Shockey fell silent for a moment when asked about what happened next. "It's got him shaken up," said his wife, Gloria.
Detectives say Shockey fired at least two shots, hitting the gunman once in the throat and once in the chest. The man detectives say was an accomplice then reached for the rifle, so Shockey fired again, hitting him in the chest. He fired a fourth shot that missed.
The man who died, 19-year-old James Franklin Wince of Deltona, was an off-duty employee of the store he was trying to rob, said detectives, who think Wince was involved in the January robbery.
The survivor, Darius Bennett, 18, is charged with murder in his partner's death under a law that allows someone involved in a felony to be charged with murder even if that person didn't do the killing. Felony murder is a second-degree murder, sheriff's spokesman Gary Davidson said.
Bennett was charged at his hospital bed in the intensive care unit at Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where he was listed in stable condition Tuesday afternoon. Bennett, who also has several felony convictions, is expected to recover.
Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, received praise from sheriff's officials for his actions, and got a call from Sheriff Ben Johnson, who offered his support.
"He [Shockey] is going to get the good-citizenship award," Davidson said.
Detectives will forward their information to the State's Attorney's Office for a final decision.
Investigator Sgt. Bob Kelly said: "It appears to be a self-defense case."
Though only 19, Wince has a record of a half dozen arrests and several convictions on charges ranging from burglary to vehicle theft. A Blockbuster spokesman in Dallas, Randy Hargrove, said the company does not do criminal background checks at its Florida stores. He could not explain the reason for that policy.
Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said this case is "a tough call" for a group that favors strict gun laws.
He said he won't "second-guess" a parent defending his son, but Hayhoe is troubled with the second shooting.
"It's still a shooting of an unarmed person, and that's always troubling," he said.And he predicted the story will wind up in the National Rifle Association's publication, The American Rifleman, and its column, Armed Citizen, which recounts the stories of people who use guns to defend themselves.
The NRA declined to comment on the incident. But another group, the Gun Owners of America, based in Springfield, Va., applauded.
"It's a classic case of self-defense, and one less menace to society," said the group's executive director, Larry Pratt. "Good for him."
Robert Shockey doesn't want praise, saying, "I was just doing what I had to do."
Alicia C. Caldwell of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report.
Rich McKay can be reached at 386-253-2316.


fides quaerens intellectum

Great!

fides quaerens intellectum

In my opinion you're being decieved and should ask them specific questions and/or protect yourself from them and have no further contact, they are most likely negative spiritual entities.

-Dan

fides quaerens intellectum

I know what you mean....unfortunately you will probably have to buy the set and then see.  If the money really is an issue, forget about it- at least for a while- and focus on RB's techinqies, etc. and then get it in the future.  

There exists a whole thread regarding the Hemi-Sync stuff- use the built in astral pulse search engine to find it, maybe it will help you make up your mind.

-Dan

fides quaerens intellectum

Yep, those were the posts I was thinking of.

fides quaerens intellectum

I truly believe that the OBE is provable...Robert Bruce, among many others, has expressed interest in developing and then carrying out a number of carefully controlled experiments.  One he mentioned in an interview would include using a large warehouse divided by an impassable concrete wall, or something similar, and the person out-of-body would have to pass through it and record some kind of information.  Of course the nay sayers still wouldn't believe, but it could work and many would believe.  Although I am not terribly preoccupied about proving it, it would be nice for researchers and authors to be able to refer to it.  

-D

fides quaerens intellectum

Sort of off the subject, but what MJ 12 said is SO true.  Sometimes I find myself about to buy a book or some other item of importance and I think, "Well, this is kind of expensive...I need to save my money" but then I go out and get fast food, fill up on gas, see a movie, etc. and although sustenance and transportation are important, I think a book is too.  Anyway, I am thinking out loud, but I think it's important to not give up a book or something like that and then go out and spend $3.95 on the super size garbage meal that's going to clog the arteries anyway.

fides quaerens intellectum

Diagnosis:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know how you feel about it, but you were female in your last earthly incarnation.
You were born somewhere around territory of modern Oceania approximately in 1150.
Your profession was teacher, mathematician, geologist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your brief psychological profile in that past life:
Such people are always involved with all new. You have always loved changes, especially in art, music, cooking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesson, that your last past life brought to present:
Your lesson - to learn discretion and reasonability and then teach others to do that. Your life will be happier, when you help those who lack reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you remember?


No, I don't and I think this is a random generator.

fides quaerens intellectum