-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
food riots in atlanta?
- Thread starter Bob Watson
- Start date
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Frightening is it not?
Saw very much the same sort of thing happen after the Earthquakes here where I live, store shelves empty (prime products being bread and water... hey go figure).
I have always been some what prepared for a natural disaster but after those quakes I literally quadrupled what stores I had in case of another event like that because you can never be to ready.
As for firearms I think it is absolutely necessary that one owns a weapon because when the shit hits the fan you will seriously regret not having at the very least a good hunting knife.
This is not to say that you own it to be ready to shoot looters or such but to have the ability to go shoot food if it really gets that bad (lots of ducks where I live and a possum stew ain't to bad) and yes the upside is for family protection because when push comes to shove it is either you and your family's life or those trying to take what you have.
In a serious disaster the police etc can not really help you and the worse it gets the less they can, but sad to say most people live in this sort of dream world that the police/government will come save them if things go wrong.
Saw very much the same sort of thing happen after the Earthquakes here where I live, store shelves empty (prime products being bread and water... hey go figure).
I have always been some what prepared for a natural disaster but after those quakes I literally quadrupled what stores I had in case of another event like that because you can never be to ready.
As for firearms I think it is absolutely necessary that one owns a weapon because when the shit hits the fan you will seriously regret not having at the very least a good hunting knife.
This is not to say that you own it to be ready to shoot looters or such but to have the ability to go shoot food if it really gets that bad (lots of ducks where I live and a possum stew ain't to bad) and yes the upside is for family protection because when push comes to shove it is either you and your family's life or those trying to take what you have.
In a serious disaster the police etc can not really help you and the worse it gets the less they can, but sad to say most people live in this sort of dream world that the police/government will come save them if things go wrong.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
This is the way I grew up in a small New England town. 'New England' is the very tippy-tip northeast of the US, consisting of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut - for clarification for those posting who are not in the US).
After I read your description, I tried to place the time-frame when this started to change. I think it was the 1980's - or was it the 1990's? It was around the time car theft started being a big criminal activity - especially as cars started becoming snazzy. Definitely one locked one's car when one went to the 'Big City', be it Boston or New York - but even then, unlikely.
Subsequently, I have long since moved out from New England, and it would never occur to me to carry a gun or any weapon. In general, my world is benign, friendly and pleasant.
]
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Clarification and correction (somewhat) to the above post -
Source: The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms Edited by Carl Bogus. A collection of articles on the topic.
Amazon Summation: "A demystifying guide to the complex debates surrounding the constitutional right to bear arms. With help from the National Rifle Association and the pro-gun lobby, the idea that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to gun ownership has achieved a firm footing in recent decades. Yet few issues of public policy are so misunderstood, so oversimplified—and so crucially important to the health and welfare of all Americans. The gun lobby and its proponents would have us believe that the constitutional issue is moot, and that the regulation of firearms is beyond the reach of legislation. But as the contributors to this important anthology demonstrate, both the historical and constitutional arguments are very much alive—and in fact weigh heavily in favor of those who would restrict gun ownership. In the eight essays in The Second Amendment in Law and History, the nation's leading historical and constitutional scholars—including Jack Rakove (author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Original Meanings), Michael Bellesiles (author of Arming America), Michael Dorf, Daniel Farber, and Paul Finkelman—marshal a broad range of historical and legal arguments revealing current gun policy to be radically out of step with deep historical and constitutional trends."
Source: The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms Edited by Carl Bogus. A collection of articles on the topic.
Amazon Summation: "A demystifying guide to the complex debates surrounding the constitutional right to bear arms. With help from the National Rifle Association and the pro-gun lobby, the idea that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to gun ownership has achieved a firm footing in recent decades. Yet few issues of public policy are so misunderstood, so oversimplified—and so crucially important to the health and welfare of all Americans. The gun lobby and its proponents would have us believe that the constitutional issue is moot, and that the regulation of firearms is beyond the reach of legislation. But as the contributors to this important anthology demonstrate, both the historical and constitutional arguments are very much alive—and in fact weigh heavily in favor of those who would restrict gun ownership. In the eight essays in The Second Amendment in Law and History, the nation's leading historical and constitutional scholars—including Jack Rakove (author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Original Meanings), Michael Bellesiles (author of Arming America), Michael Dorf, Daniel Farber, and Paul Finkelman—marshal a broad range of historical and legal arguments revealing current gun policy to be radically out of step with deep historical and constitutional trends."
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
The National Rifle Association has never argued that. The NRA has always lobbied for gun laws which prevent black and Hispanic Americans from protecting themselves against both criminals and government aggression.
The NRA succeeded. The current web of American gun laws ensure blacks and Hispanics remain disarmed, and that criminals can predate them largely without fear of resistance.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Blacks and Hispanics are no more constrained or free around gun ownership than anyone else in the US. Not sure why you feel this is true or somehow relevant. Your reasoning is obscure imo.
I quoted the Amazon synopsis: "the idea that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to gun ownership has achieved a firm footing in recent decades."
What I quoted is correct - the gun lobby has succeeded in connecting the 2nd amendment to the right to gun ownership. The NRA has argued that. According to their spin, gun ownership is the 'American Way' going back to the Founding Fathers - one of the myths. [Another popular myth is the 'rugged individualist' settling America - when, in fact, except for the Mountain Men and those like them who were a brief episode, the settling of America is a testament to people banding together in cooperation.]
If you watch the videos or check out the book you will find that gun ownership was not the order of the day in the past of this country, nor was the term 'militia' referring to what is currently argued. It had everything to do with the southern planation border patrols who were patrolling for escaped slaves and had the right to enter homes of the blacks for search and seizure of weapons. They could also put down 'rebellion' as they came upon it without 'due process'. It could be argued that these 'patrols' were vigilantes, except that Madison (I believe it was) wrote in the term 'militia' to appease the plantation owners. Listen to the videos, or read the book.
Last edited:
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
No. What you quoted is false. The National Rifle Association has never argued that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an unrestricted right to gun ownership.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Okay now you are misquoting me. Now you are back-pedaling. You are positing I said something I did not in fact say and then arguing what you claim I said. Those who can see the ploy will pass on - as am I.
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
They have helped create the link in people's minds.
Text: "Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association tells convention-goers President Barack Obama has launched an 'all-out historic attack' on the rights of gun owners and the Second Amendment."
Text: "Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association tells convention-goers President Barack Obama has launched an 'all-out historic attack' on the rights of gun owners and the Second Amendment."
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
You post falsehoods, then when called on it, simply ignore the fact that you did.
America's first gun control organization was the Ku Klux Klan.
The NRA is a continuation of that effort to disarm the common people while ensuring that wealthy people remain armed.
America's first gun control organization was the Ku Klux Klan.
The NRA is a continuation of that effort to disarm the common people while ensuring that wealthy people remain armed.
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
The idiocy of people who remain unaware of that fact still amazes me.
People so stupid as to have no guns, or food cushion are a serious threat to the safety of our families during large disasters.
I have lived through natural disasters where ambulances and police could not respond. I listened on my police scanner as they refused to answer 911 calls because they had no gasoline.
It is appropriate to pity the fools, but they are dangerous.
charlie, how does being armed to defend your belongings, during a disaster, make you any better off, when your assailants will be armed.
people will end up dead, most likely you and your family.
whereas if neither parties are armed with guns, the probability is that your family will survive the assault, as they only want what you have..
people will end up dead, most likely you and your family.
whereas if neither parties are armed with guns, the probability is that your family will survive the assault, as they only want what you have..
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
Dear manxman,
You withhold from readers the respect of capitalization and punctuation. Your posts are so incomprehensible and meritless as to be a waste of my time to attempt decipherment. For these reasons I'm putting you "ignore". I recommend you do the same to me. I tell you this as a simple courtesy.
Bob Watson
Paranormal Adept
Sigh folks lets keep this civil! thank you.
i have no idea why charlie has taken off m8, none at all, i can only guess he must feel very strongly a right to be armed, fine he lives in an armed nation his choice, my opinion is an unarmed nation only needs an unarmed police force, it has served us ok since time began, but why he has taken exception to a different mind set, due to a different culturally ingrained opinion i dont really get.
i found charlie a most interesting poster, and have interacted with him since i got here amicably, my retort about the 'time of the month', was sarcasm, rather than direct ad homien, i enjoy that more than directly insulting, i felt even after his out of the blue blowup, no need to insult him, i liked him, he seemed genuine in his views, cant ask for more than that.
just to be clear, so theres no mis-understanding.
Last edited:
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
If you take a LifeGuard class, one of the first things they teach you is that a drowning person will kill you.
When you swim up to a drowning person, they will push you under the water and hold you there in a panicked attempt to keep their mouth near air. It's actually better to let the person pass out, then pull them to safety.
Same with panicked Grasshoppers in a societal disruption. Keep them away from you.
When you swim up to a drowning person, they will push you under the water and hold you there in a panicked attempt to keep their mouth near air. It's actually better to let the person pass out, then pull them to safety.
Same with panicked Grasshoppers in a societal disruption. Keep them away from you.
Randall
J. Randall Murphy
I'm confused by what we're hearing on the news up here. It said the officer who shot Mike Brown won't be charged and that a jury made that decision. I'm not expert on criminal law, but I thought juries were for deciding guilt or innocence after charges were laid and the case goes to trial. Have they always had juries down there that can decide whether or not a person should be charged in the first place? I thought charges were laid by the police and then prosecuted by the DA's office ( at their discretion ).
The other thing is that if it was a jury that made the decision, it seems to me that vandalism and looting of property not related to the case is just a lousy excuse to commit crime for one's own personal gain. If the system is to blame, then march on the court house and police station. I guess it's just easier for looters to think they deserve a free big screen TV ( or whatever ) because some other injustice took place to someone else
.
The other thing that bothers me is that they use the word "anarchy" when they should be using the word "crime". Anarchy is another one of those words that through constant misuse and propaganda has become synonymous with something it was never meant to represent, at least not so exclusively. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean crime and violence. See this article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/can-peace-be-obtained-through-anarchy/
The other thing is that if it was a jury that made the decision, it seems to me that vandalism and looting of property not related to the case is just a lousy excuse to commit crime for one's own personal gain. If the system is to blame, then march on the court house and police station. I guess it's just easier for looters to think they deserve a free big screen TV ( or whatever ) because some other injustice took place to someone else
. The other thing that bothers me is that they use the word "anarchy" when they should be using the word "crime". Anarchy is another one of those words that through constant misuse and propaganda has become synonymous with something it was never meant to represent, at least not so exclusively. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean crime and violence. See this article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/can-peace-be-obtained-through-anarchy/