or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 9

post #321 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

There's no way around it, if you want to change the constitution regarding such an important aspect that deals with states' citizens having the arms to organize an armed resistance against the federal government's standing army should the need arise, then only a broad and honest discussion within the US-society followed by a general referendum can do the trick.

 

If the US-society decides in the referendum that the right to have arms in citizen's hands is too important to give up, then that means it accepts the price of crazy people using these arms to cause havock every once in a while.

 

The reason why imho a referendum is necessary is because getting rid of that right to arms means to forcibly disarm the population. Such a drastic move needs considerable legitimation that only a referendum can give.

 

That would seem to be a convincing interpretation if the proposal were to disarm the population, but what about the grey area in between? The right to bear arms is already not unlimited. If the proposal were just to tighten the requirements for background checks, registration and storage, rather than disarm, would that still apply? Presumably not, since the constitution does not address such details.

post #322 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Isn't in humorous (well, really, hypocritical) when the "living constitution" folks don't want it to be "living" when it's inconvenient for their agenda?

No, you don't get it.  I do want it to be living.  Arms have evolved and can now cause way too much harm way too easily.  The right to bear them should be reinterpreted.  Asking for a reinterpretation given modern circumstances is precisely what living means in that context.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #323 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Isn't in humorous (well, really, hypocritical) when the "living constitution" folks don't want it to be "living" when it's inconvenient for their agenda?

No, you don't get it.  I do want it to be living.  Arms have evolved and can now cause way too much harm way too easily.  The right to bear them should be reinterpreted.  Asking for a reinterpretation given modern circumstances is precisely what living means in that context.

 

And the right to bear arms has been de facto reinterpreted. Only a limited subset of weapons is allowed to be privately owned.

post #324 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

And the right to bear arms has been de facto reinterpreted. Only a limited subset of weapons is allowed to be privately owned.

 

Correct.  I feel that it should be further reinterpreted to prevent guns that aren't manually reloaded after every shot.  That should work until we can pull together and amend the second amendment.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #325 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

And the right to bear arms has been de facto reinterpreted. Only a limited subset of weapons is allowed to be privately owned.

 

Correct.  I feel that it should be further reinterpreted to prevent guns that aren't manually reloaded after every shot.  That should work until we can pull together and amend the second amendment.

 

I think that goes too far, and I don't see that it would be viable. It would outlaw all existing handguns. I would prefer to see better control over who has access to them.

post #326 of 1058
Seriously. All you have to do is to look around the world and see what works, and what doesn't work. Stop doing what doesn't work (give everybody a gun without mandatory training and screening) and start doing what works (either ban or severely regulate private firearm ownership, or require two years of mandatory military training - which serves the double purpose of screening out psychos).

Only a fucking moron thinks the Wild West is the right way.
post #327 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only a fucking moron thinks the Wild West is the right way.

 

Only a fucking moron thinks anyone is proposing the Wild West.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #328 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Only a fucking moron thinks the Wild West is the right way.

Only a fucking moron thinks anyone is proposing the Wild West.
You're in denial. I'm calling a duck a duck.
post #329 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're in denial.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I'm calling a duck a duck.

 

You're giving us your interpretation of what you think is a duck.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #330 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're in denial. I'm calling a duck a duck.

 

 

Had a dream last night wherein everyone in the US got armed to the hilt and shootings were regular on every block.  Homeowners, out of fear of flying bullets, started building virtual castles with no windows facing outward and double gates.  They hardly left home.  Schools were a thing of the past as no children were allowed to venture out; homeschooling for all or even no schooling: they had to work to protect the family home, and keep it running.  Those who had large plots of land walled them and grew their own food.  The house I visited in the dream had an ATV set up as a fire truck as fire services no longer existed; this one served a small community of ten homes that had banded together.  They grew food and raised livestock, but didn't have enough.  They had to barter with other communities, and risk raids when transporting stuff home.

 

Hopefully it remains just a bad dream.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #331 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're in denial. I'm calling a duck a duck.


Had a dream last night wherein everyone in the US got armed to the hilt and shootings were regular on every block.  Homeowners, out of fear of flying bullets, started building virtual castles with no windows facing outward and double gates.  They hardly left home.  Schools were a thing of the past as no children were allowed to venture out; homeschooling for all or even no schooling: they had to work to protect the family home, and keep it running.  Those who had large plots of land walled them and grew their own food.  The house I visited in the dream had an ATV set up as a fire truck as fire services no longer existed; this one served a small community of ten homes that had banded together.  They grew food and raised livestock, but didn't have enough.  They had to barter with other communities, and risk raids when transporting stuff home.

Hopefully it remains just a bad dream.
Wild West, mad max, feudalism at best, whatever the results of anarchy, it never results in true freedom.
post #332 of 1058

What is the right way than?
 

post #333 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

 

You're giving us your interpretation of what you think is a duck.

 

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, ...

post #334 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think that goes too far, and I don't see that it would be viable. It would outlaw all existing handguns. I would prefer to see better control over who has access to them.

 

Nope.  There are single shot pistols...and I can personally attest that the Contender is fun to shoot.  I've shot skeet with a .410 Contender.  

 

Most, I would imagine, are .22 target pistols but they exist.  But Thompson makes a .30-06 Encore Pistol which is this side of insanity.  Use a proper grip or expect a divot in your forehead.

 

Anyway, I digress...I'm still of the opinion that any effective gun control law (like say the Australian model) will be met with many cries of "goes too far" and anything less going to me mostly ineffectual.  Even so, tightening up training and licensing on a national level would be welcome. 

post #335 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I have worked in public education for nearly 15 years, 14 of which have been in elementary schools.  Do you think I might have some perspective on this situation?  

 

...

 

I'm telling you...we need armed personnel in schools.  I'm telling you...we have no defense against the kind of thing that happened in Newtown.  None.  We have 500 children in little boxes just waiting to be attacked by insane killers.  We don't have a single person who can even access a weapon to stop or limit such a thing.  

 

...

 

By the way, I'll tell you the same thing I told anonymouse:  Until you work in a school, you can take your opinion and shove it.  You and your ilk know nothing.  You're anti-gun bloviating is an insult to all victims of school gun violence, and to every teacher and student in America.  

 

Well, my kids are in elementary school and given you stated you don't shoot my opinion is you're in no position to tell other folks they know nothing and that they should take their opinion and shove it.

 

Who are you to say this?  Yet another entitled union teacher who thinks they know everything?  You and your ilk give teachers a bad name.

 

Edit:  I know Bergermister or someone is going to ping me on hypocrisy but it's one thing to tell judgmental outsiders to bugger off and another to tell other stakeholders (aka parents) to bugger off in an appeal to authority. 


Edited by nht - 12/26/12 at 2:33pm
post #336 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

This is quite silly.

 
First, while counterfactuals are always difficult in these situations, the security officers actions may have made the outcome better than it might have been by a) slowing down the shooters or altering their plans, and b) alerting other law enforcement sooner.

 

Mmm...first, the fact that Harris and Diebold carried out their attack with two LEOs...not rentacops...nearby indicates that this is not the panacea that the NRA would wish folks to believe.  The fact is that most LEOs will never fire their weapon in anger and often aren't as well prepared as they should be.

 

Does anyone seriously trust arming TSA style "cops"?  Because that's what the result would be like.

 

Quote:
There is not any ONE thing that will solve this problem. Better security (in one form or another...including, in some cases, armed security) at schools may be a very appropriate part of the solution. Mental health screening before fire arm purchase may be another part (though certainly won't solve the whole problem.) Better overall mental health and threat awareness might be another.

 

And gun laws are another layer of defense if implemented correctly.  The worst case scenario is a new set of restrictions that don't actually DO anything but restrict law abiding shooters and a new TSA like organization with armed losers in schools.  Why do I believe they would be armed losers?  Because if they weren't losers they'd be LEOs already...

 

And while I might not be a teacher with 15 years of experience I do know that National Association of School Psychologists has stated "studies have shown that highly visible efforts to increase school safety, such as cameras and armed guards, decrease students’ feelings of security...Children who don’t feel safe also don’t feel connected or understood, ultimately undermining their ability to learn and to form trusting relationships".

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sales-of-kids-bullet-proof-backpacks-soar/2012/12/20/6cba668a-4a1e-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story_1.html 


Edited by nht - 12/26/12 at 2:03pm
post #337 of 1058

If gun owners wish to keep their guns for their protection, it's only fair that we massively increase government and private surveillance. Checkpoints, scanners, listening devices, intercepts and any other means available, should be used to monitor them for everybody's protection. 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #338 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If gun owners wish to keep their guns for their protection, it's only fair that we massively increase government and private surveillance. Checkpoints, scanners, listening devices, intercepts and any other means available, should be used to monitor them for everybody's protection. 

 

And now we have one of our anti-gun folks proposing a totalitarian police state if everyone doesn't just give in to his wishes. Nicely done.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #339 of 1058

Well, he's proposing a manner in which those who do not wish to carry guns can feel safe from those who do.  I don't necessarily agree with that proposal, but it does seem like one way of protecting those who do not wish to own their own death machines.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #340 of 1058

The idea that the people could defend themselves against the government with the rifle above the fireplace is not realistic any more. The government have tanks, planes, smart bombs, nukes etc.

 

I believe in freedom, but whether we like it or not, the intellectual battle for freedom is the entire war now. If we lose that we're done. The idea that, as a last resort, you can always put the rifle in the back of the truck and head for the mountains is a fantasy. Just look at the tech that has been developed in Afghanistan over the last 10 years precisely for finding individuals in the mountains.

 

Lose the public debate, lose everything.

post #341 of 1058

We cannot live in a fantasy world any longer. Reality has to set in .We are not in the wild west in the 1800's and this idea with arming yourself with these arsenal of weapons to product yourself is crazy. We have the National Guard and the Police Department to defend us.Confiscate GUNS FOR GOOD!
 

post #342 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The idea that the people could defend themselves against the government with the rifle above the fireplace is not realistic any more. The government have tanks, planes, smart bombs, nukes etc.

 

 

Most successful revolutions require the military to change sides.  Those that are unable to get the military to flip or flee tend to get pounded.  While much of the difference between Libya and Syria is the Russian and Chinese veto in the UN a lot also is the fact that Assad's military is still loyal to him.  Mostly because they are Alawite who believe that losing means getting wiped out by the Sunni.

 

Still, any American rebellion against the USG that cannot gain the loyalty of the US military strikes me as to be on iffy grounds.

post #343 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Still, any American rebellion against the USG that cannot gain the loyalty of the US military strikes me as to be on iffy grounds.

Good point about Syria. Even more reason the battle of ideas is important, to increase the chance that the military (or some portion of it) refuses to co-operate.

post #344 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Cars are not written into the bill of rights.

In your numerous postings, its is clear that you do not have much respect for much of the Bill of Rights (what's left of it) - barring the oh so precious Second Amendment of course.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #345 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, he's proposing a manner in which those who do not wish to carry guns can feel safe from those who do.  I don't necessarily agree with that proposal, but it does seem like one way of protecting those who do not wish to own their own death machines.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The idea that the people could defend themselves against the government with the rifle above the fireplace is not realistic any more. The government have tanks, planes, smart bombs, nukes etc.

 

I believe in freedom, but whether we like it or not, the intellectual battle for freedom is the entire war now. If we lose that we're done. The idea that, as a last resort, you can always put the rifle in the back of the truck and head for the mountains is a fantasy. Just look at the tech that has been developed in Afghanistan over the last 10 years precisely for finding individuals in the mountains.

 

Lose the public debate, lose everything.

 

This is what it comes down to: We can choose guns or we can choose freedom, particularly freedom from the fear that some nut job with a gun will kill us or our children, but essentially the freedom to live without the constant threat of violence -- which, if we're realistic, gun violence is most of the threatening violence that occurs in this country -- hanging over our heads. Security with freedom, rather than the false security that comes from turning our schools, our country, into an armed camp or effectively a prison.

 

Because we've reached a point where the 2nd Amendment as it has come to be interpreted by the courts, is incompatible with maintaining a free society. Something has to go -- either the guns go or our freedom goes. Some gun advocates do seem to value their guns (and their armed resistance fantasies) above all else, but I think most of us would prefer freedom to guns once the choice is clear.

post #346 of 1058

Here's a tally of every known gun death in the U.S. since the shooting in Newtown: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

 

How long do we allow this senseless slaughter to continue?

post #347 of 1058
Number of gun deaths in Hong Kong (population 7 million) in the last 3 years: 0.

Hong Kong people used to own guns. Guns can easily be smuggled in from mainland china. But now gun violence is virtually unheard of.

The last gun death in Hong Kong was police shooting an unarmed homeless man on a hillside three years ago.

Just like in Australia, with prohibition, buy back programs and steep penalties for lawbreaking, in the US there would be a brief spike in gun related crime, then a steady drop off until all Americans are unarguably safer. It's the only logical way to solve the problem.

But it's never going to happen.

So we need bio secure trigger mechanisms (not removable locks) and mandated training for licensed owners.
post #348 of 1058

Curious why do leave the states to come to Hong Kong?
 

post #349 of 1058
Cory Booker. One of the few people with a brain left. Piers Morgan going quite mental though.
post #350 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #351 of 1058
Quote:

The market for used AR-15 is sky high. I know of one person that sold his because the money was too good to pass up.

post #352 of 1058
Quote:

Shocking.  Jazzguru spams another thread with a link and ignores all the inconvenient information that exists within.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime.

The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

Once again, Jazz maintains plausible deniability by refusing to comment on a link he provides.  Now that this information doesn't fit so well with his position, he can claim that he never held a position because all he did was spam the link.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #353 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The market for used AR-15 is sky high. I know of one person that sold his because the money was too good to pass up.

Sure, I've got a $20k here I'll pay for a rocket launcher, anyone selling? The public housing at the end of my street has been pissing me off lately and they look at me funny too. For my "safety" I think it's best I take them out. Permanently. Because it is my right to bear arms and protect myself and my family. 1smoking.gif

Seriously though, just listen to the stuff Cory Booker is saying. Nobody wants to take away ~all~ the guns, just manage the flow to criminals and psychos better. Instead everyone wants to polarise themselves one way or another. It's never going to solve the problem. 2012 is passing, and the US faces a gradual but inevitable decline as China rises... Once more hopelessness, proverty, stress, illness and so on comes about in the US, from 2013-2050, safety and violence will be even more a critical issue. A bloated and out-of-control federal government notwithstanding.

Like I've said before, I am fond of the US and it is tough watching it reach its peak and wondering what happens next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Correct. I feel that it should be further reinterpreted to prevent guns that aren't manually reloaded after every shot. That should work until we can pull together and amend the second amendment.

It's amazing. I was playing Assassin's Creed 3, and I was like, WTF? What retards made guns these bad in the 18th Century... 30 seconds to reload, one shot from a musket before your enemy is right in your face? To think we got to guns from the bow-and-arrow in a millenium, and from gunpowder to nuclear weapons in just a few hundred years. And from nukes to who knows what's out there ~now~... Just wait 'till we get Iron Man suits by 2100. Already we have flying robots aka "drones" that can kill troops of people by joystick.

Indeed it is ridiculous to think a Constitution is something static that goes to the end of time. To me, democracy means the people being able to shape and form things as they feel is necessary for them at the time. Including laws, amendments, repeals, whatever that suits the purposes of democracy.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/30/12 at 2:13am
post #354 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

It's amazing. I was playing Assassin's Creed 3, and I was like, WTF? What retards made guns these bad in the 18th Century... 30 seconds to reload, one shot from a musket before your enemy is right in your face? 

 

Bows were better military weapons pretty much until bolt action rifles.  The difference is that you can train a musketeer in a season but it takes a hell of a lot longer to train an archer (a lifetime for the best longbowmen).  Likewise, using a musket is a lot less physically demanding than pulling a 80-150 lb bow.  A longbowman might be able to churn out 6-12 arrows in a minute vs 2-4 for the musketeer but not for more than a couple minutes before they rapidly tire.

 

Pretty much any nation could field an effective musket force.  Very few could field an effective longbow force.

post #355 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

2012 is passing, and the US faces a gradual but inevitable decline as China rises... Once more hopelessness, proverty, stress, illness and so on comes about in the US, from 2013-2050, safety and violence will be even more a critical issue. A bloated and out-of-control federal government notwithstanding.
Like I've said before, I am fond of the US and it is tough watching it reach its peak and wondering what happens next.

 

Western Civilization follows a pattern. We have these short bursts of a few hundred years where we respect reason and science and change the world (e.g. Greece/Rome with logic, roads and sanitation, The Enlightenment with the industrial revolution) but in-between we revert to religious dictatorship for a thousand years. Religious dictatorship is our "normal" state, it just doesn't seem like it to you and me because of when we were born. If you want to know what happens next, in 50 years it will be the United Christian States of America (or something like that).
 
But Chinese Civilization has a pattern too, every few hundred years they have a revolution - a full on revolution where they completely overthrow their government and replace it with a new one. They can't help themselves, and they're overdue.
 
So it's not clear to me that China is rising and the US is falling. Both are just following their same old lame pattern. And whichever comes out on top, neither will be so much bigger than the other that they can sail across the sea and successfully invade, so it will be a live and let live policy.
post #356 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

2012 is passing, and the US faces a gradual but inevitable decline as China rises... Once more hopelessness, proverty, stress, illness and so on comes about in the US, from 2013-2050, safety and violence will be even more a critical issue. A bloated and out-of-control federal government notwithstanding.
Like I've said before, I am fond of the US and it is tough watching it reach its peak and wondering what happens next.

 

Western Civilization follows a pattern. We have these short bursts of a few hundred years where we respect reason and science and change the world (e.g. Greece/Rome with logic, roads and sanitation, The Enlightenment with the industrial revolution) but in-between we revert to religious dictatorship for a thousand years. Religious dictatorship is our "normal" state, it just doesn't seem like it to you and me because of when we were born. If you want to know what happens next, in 50 years it will be the United Christian States of America (or something like that).
 
But Chinese Civilization has a pattern too, every few hundred years they have a revolution - a full on revolution where they completely overthrow their government and replace it with a new one. They can't help themselves, and they're overdue.
 
So it's not clear to me that China is rising and the US is falling. Both are just following their same old lame pattern. And whichever comes out on top, neither will be so much bigger than the other that they can sail across the sea and successfully invade, so it will be a live and let live policy.

 

I would argue that you are extrapolating with insufficient historical data and insufficient consideration of other variables. There have not been enough cycles to conclude that they are inevitable despite other changes, and those cycles themselves were to dissimilar to be definitively classified as part of a longer pattern. In particular, "religious dictatorships", as you characterized them, thrived primarily by fear predicated on ignorance, and, as our knowledge has advanced, religion in the western world has both waned in popularity and changed from being a ubiquitous, mandatory doctrine to a personal choice. I cannot see how that process of marginalization would be easily reversed.

post #357 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 
But Chinese Civilization has a pattern too, every few hundred years they have a revolution - a full on revolution where they completely overthrow their government and replace it with a new one. They can't help themselves, and they're overdue.

 

 

Modern China is 101 years old (Dec 29, 1911) counting back to the establishment of the Republic of China or perhaps 100.9 years old if you want to count from when the last Qing Emperor abdicated (Feb 12, 1912).  If you date from the rise of Communist China then you start from October 1, 1949.

 

Even if you generously interpret "few hundred" as 200 years they have bit of time left before being "overdue".

 
Quote:
So it's not clear to me that China is rising and the US is falling. Both are just following their same old lame pattern. And whichever comes out on top, neither will be so much bigger than the other that they can sail across the sea and successfully invade, so it will be a live and let live policy.

 

 

We never invaded England or France but we sure ended their status as a major global powers.  Suez was a debacle all around and we're still paying for the mess.

post #358 of 1058

Until these dam guns are off the street for good which unfortunately will never happen.
 

post #359 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #360 of 1058

The comments following that "story" are far more illuminating than the story itself.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut