OT -- Right to Bear Arms -- Opinions Please

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

I disagree with that but marble. I think the entire bill of rights for the most part is equal. As for the rest I will keep my opinion to myself. I just will say there is some flaws in your argument. IMO. I do agree with the right to bear arms though.

You WUSSY! Step up!

The reason the right to bear arms matters more is it helps protect the others. There is no other right that does that.

My right to vote is the most powerfull thing and is the foundation of this country. Voting can change anything in this country. Having a gun can not. But also freedom of speech press and religon are just as big as right to bear arms. Besides the two main flaws in your argument both deals with the military. One of two things can happen
Say those local cops dont fuck around and they call in the national guard right away. Which is what could easily happen.
1. The National guard kicks the everloving shit out of the locals and then you are up shits creek without a paddle.

2. The National guard rebels. Now you have a revolution on your hands and probably a civil war and again we are up shits creek without a paddle.

Walking out of your house and pointing a gun at someone is a bad idea unless you are protecting your family. What those locals would be doing is violating the law.

But if those locals just give up their guns and then during election time they vote and put all those ass holes out of office and put in pro-gun people they then get their guns back without anyone dying. So again I say voting is the biggest and best freedom.

But really we are arguing symantics. I love each and everyone of my freedoms and sadly they are going away.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

I disagree with that but marble. I think the entire bill of rights for the most part is equal. As for the rest I will keep my opinion to myself. I just will say there is some flaws in your argument. IMO. I do agree with the right to bear arms though.

You WUSSY! Step up!

The reason the right to bear arms matters more is it helps protect the others. There is no other right that does that.

My right to vote is the most powerfull thing and is the foundation of this country. Voting can change anything in this country. Having a gun can not. But also freedom of speech press and religon are just as big as right to bear arms. Besides the two main flaws in your argument both deals with the military. One of two things can happen
Say those local cops dont fuck around and they call in the national guard right away. Which is what could easily happen.
1. The National guard kicks the everloving shit out of the locals and then you are up shits creek without a paddle.

2. The National guard rebels. Now you have a revolution on your hands and probably a civil war and again we are up shits creek without a paddle.

Walking out of your house and pointing a gun at someone is a bad idea unless you are protecting your family. What those locals would be doing is violating the law.

But if those locals just give up their guns and then during election time they vote and put all those ass holes out of office and put in pro-gun people they then get their guns back without anyone dying. So again I say voting is the biggest and best freedom.

But really we are arguing symantics. I love each and everyone of my freedoms and sadly they are going away.

First the right to vote is predicated on the right to bear arms. Otherwise, what is your recourse when the winner says, great! That's the end of the elections! Go try to speak. When you get shot down what's your neighbors remedy exactly? Without guns when the church's are closed, what is your remedy exactly????
Being armed is the difference between consenting and being a slave. Without guns the other rights are gifts that can easily be taken away. With an armed populace? Much tougher to take away Freedom of speech.

LOL, the National Guard CANNOT be everywhere at once and disarm everyone simultaneously. They are outnumbered 1000 to one. Read up on the Irish Revolution after WWI and see what happened when a vastly outnumbered British Army tried to subdue Ireland. Or heck, when a vastly outnumbered British Army tried to subdue the USA! Miltary manuals estimate it takes a minimum of seven soldiers to subdue or eliminate a guerilla force. Add up all our armed forces. We have what? Around 1.5 million? NO WAY can they control 100 million armed people even if they wanted to.

The National Guard rebelling is EXACTLY what is THE great protection! The PEOPLE having the ability to force the soldiers to THINK! To consider what they are doing! Unless the PEOPLE are armed? It cannot happen.

Why does a civil war scare you? We survived one and came out better for it. So did the Brits in there Civil War. Not that they are good things, but the threat of exactly that MUST be there or politicians are all-powerful, instead of the people.

Sooner, in another context here is an analogy as to how weapons and violence relate to various rights.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

True but you're missing the point. Will American Tanks fire on American civilians over and over and over again over a period of weeks and months? Or will the soldiers at some point say "Screw this?"

well theyve done it before and would have kept doin it had they not won

That's simply untrue. They have NEVER had to do it over and over again for an extended period. NEVER.

did it in the 60s a couple times Watts and Arkansas, and Harlem

I believe very strongly in MY right to bear arms....everyone else, not so much....

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nicely done.

The ONLY right that matters, the ONLY one, is the right to bear arms. If that doesn't exist? All other rights are merely a matter of governmental whim.

The other side of the issue makes two typical errors.

1) That somehow criminals listen to/care about/obey laws. By definition they don't. Laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. The idea that additional laws will somhow create compliance by criminals is laughable.

2) That an armed American populace would lose to the US military. This MAY be true, but it misses what an armed populace does. First let's look at Iraq. An armed population of 24 million non-Amercians caused enough havoc that a significant part of American society argued for withdrawl. Then one must ask how would ten times as many armed Americans be dealt with?
The larger issue is the DYNAMIC an armed American population would cause.

Here is the scenario. Gov't announces guns will be confiscated. Local cops appear at citizen XYZ's house. There is a 100% chance that news will leak. The local cop gets met by ten armed citizens who know him. He retreats. Stakes gets ratcheted up. In his visit the next day ten cops get met by 100 citizens under arms. The choice the cops face is fire on their fellow citizens and get massacred, retreat or join the citizens. The stakes get raised again and again and again. The issue is to make the military make a decision as to whether to fire on their fellow citizens, retreat, or switch sides. If even 10% switch sides? the government CANNOT win without destroying major swaths of the nation. They won't do it. But without the right to bear arms? The process never begins.

I disagree with that but marble. I think the entire bill of rights for the most part is equal. As for the rest I will keep my opinion to myself. I just will say there is some flaws in your argument. IMO. I do agree with the right to bear arms though.

You WUSSY! Step up!

The reason the right to bear arms matters more is it helps protect the others. There is no other right that does that.

My right to vote is the most powerfull thing and is the foundation of this country. Voting can change anything in this country. Having a gun can not. But also freedom of speech press and religon are just as big as right to bear arms. Besides the two main flaws in your argument both deals with the military. One of two things can happen
Say those local cops dont fuck around and they call in the national guard right away. Which is what could easily happen.
1. The National guard kicks the everloving shit out of the locals and then you are up shits creek without a paddle.

2. The National guard rebels. Now you have a revolution on your hands and probably a civil war and again we are up shits creek without a paddle.

Walking out of your house and pointing a gun at someone is a bad idea unless you are protecting your family. What those locals would be doing is violating the law.

But if those locals just give up their guns and then during election time they vote and put all those ass holes out of office and put in pro-gun people they then get their guns back without anyone dying. So again I say voting is the biggest and best freedom.

But really we are arguing symantics. I love each and everyone of my freedoms and sadly they are going away.

First the right to vote is predicated on the right to bear arms. Otherwise, what is your recourse when the winner says, great! That's the end of the elections! Go try to speak. When you get shot down what's your neighbors remedy exactly? Without guns when the church's are closed, what is your remedy exactly????
Being armed is the difference between consenting and being a slave. Without guns the other rights are gifts that can easily be taken away. With an armed populace? Much tougher to take away Freedom of speech.

LOL, the National Guard CANNOT be everywhere at once and disarm everyone simultaneously. They are outnumbered 1000 to one. Read up on the Irish Revolution after WWI and see what happened when a vastly outnumbered British Army tried to subdue Ireland. Or heck, when a vastly outnumbered British Army tried to subdue the USA! Miltary manuals estimate it takes a minimum of seven soldiers to subdue or eliminate a guerilla force. Add up all our armed forces. We have what? Around 1.5 million? NO WAY can they control 100 million armed people even if they wanted to.

The National Guard rebelling is EXACTLY what is THE great protection! The PEOPLE having the ability to force the soldiers to THINK! To consider what they are doing! Unless the PEOPLE are armed? It cannot happen.

Why does a civil war scare you? We survived one and came out better for it. So did the Brits in there Civil War. Not that they are good things, but the threat of exactly that MUST be there or politicians are all-powerful, instead of the people.

The bolded part is right on and I could not agree more. It is the basic foundation of this country and all democracy across the world. I sense a little bit of a Hege'sl Dialectic coming on. LOL

I was about to use the civil war example against you. I was going to say that there was a time when the people of this country decided to take up arms against what they thought was wrong and they got their ass handed to them. Do you think that the south was better off after that war? The south would have been better off if they had won that war. Not condoning slavery or anything I am just stating a fact. The south never really became the powerhouse it was before the war.

But also Marble I do agree with everything you wrote. I just will never put one right over another. I could go down the list of rights and no matter how we try to put one over another it cant happen. They are all so important. Besides if you have a very intelligent voting population that would actually learn about the issues we would never run into the problem of the government trying to assert controll in the first place. Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing.

I wish everyone in this country would begin to understand the basic fundamentals of our government and what they stand for and mean. The only way to do that is overhaul the educational system. We should be teaching kids how to become an intelligent functioning members of society not MTV watching idiots. Anyways I am done ranting about that. I kinda got off topic. LOL

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner, in another context here is an analogy as to how weapons and violence relate to various rights.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Was it not the politician who began the American revolution? Was it not the lawyer John Adams who was shouting in the continental congress for seperation from England. I believe it takes both. If not for our educated politicians who read Hegel, John Locke and many others the soldier would have no clue what to do. Educated people are so undervalued.

Birdofthad wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

true marble i just think civilians with AR 15s vs Tanks is a big lose

True but you're missing the point. Will American Tanks fire on American civilians over and over and over again over a period of weeks and months? Or will the soldiers at some point say "Screw this?"

well theyve done it before and would have kept doin it had they not won

That's simply untrue. They have NEVER had to do it over and over again for an extended period. NEVER.

did it in the 60s a couple times Watts and Arkansas, and Harlem

Nope, nope and nope. Watts lasted less than a week and the National Guard was there only for the last two days.

In Arkansas I assume you mean the Race Riot after WWI. Again, troops were involved for two days.

In Harlem the riot of 1963 or 1964 (I forget) I don't think troops rolled at all. I could be wrong there.

It simply has never happened in the USA. Even the draft riots during the civil war lasted less than a week.

The other thing to consider is I am not saying citizens would riot. They would organize and act militarily.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner, in another context here is an analogy as to how weapons and violence relate to various rights.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Was it not the politician who began the American revolution? Was it not the lawyer John Adams who was shouting in the continental congress for seperation from England. I believe it takes both. If not for our educated politicians who read Hegel, John Locke and many others the soldier would have no clue what to do. Educated people are so undervalued.

Um actually no it wasn't. What began the Revolution was armed citizen farmers gathering on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775. Why did they gather? BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T HAVE THE VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was over a YEAR BEFORE the Declaration was written and signed. The what happened? MORE citizen farmers gathered at the North Bridge that afternoon in Concord and fired the shot heard round the world. Then what happened? Citizen soldiers flocked from all over Middlesex and Essex and Suffolk Counties and they hammerred away at the British for hours, killing over a hundred of them.

Oh yeah, the Second Continental Congress, the one that matterred and that John Adams got active in? Met for the first time three weeks LATER!

There was ONE indispensable man in the Revolution. ONE. And it wasn't Adams or Paine or Franklin or Jefferson. It was George Washington.

The idea that the "educated classes" were necessary to "tell them what to do" is ridiculous. Americans had had some form of self-governance and a deep understanding of liberty for almost a century pre-dating Locke and I don't know what Hegel you are referring to as he was BORN during the American Revolution.

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner, in another context here is an analogy as to how weapons and violence relate to various rights.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Was it not the politician who began the American revolution? Was it not the lawyer John Adams who was shouting in the continental congress for seperation from England. I believe it takes both. If not for our educated politicians who read Hegel, John Locke and many others the soldier would have no clue what to do. Educated people are so undervalued.

Um actually no it wasn't. What began the Revolution was armed citizen farmers gathering on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775. Why did they gather? BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T HAVE THE VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was over a YEAR BEFORE the Declaration was written and signed. The what happened? MORE citizen farmers gathered at the North Bridge that afternoon in Concord and fired the shot heard round the world. Then what happened? Citizen soldiers flocked from all over Middlesex and Essex and Suffolk Counties and they hammerred away at the British for hours, killing over a hundred of them.

Oh yeah, the Second Continental Congress, the one that matterred and that John Adams got active in? Met for the first time three weeks LATER!

There was ONE indispensable man in the Revolution. ONE. And it wasn't Adams or Paine or Franklin or Jefferson. It was George Washington.

The idea that the "educated classes" were necessary to "tell them what to do" is ridiculous. Americans had had some form of self-governance and a deep understanding of liberty for almost a century pre-dating Locke and I don't know what Hegel you are referring to as he was BORN during the American Revolution.

They had some independence but not to the extent that you are saying. I agree with everything you wrote marble. Sometimes I hate to argue with you. I always know how you will respond. Mainly because its exactly the way I would respond.

OH and Hegel's Dialectic. You know what that is. The idea of history moving through stages. But really marble I do think you are downplaying the impact that those educated people had. Thomas Paines common sense was a big thing. That was an educated person who was able to conveigh a very complicated idea to the average person. Remember Marble at the beginning of this war they were not looking for independence. That came with the second continental congress and the two Adams boys. Those farmers thought they were british subjects they were not looking to start a revolution. After the ideas of the French enlightenment got around thats when people started to begin to cry for seperation. It all started with an educated elite in France.

Go ahead and respond to this I am off to bed I will read it in the morning.

Good night Marble. As always I love discussing this stuff with you. You always show me the other side and most of the time I learn a lot.

Chomsky brings up many valid points. Manufacturing Consent is one of the most accurate indictments of corporate owned press that I have ever read.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Sooner, in another context here is an analogy as to how weapons and violence relate to various rights.

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Was it not the politician who began the American revolution? Was it not the lawyer John Adams who was shouting in the continental congress for seperation from England. I believe it takes both. If not for our educated politicians who read Hegel, John Locke and many others the soldier would have no clue what to do. Educated people are so undervalued.

Um actually no it wasn't. What began the Revolution was armed citizen farmers gathering on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775. Why did they gather? BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T HAVE THE VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was over a YEAR BEFORE the Declaration was written and signed. The what happened? MORE citizen farmers gathered at the North Bridge that afternoon in Concord and fired the shot heard round the world. Then what happened? Citizen soldiers flocked from all over Middlesex and Essex and Suffolk Counties and they hammerred away at the British for hours, killing over a hundred of them.

Oh yeah, the Second Continental Congress, the one that matterred and that John Adams got active in? Met for the first time three weeks LATER!

There was ONE indispensable man in the Revolution. ONE. And it wasn't Adams or Paine or Franklin or Jefferson. It was George Washington.

The idea that the "educated classes" were necessary to "tell them what to do" is ridiculous. Americans had had some form of self-governance and a deep understanding of liberty for almost a century pre-dating Locke and I don't know what Hegel you are referring to as he was BORN during the American Revolution.

They had some independence but not to the extent that you are saying. I agree with everything you wrote marble. Sometimes I hate to argue with you. I always know how you will respond. Mainly because its exactly the way I would respond.

OH and Hegel's Dialectic. You know what that is. The idea of history moving through stages. But really marble I do think you are downplaying the impact that those educated people had. Thomas Paines common sense was a big thing. That was an educated person who was able to conveigh a very complicated idea to the average person. Remember Marble at the beginning of this war they were not looking for independence. That came with the second continental congress and the two Adams boys. Those farmers thought they were british subjects they were not looking to start a revolution. After the ideas of the French enlightenment got around thats when people started to begin to cry for seperation. It all started with an educated elite in France.

Go ahead and respond to this I am off to bed I will read it in the morning.

Good night Marble. As always I love discussing this stuff with you. You always show me the other side and most of the time I learn a lot.

I hope you slept well! Thomas Paine was damned near critical, I agree. If Common Sense doesn't come out when it does? Paine's job is much harder. But here is the irony. Paine's formal education stopped when he was like 12. He was a corset maker like his father. So I don't think he makes your point as he was UNEDUCATED at least formally.

As for the independence feature, American towns had damn near complete self rule as far back as 1600! There were no British Troops around. The Town Meeting was the ENTIRE gov't in most cases. No police force or fire department. NOBODY interfered in trade etc. and certainly not Parliament. Why do you think the Stamp Act got such a response? This freedom predates the French enlightenment by 25 years if you start with Descarte and almost a century of you want to start with say Newton.

I think you are mixing up the SOURCE of the Revolution with the JUSTIFICATION for the revolution. Again, remember, the revolutionary violence began before Paine and before the Declaration.

Thanks as always for your insights!

Canvas wrote:

Chomsky brings up many valid points. Manufacturing Consent is one of the most accurate indictments of corporate owned press that I have ever read.

Yeah but supporting the Khmer Rouge was a display of utter moral failure.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

exactly what I was thinking. It was Lenin who took it to brutal levels, and he was far less genteel or educated than Stalin. Lenin cetralized all power which led to the mythical russkies we in the west were taught to fear.

Bearing arms is a right

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

Hell no. LOL I was just pointing out the fact that the educated people started that revolution. Besides the killing of the royal family might have been good for that country if Lenin had not been able to take control.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

Hell no. LOL I was just pointing out the fact that the educated people started that revolution. Besides the killing of the royal family might have been good for that country if Lenin had not been able to take control.

Reason 2,612 for being skeptical of educated people, right?

As for the murder of the royal family potentially being a good thing? Josef Stalin would be proud of your attitude.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

Hell no. LOL I was just pointing out the fact that the educated people started that revolution. Besides the killing of the royal family might have been good for that country if Lenin had not been able to take control.

Reason 2,612 for being skeptical of educated people, right?

As for the murder of the royal family potentially being a good thing? Josef Stalin would be proud of your attitude.

LMAO. It could have turned out better. It did in France.
Oh and France is a perfect example of an educated upper class of people who started a great revolution.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

Hell no. LOL I was just pointing out the fact that the educated people started that revolution. Besides the killing of the royal family might have been good for that country if Lenin had not been able to take control.

Reason 2,612 for being skeptical of educated people, right?

As for the murder of the royal family potentially being a good thing? Josef Stalin would be proud of your attitude.

LMAO. It could have turned out better. It did in France.
Oh and France is a perfect example of an educated upper class of people who started a great revolution.

REALLY???????????? You think the Terror (which led to 30,000 executions), the rise of Napoleon and the subsequent pan-European Wars which led to millions of French dead (among others), the giving up of massive lands in the USA were something to be proud of? WOW!!!!!!!!

BTW, the French Revolution was such a dismal failure that the Bourbon's were put back on the throne after Napoleon was defeated.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

One other thing sooner. Here are some reasons why "educated people" are "undervalued."

Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Karl Marx, Martin Heiddeger, Vladimir Lenin, Dr, Josef Mengele, Noam Chomsky, Hideki Tojo, Robespierre, Pol Pot, Dr. William Shockley etc.

Need I go on? Being educated does not innoculate one from moral flaws nor create wisdom or goodness. It just means obtaining knowledge. What one DOES with that is what counts.

You just proved one of my statements tonight. "Knowledge is power but ignorance will be our undoing."
Just look at Stalin. He was a crazy smart man but his population was full of the uneducated.

Yeah but those aren't the ones who fomented or drove the revolution were they? Hell the farmers in Siberia heard about it a year later. The Revolution took place is St. Petersburg, the most educated and wealthiest of the Russian Cities at thaT TIME.

But are you not proving my point in part by saying that the educated started the first of the series of revolutions in Russia? Besides also Stalin took out the educated by closing down the colleges and also killing damn near all the educated elite in the country. He wanted the population dumb so he can rule without any questions or any challenges.

I have to be misreading you. You seem to be arguing the Russian Revolutions culminating in the massacreing of the Royal Family, Bolshevism and the 50+ million people it killed were a good thing.

Hell no. LOL I was just pointing out the fact that the educated people started that revolution. Besides the killing of the royal family might have been good for that country if Lenin had not been able to take control.

Reason 2,612 for being skeptical of educated people, right?

As for the murder of the royal family potentially being a good thing? Josef Stalin would be proud of your attitude.

LMAO. It could have turned out better. It did in France.
Oh and France is a perfect example of an educated upper class of people who started a great revolution.

REALLY???????????? You think the Terror (which led to 30,000 executions), the rise of Napoleon and the subsequent pan-European Wars which led to millions of French dead (among others), the giving up of massive lands in the USA were something to be proud of? WOW!!!!!!!!

Yes for the same reasons you would say the American Civil War was good.