Currency re-vamp (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

the slogan on the money would have to read 'In things we trust'', or provide an itemised list.

Just a thought.

I said it should be "In guns we trust", I thought that was more relevant (to Americans) than any religious god, and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Ye Gods you applied your post to the original topic.

I know, I'm letting the side down

 

[Rich]

Remind me again why no one takes you seriously

'cause they're scared, afraid of the truth, can't argue otherwise, are Republicans, how long a list do you want?

...and lippy Brits

oh I think you'll find lippy Brits experts at defending themselves and we know you Yankies don't fare well against those who shoot back

 

[Rich]

and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col

Not under GWB, you can buy your way out of prison by converting to Christianity under his leadership, unless you're locked up in Gitmo simply for looking like a foreigner that is

 

[Matt Greatorex]

I said it should be "In guns we trust", I thought that was more relevant (to Americans) than any religious god, and anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

Col

Maybe, just to play safe, we could make that last bit:

'We - meaning one or more of us but in no way inferring all of us - know - meaning believe, since it is up to the individual to hold his or her own opinion about the existence and/or individual merits of God, Buddha, Kali, ghosts, goblins, the cookie monster, and any/or any other deities, beings or forces, proven to exist or otherwise - that's wrong - or, indeed right, depending the individual's own viewpoint, life experiences, gullibility and/or any other determining factors that may or may not have shaped his or her psyche and outlook on the world '

Everybody's happy and nobody can take offence?

 

[Rich]

Look at what they achieved.

Yes they built a land that elects a president who lectures them and the rest of the world on freedom and justice

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13936994/

 

[Bodisathva]

...anyway isn't saying "god" a bit discriminatory in a multi-cultural society like the US? It gives the impression the christian god is the only one worth believing in, when in fact we all know thats wrong.

As I was listening to the news this morning and heard yet another argument over the "under god" portion of the pledge of allegiance, I had a thought that may explain that "discrimination". Those who firmly believe that the Founding Fathers made references to 'God' throughout the framework of our construction because they adamantly held that Christianity should be the basis of the country, didn't stop to consider that at the time, Christianity was the only religion here, brought by an extremely limited cultural sample. Over the next two centuries, we experienced an influx of immigrants and a widening of the cultural sampling which compose the "great melting pot" and therefore the entire picture they had is no longer the entire picture. It seems to me that the basic ideology was sound, however the ifs,ands, or buts need to be revamped accordingly...just a simple thought for your Thursday morning ponderings.

oh I think you'll find lippy Brits experts at defending themselves and we know you Yankies don't fare well against those who shoot back

Now, now...remember what happened the last time you attempted to shoot back at the Yankies. Then again, maybe it's only the Brits that offer us no troubles

'cause they're scared, afraid of the truth, can't argue otherwise, are Republicans, how long a list do you want?

Yep! That's why we like you so much...that indomitable Rich-logic

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Now, now...remember what happened the last time you attempted to shoot back at the Yankies. Then again, maybe it's only the Brits that offer us no troubles

Yes, Rich, and this time they could probably defend themselves without huge help from the French.

I mean, you've only got to look at the British casualties in any war from the last decade or two in which we've been one of their allies to know that they're quite adept at taking out British forces. Just imagine what they'd be capable of if we weren't on the same side.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, you asked a direct question to which I will give a direct answer, even though the question wasn't directed to me.

Why do I need guns? Because as long as there are people who don't want to work for a living AND who don't care who they hurt in order to STEAL for a living, I need a gun to level the playing field. Not because they want to steal for a living but because they don't care who they hurt when they steal. They often don't want to leave behind witnesses. Look up the word "deterrence" in your dictionary.

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss and Israelis, who have a high percentage of guns among their populations. Check their crime rates. You have to isolate acts of terrorism for Israel, but look at their domestic crime rates. Consider how many countries decided to invade Switzerland. Given the level of hatred, look at how many COUNTRIES (not terror groups, who are stateless) have decided to invade Israel and how well it has worked.

The question of "why do you need a gun" depends on who wants your land more than you do. Or your belongings. Or your daughters.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss .... who have a high percentage of guns among their populations. Check their crime rates..... Consider how many countries decided to invade Switzerland. .

The Swiss don't have a permanent army. The male population is armed by the government - between the ages of around 20 - 30, I think - and expected to fight if needed. This means that they tend to associate gun ownership with defending their country, not crime.

Anti gun-control people might argue that Switzerland proves the lack of a link between gun ownership and violent crime in society but it's hardly evidence that gun ownership everywhere is a good idea.

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc).

As a totally different culture, comparison between there and, say, the US doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc).

Which is the cart and which is the horse?

 

[Matt Greatorex]

To start with, Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, is pretty isolated, and has very few if any of the social problems associated with gun crime in other countries (drugs, slums, etc). ?

Which is the cart and which is the horse?

Good question.

It may be a few years out of date, but I found this article interesting. A few of the suggestions made as to the reasons behind the more 'orderly' society were quite revealing.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

 

[ColinEssex]

Why do I need guns? Because as long as there are people who don't want to work for a living AND who don't care who they hurt in order to STEAL for a living, I need a gun to level the playing field.

So that means that if you have an intruder, you will shoot him / her irrespective of whether they have a gun? if not, can you tell me exactly when you would shoot someone? - when they move their arm quickly? - if they reach for their pocket? - or just as soon as you see them and 'bang', they're dead.

In any discussion of why one needs a gun, consider the Swiss and Israelis, who have a high percentage of guns among their populations.

The Swiss cannot be equated to the USA in gun ownership, and the Israelies have enough to worry about without resorting to robbing each other

The question of "why do you need a gun" depends on who wants your land more than you do. Or your belongings. Or your daughters.

Like who for example?

I still think gun ownership in the USA is a macho thing. . . .a previous poster said they can't wait to say "go on punk, make my day" whilst holding a gun to the intruders head.

Col

 

[Len Boorman]

Hey Col

So that means that if you have an intruder, you will shoot him / her irrespective of whether they have a gun?

I can actually see something in this.... Only problem is that you must have the
L situation where intruders are not allowed to have guns. You do not want to have the risk of an intruder either shooting first or shooting back if your first shot is not quite good enough

 

[KenHigg]

where intruders are not allowed to have guns.

Yeah, we can do sign on the front door:

"Attention Intruders, please check your gun at the door before entering."

 

[dan-cat]

I think getting shot should be an occupational hazard for those who choose to break into other people's properties. Regardless of whether they are armed or not. Point is, the owner has no idea what the intruder's intentions are.

 

[KenHigg]

... Point is, the owner has no idea what the intruder's intentions are.

How about this for an intention: "I have with malice intent, elected to enter your home."

 

[dan-cat]

How about this for an intention: "I have with malice intent, elected to enter your home."

Well yes precisely. You know for sure that the intent is not benevolent. It's just the extent of the malice that is not known.

Saying this, why should the home dwellers carry all the risk?
Why should they not be allowed to wrestle control of the situation?

 

[Len Boorman]

Yeah, we can do sign on the front door:

"Attention Intruders, please check your gun at the door before entering."

Somehow I do not think that will work. Good idea but just not going to work.

If its dark they will not see the sign will they.


L

 

[KenHigg]

It's just the extent of the malice that is not known.

I vote to let that be the intruders problem...