| Author | Message | ||
    Edward Member Post Number: 2639 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Joe.... I understand your point. I will just take a Neutral POSITIVE...stance on this one.... Edward. | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 2641 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Anthony.... No, have not yet seen..."The Silent Revolution of Truth Movie?" Well, that is Billy. He is in another situation which can not be compared with the Weapon Sales, in America. He had 21-22 assassin attacks on his life; thus, his situation is quite different than the common individual/owner. He is an Exception....due to what occurred to him in the past. Some of you may know this....out there. Edward. | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 2642 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Hunter.... Of course, the gun crimes are lower in Switzerland. Because, it is just a tiny country, and not that big as America. Thus, does not have so much gun going around. [I was referring to Automatic as well as Semi...] Edward. | ||
Justsayno Member Post Number: 502 Registered: 10-2009 |
“We’ve made an entire vehicle disappear.” http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/sciencetech/archives/2012/12/20121213-081403.html Not sure if anyone is aware that this technology is for sale...let's hope it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Good, better, best. May you never rest, until your good is better, and your better best. | ||
Hunter Member Post Number: 379 Registered: 03-2004 |
Smukhuti, You make a lot of assumptions in your post. Again, everyone has the right of self-defense. This is perfectly logical. And, no, we will never have a zero rate of death from gun violence, or violence in general. Perfection is not an option. Even the Plejaren have criminals that break their laws. And calling the NRA propagandists is a little far-fetched considering they're the only group with the honesty to post actual news stories of law-abiding gun owners stopping violent criminals. Funny how we never hear about these stories in the mainstream media: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx Now just who is spreading propaganda and who isn't? Edward, I'm not talking about the total number of guns. Of course the population is lower in Switzerland. But as far as gun ownership, the percentage rate is higher in Switzerland. Meaning, a higher percentage of people in Switzerland own more guns than in the U.S. So, therefore, if guns cause crime, their crime rate as a percentage should be higher. Yet, it is far lower. This proves that a high percentage of guns do not cause a higher rate of crime. Especially when compared to countries that have banned guns. The Swiss crime rate is still lower. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer | ||
Flaming_pie Member Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2012 |
Hi Edward, Yes, I agree that one of the reasons Billy has a small arsenal of automatic and semiautomatic firearms is because of the assassination attempts, no question. There are other reasons, Swiss law. I think the citizens are required to have their army pistols at home. But also, I think the weapons are to protect the people at the Center if some of the horrible things in the prophecies come true. Don't all families have this right? I understand you live in Holland, right? Citizens are not allowed firearms. So, my friend, how do protect yourself? Are you allowed to carry pepper spray? A cane? Perhaps boxing lessons or martial arts? I think we all can agree that religion and overpopulation leads to a lot of crazy people who are not reasonable and will attack their neighbors. So all people, not just Billy, really need self defensive weapons on planet Earth. Even Menara the alien had a laser gun that Billy shot. The point is that the laser gun pictures prove that even the aliens are armed and agree with firearms. As I understand it, Billy would take his revolver with him on the contacts where he would end up on the ship, in space and on other worlds. Why did he need his gun then? Maybe there are bounty hunters like in Star Wars?  And we live on super dangerous Earth. Our responsibility is to practice self-defense in accordance with the teaching. And this means to protect ones life or another. I think it is irresponsible not to have some sort of defensive plan; and it is irresponsible to totally give up the defense you have. I am for gun law reform, and better oversight and education for everybody, but not a total or even partial ban. With the outrageous population of guns in America already, any ban would make the streets of America more dangerous for the law abiding citizens. Best regards, Anthony Alagna | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 664 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hunter, I made a lot of assumptions in my last post, but please, which of those were wrong and how? Secondly, I am not against self defense; tell me where in my post I have given you this assumption? The fact that guns are necessary in some case is the reason why I do not think a total ban is too idealistic, but a stricter control of who is issued what and why and the use of rubber bullets is the need of the day. In lot of cases which you posted, death of the assailant could have been avoided by use of rubber bullets and at the same time, the assailant could have been repelled. Of course a jewellery store or a bank or a commercial entity or a person with high risk of being attacked, are all justified in keeping with them lethal rounds, but not the average citizen in peaceful neighbourhood with zero or minimal chance of armed assault. As for hunting deer or fox or what have you, in most cases this is going on for recreation and as per my opinion this is primitive. BTW, if there is a conspiracy against American citizens to disarm, exploit and exterminate, and a wider plan supported by the “Elders of Zion”, who guarantees that the American military is not coming against its citizen with guns, and not RPG's/mortars/grenades? Should the average American citizen keep missiles in their armoury? Everything comes to us that belongs to us if we create the capacity to receive it - Rabindranath Tagore | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 665 Registered: 06-2009 |
About Swiss gun culture: There is a misconception that every Swiss families have guns. Firstly, Not everybody is issued a gun. With 45.7 guns/100 people, it ranks behind US with 88.8 guns/100 people. Secondly, It has higher gun crime rate than Australia, Germany and many many other developed nations. In fact about 72% of its homicide are with Guns compared to 60% in US. It's firearm related death rate of 3.84 is less than Americas 10.2 which more or less tally with gun ownership rate. Then again, no two countries are alike. Switzerland is not comparable to America in areas such as multiculturalism, immigration, drug usage and gangs. Plus, a near majority of Swiss people who own guns have have military training and have been instructed on the lawful usage and discipline. For them, these guns are the difference between the nation falling to external power in “under a day” to holding out “just enough”. Swiss guns laws are in fact, tougher than most States in America (read below). People who undergo military training are given the option to leave the gun at barrack or to carry the gun to their home. In case of second option, the fully automatic capabilities of the gun is removed to make it self loading or semi-automatic. These guns and ammunitions are stringently audited since they are not meant for personal use. The ammunition given are just enough to manage during the time to travel from home to barrack during emergency. Since 2007, only a select group are given ammunition (for e.g. the military police), a vast majority of citizen are only given guns. People purchase/rent their own gun and ammo for personal use, such as in shooting range. Plus to purchase guns for personal use, Swiss people require a to have no criminal record (criminal records bureau check), mental disability, history of violent conducts, etc . To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security. This is issued only when the applicant - fulfils the conditions for buying a permit (like criminal record, no disability, criminal records bureau check ) - states plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger - passes an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon Attempt for stricter gun laws were rejected by Swiss people in 2011. http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/taschenmunition-fast-vollstaendig-eingezogen-1.10450798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Everything comes to us that belongs to us if we create the capacity to receive it - Rabindranath Tagore | ||
Flaming_pie Member Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2012 |
Smukhuti, You have a very reasonable approach. I agree with a lot about what you are saying. I too think the USA can learn about firearm laws from the Swiss. I think US background checks need to be improved, as you say, to include things like metal disabilities, certain drug prescriptions, history of violence, etc. Right now I think they just check for felonies through the state and FBI. And I think there should be restrictions on the number of firearms, magazines and ammunition a person can own. I think the there should be mandatory training like you bring up in the Swiss example. But "who guarantees that the American military is not coming against its citizen with guns, and not RPG's/mortars/grenades? Should the average American citizen keep missiles in their armoury?" This is not about balance of power. Unless your fighting armies of people, there is no way RPGs, mortars, grenades could be considered defensive weapons. These weapons are for offensive attack. But to think that a bolt action hunting rifle is sufficient for any sort of home defense is ridiculous. And a revolver six shot, although easier to handle in a crisis, is not enough bullets to allow for more than one attacker. If you had to defend a family from a group of attackers, you need a military/police type shotgun or as Billy has in his safe for a bigger property an assault rifle. Both legal in the USA right now, but might be banned. Best regards, Anthony Alagna | ||
Hunter Member Post Number: 380 Registered: 03-2004 |
Smukhuti, Let's talk about facts. So you are saying you want to reduce death by guns, which is an admirable goal. It's an admirable goal because I think we can both agree that human life should be protected as best as possible so that we can all gain maximum spiritual development and improve our own lives and thus improve the world and the universe. That's the big picture. Now, if there were other causes of death that were far more dangerous and numerous than gun deaths, wouldn't it be illogical, irrational and/or just plain stupid to have such a focus on guns? Again, let's talk about facts. This chart on this link clearly shows what anti-gunners don't want people to know: From the link: "According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other “big killers” in the United States. If we look at homicide statistics in the United States it’s clear that more murders are committed with knives, bats, hammers and poisons than with firearms. As Kurt Nimmo recently noted, “ the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.” Link: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/americas-biggest-killers-the-chart-anti-gunners-dont-want-you-to-see_01052013 So again, I ask you, who is spreading propaganda and who isn't? Why on earth should we be concerned with guns at all after looking at these government statistics????? Only a fool would be focused on guns IF THE REAL INTENT IS TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE. So either anti-gun Democrats like Diane Fienstein are stupid and driven solely by emotion, or they have some other motive. And, yes, I believe they have some other motive which is to disarm the American public and bring in a world government dominated by powerful banking interests. I don't have a problem with world government if it respects human rights and human liberty, but a world government that is a tyranny would obviously be counterproductive. Regardless, your wish for new gun laws is still completely illogical because what you're saying is "Hey, this government that is moving us towards World War 3 and is completely irrational on foreign policy can be trusted with making new gun laws." Sorry, I don't buy that. As far as other heavier weapons, that's a strawman, which is refuted nicely here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts And I disagree with your assertion that we have nothing to fear from government. Democide or death by government, is the leading cause of unnatural death over the past century. So saying it's paranoid to worry about being killed by a government doesn't gel with the facts. It's a rational concern, if we're talking about being logical and basing our actions on real statistics and facts. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 2646 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Anthnoy.... Yes, you can acquire for a weapon, here...in Holland. There are strict rules. One has to shot at a target range/school once a month; it could de different, now; an not that informed about this. Before you receive your license, there is a extensive investigation. Now, even more, due to the shooting at the Shopping Center/Mall, as I mentioned in a previous post. Hand Guns, are not that of a problem, but you are checked thoroughly; with semi-automatic weapons, like-wise. But, they want to put a stop to this, also. Thus, there is drastic changes being done after the Mall Shooting. Yes, Anthony...indeed, the Overpopulation Factor and Religion can play part, to some extent, but, not per se. I mean, I would NOT acquire a weapon just because the world is Overpopulated or/and Religious. I do not even own a weapon! [Only, have a Water Gun somewhere....to frighten away the pigeons on my balcony railing.... ] I fully agree with your input, Anthony. The world is indeed Super Dangerous...but, as the saying goes: "YOU...make it as dangerous as YOU make it..." Thus, I will let my Equilibrium(: Neutral POSITIVITY) take over, here. BTW: I just read (this weekend), under Biden, there will be a reform in gun laws; this due to what occurred at the Kindergarden School (Bless those sweet little kinds and teachers...so sad....). We will just see what the out-come is of Biden's Laws? Edward. | ||
Ferbon Member Post Number: 198 Registered: 05-2012 |
Hunter That is an interesting point. Of all main reasons for human suffering, destruction of the planet and global warming...we had a decade of "fight with terror" and apparently we are getting ready to face a decade of "fight with guns". Is the war with terror over? so that we can now move on to firearms? Prohibition was present in this country before which we all know how it ended. This new politics/propaganda fails to address the fact that major world conflicts were fought and won by conventional weapons 75 years ago. Time of winning by firing bullets, digging trenches and marching through Siberia is over. In the world of 9 billion people each strike will probably be comparable to the holocaust. In addition, people from territories affected by WW2 still had guns, grenades etc. long after the war has ended. Somehow they managed to rebuild the society and raise it from the ruins. Salome | ||
Flaming_pie Member Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2012 |
Hi Edward, You have a wise saying, "YOU...make it as dangerous as YOU make it..." I totally agree. Even on primitive Earth we have a lot of control over whether we lead a life filled with danger or we can steer clear of these environments and live a life in relative peace. And yes, if we are neutral-positive it not only puts us in the right frame, but we seem less confrontational to others. But I still get the sense that you think guns are some evil thing? We are all very sad to what happened to those sweet little kids and teachers; but anyone with any common sense and reasoning skills can see that the solution is not to throw down your arms or have them banned, but to have the capability of self defense. Here is a good example in the recent news where a armed woman was able to save herself and two children from a home intruder. http://myfox8.com/2013/01/06/ga-mom-shoots-intruder-5-times-saves-children/ What do you say to this? I agree with Hunter, these politicians have an agenda. At the top of government they know about the Meier prophecies. They see them unfolding. They are not stupid. They just want the public stupid. So I would suspect they would love to disarm the American people to prevent the civil wars prophecies from taking place. But instead of listening to Billy or implementing Cory's top 10 list, they think disarming the public little by little is the answer. Best regards, Anthony Alagna | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 666 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Hunter, "Now, if there were other causes of death that were far more dangerous and numerous than gun deaths, wouldn't it be illogical, irrational and/or just plain stupid to have such a focus on guns? " It is quite true that tobacco smoking, drug usage, wrong treatment are bigger killers than gun crime. In developing countries, poor hygiene and malnutrition are huge killers. I definitely support all and everything that can be done alleviate these problems, more so the root cause - overpopulation. And as of things like medical errors - these are steps in human evolution that cannot be avoided. But the fact is, non-action in one front cannot be justification of non-action in another front. Knives, bats etc. can never be banned, but guns can be made non-lethal and issued only to people with real need. Every life saved counts. The minuscule number being referred is the highest in the developed world. BTW, the figure against non-firearm homicide outnumbering firearm homicide seem suspicious. Traditionally, in America, firearm homicide are 65-70% of all homicide. Did the method of calculation changed? What does "more" include? If this is true then there seem to be a marked change in the nature of crime in America in just 1 year. FBI's own site tell a different story for 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 i.e 8583 gun homicide vs 4081 non gun homicide. So does U.N. figures. "And I disagree with your assertion that we have nothing to fear from government. Democide or death by government, is the leading cause of unnatural death over the past century. So saying it's paranoid to worry about being killed by a government doesn't gel with the facts. It's a rational concern, if we're talking about being logical and basing our actions on real statistics and facts." I never wrote Governments have good intention. I just have no solid proof at hand to trust these youtube videos that the American Government is out to exterminate its own citizens. Surely they would not want to be rulers without anybody to rule!! What is more viable is that Government try to suppress by force certain section of the society. Even though the American government is predominantly white; it is a paradox that the one who are most vocal support of unrestricted gun ownership are white people. Also, surprisingly, there is no voice for rubber bullets or other forms of non-lethal weaponry that can serve as deterrent to crime at the same time save lives. While I have no explanation for this, I think the religious right leaders are increasingly feeling alienated in America and the powerful puppet masters who control these religious right people are playing with the impressionable mind of these religious people, because they want a safety net in case America becomes "too liberal" (they equate liberal policies with communism) where they will have no political space. In this scenario, they want a group of armed to the teeth citizens (with lethal weapons) to fight for them for separate territory - if not by constitutional means, by arms. I am not sure about this, but this is my assumption only. One thing I agree, if there are stricter gun laws in America, there has to be greater stress to ensure that the ones with drugs and criminal history or gang involvement are dealt with the strictest clause, or else, as the proponents of guns say - only the bad people would be left with guns. Everything comes to us that belongs to us if we create the capacity to receive it - Rabindranath Tagore | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 636 Registered: 07-2009 |
> Another excellent article on the subject by Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun | ||
Votan Member Post Number: 58 Registered: 12-2011 |
Michael I agree it is an excellent article. I have owned a rifle for the last 40yrs and only required a licence after the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania by Bryant. To this day after talking to people who knew him say it was a set up to reign in weapons and make a fortune on licences. I was in the Army for 8 years and school cadets for 3 years gaining cross rifles which is marksman. I do not have the bolt in the rifle and never have when my children were young. Yes it is for self defense. I have shot a magnum pistol ,sub machine guns and SLR 7.6 bullets and all the heavy weapons the army uses. I do not agree with Police or security guards openly like Wyatt Earp carrying guns. It is not a deterrent ,it should be hidden and used in self defense only. Most of them are not trained to be a marksman and go for the largest part of the body and hence kill the person. Here also Tasers are used which have proven to kill people. I feel that stun guns should be used by police . joe | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 667 Registered: 06-2009 |
Really a good article. Among the various solutions he proposed, one thing that I wished he could have added, was non lethal bullets to be part of the solution and much easier laws/no restriction to obtain the same against strict laws for lethal rounds. Everything comes to us that belongs to us if we create the capacity to receive it - Rabindranath Tagore | ||
Hunter Member Post Number: 381 Registered: 03-2004 |
Smukhuti, You said "non-action in one front cannot be justification of non-action in another front." But is it logical? Is it logical to spend time and resources on minor problems while ignoring major problems? Isn't the only logical solution to spend a proportionate amount of time on each problem in relation to its severity? - in this case, with the amount of lives being lost? Of course it is. So again, you are acting illogically and irrationally by focusing so much attention on guns in relation to these other problems. This is obviously an emotional issue for you and it's clear that it's clouding your judgment. You also say "I just have no solid proof at hand to trust these youtube videos that the American Government is out to exterminate its own citizens. Surely they would not want to be rulers without anybody to rule!!" Who said anything about complete extermination? The problem with that line of thinking is that it ignores an obvious outcome - they could murder 250 million people in this country and still have 50 million "to rule." I'm sure the 250 million would have probably wished for a gun at some in the equation... "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 668 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Hunter, The problem is not a minor one. If you consider 9-10000 dead (gun murders) per year a minor problem, you can live with that standard, not me. Secondly, even though death by tobacco et all are really more pertinent problems, still, time invested for all problems - minor or major is not waste of time, especially since we rarely invest time truly solving problems. Again, you can think differently here. Finally: A) the one who smoke tobacco or consume drugs are actually comparable to gun suicide, not gun murder; B) Unintentional deaths or deaths due to wrong treatment are part of human nature and stepping stones in human evolution and it is a fallacy to compare them with gun murders Now, a question to you - lets say American Government exterminate 250 million citizens to leave 50 million rulers; then these 50 millions would rule each other? Who would they rule if there are 50 million rulers? Hunter, if really gun laws are made strict (covering existing gun owners), at most the number of deaths in US can be reduced by 3-4000; it will never be completely eliminated. With the culture of gangs and high drug usage, growing inequality, make no mistake that people who are really desperate to commit crime, would find illegal weapons to do the same. Plus, there is a cultural aspect of aggression which varies from country to country and from region to region. What can be effectively achieved is that a normal person will not find lethal weapons in the closet in times of rage/frustration. At most s/he will get hold of a knife or a non-lethal weapon or a gun with rubber bullets. Also, Those with gangs will find it that much difficult to obtain sophisticated weapons. Some time back I read an excellent article on suicide, which was done on patients suffering from chronic depression and suicidal tendencies. The study showed, that shooting oneself with a gun is the preferred (less painful/more impulsive) method to commit suicide vis-a-vis stabbing oneself with knife, jumping off a building, hanging, or consuming poison, etc. The extra minutes spend in preparation (for all other methods) and the fear of pain (yes) change the mind of 36% of people attempting suicide. Everything comes to us that belongs to us if we create the capacity to receive it - Rabindranath Tagore | ||
Sarah Member Post Number: 223 Registered: 10-2011 |
Not exactly world war III (Not directly), but RT news has been talking a lot about Syria and Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqf_1TntGkk I really really hope they aren't going to do what they are suggesting.<_< | ||
Flaming_pie Member Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2012 |
Hi Smukhuti, What you are missing here is that suicide and murder happen because of a weak and confused consciousness. These people who commit these acts have no self responsibility, are unreasonable, do not understand even affective love, let alone real love. I certainly agree that the US needs to tighten up her gun laws. But blaming the gun 100% is wrong; AND nothing will be solved by banning guns except that the US government has disarmed law abiding citizens in increasing crime due to economic breakdown, and the prophecies of WWIII and civil wars. If our leaders really want to save children and adults, they will educate them and help them become non-religious productive citizens -- they would listen to Billy Meier. Entertainment like video games needs to evolve where spiritual values are rewarded and evil earns a lessor score. Hollywood and the rest of the media needs to stop glamorizing killing and crime. Pharmaceutical companies must be governed not by profit but rather the DEA; and doctors should be avoiding using drugs and promote nutrition, exercise, and a healthy mind. Imagine, Smukhuti, if these were the topic of debates on our TV news instead of the current circus? Imagine if the government really wanted to get to the root problem of why these gun tragedies occur, (religion & overpopulation) instead of exploiting it to demonize semiautomatic guns for a political agenda. This narrow approach saves hardly any lives from the gun, if any. It is likely that banning guns on a large scale would increase gun murder in a religious, unreasonable, materialistic, self centered, entitled, spoiled, economic collapsing/hyper-inflated USA. Best regards, Anthony Alagna | ||
Earthling Member Post Number: 675 Registered: 05-2008 |
In the latest CR, Billy says we've already had 3 World Wars. The first being the Seven Years War of 1756-1763 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War 9,http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/sonder-bulletin/2013/nr-71/544-kontakt?page=0,9 So does this mean when we read Henochs Prophecies that the 3rd world fire already took place during what we call WWII and that we should be looking for signs in the prophecies of WW4? Salome, Bruce | ||
Rintintin Member Post Number: 46 Registered: 04-2012 |
Dear Fellow Patriot, Harry Reid and the Washington, D.C. gun control lobby have declared all-out war on our Second Amendment rights . . . . . . and now their sights are set on gutting the Senate filibuster, clearing a path to ram their gun control schemes into law. Urge your U.S. Senators and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to oppose Harry Reid's scheme or any so-called "compromise" that would weaken the filibuster! Please submit your FREE Grassroots Fax authorization below RIGHT NOW! http://www.nagr.org/filibusterfax.aspx?pid=c For freedom!... |
