I really do not understand that statement. Why would people be afraid of me? My ideology is to make the world a better place by ending fear, hate and suffering and to enlighten peoples of the world.
No Guns Policy in my Company
- Thread starter Fudd
- Start date
You mean smart people who invented land mines, sniper rifles, machine guns, chemical weapons, the atomic bomb ........etc.
speaking of OKC bombing
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=okc+bombing+bombs&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
If the truck bomb was big enough do blast the face off the building shouldnt there be a blast crater infront of the OKC federal building?
Hmmm where is it???
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=okc+bombing+bombs&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
If the truck bomb was big enough do blast the face off the building shouldnt there be a blast crater infront of the OKC federal building?
Hmmm where is it???
Oh no don't tell me your one of those consperacy theorist who thinks the government killed its own employees to make the right wing elements look bad.
This occured during the Clinton years a time of responsible and accountable government unlike the miltaristic policies of todays US goverment.
And coming in Janaury 2009, the US will once again be restored to it free, democratic and responsible form of government when President Obama takes power.
This occured during the Clinton years a time of responsible and accountable government unlike the miltaristic policies of todays US goverment.
And coming in Janaury 2009, the US will once again be restored to it free, democratic and responsible form of government when President Obama takes power.
Clinton is a coke head piece of shit. I already sent you the link to the Clinton Chronicles and you dont seem to care about 2 hours of eyewitness testimony to people falling asleep on train tracks and bodyguards having there heads cut off and medical examiner rules it NATURAL DEATH. Hello? Head falling off is natural? Guy shooting himself 4-5 times in back of head, ruled a SUICIDE.
Heres Obama speaking about how hes learned a great deal from Dr.Bzrezinski
http://video.google.com/videosearch...mb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=obama brzezinski
Heres Dr.Bzrezinski speaking to a group of afghan jihadists a.k.a. Al-Qaeda
He says"God is on your side" helping Al-qaeda get started are we?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bzrezinski+god+is+on+your+side&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Can you put 2 and 2 together?
Heres Obama speaking about how hes learned a great deal from Dr.Bzrezinski
http://video.google.com/videosearch...mb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=obama brzezinski
Heres Dr.Bzrezinski speaking to a group of afghan jihadists a.k.a. Al-Qaeda
He says"God is on your side" helping Al-qaeda get started are we?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bzrezinski+god+is+on+your+side&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
Can you put 2 and 2 together?
Lets try to answer both your posts at once. In the world of politics misinformation and propaganda is a weapon. What you see in the media is not always the truth. Since day one when Clinton began his campaign for the White House, all kinds of dirty tricks and falsehoods were spread about him to destroy his chances of being President.
But history has shown that under Clintons more Liberal and progressive policies of live and let live, the economy was strong and the world was a much safer and stable place than it is today.
But the right wing elements in our society won't admit that. Remember last year when the mortgage crisis occured. People still tried to defame Clintons legacy of hope by implying that his pollicy of promoting mortgage companies to give loans to the low income and poor were the casue of the morgage crisis. They even blamed him for being soft on terrorism because he tried to bring peace to the Middle East.
My ideology and dreams may not fully reflect the horrors that go on in the world, contrary to popular beliefs I do know there is real suffering going on. But we must try to do all we can to put an end to it, not by using violence. Remember "an eye for and eye makes the world blind". We must make our world a better place through social changes, through tollerance and understanding of others not by shooting and bombing the so called "power hungry lunatics". We must create understanding between "us" and "them".
Take a look how philosophies of confrontation has created a world at war with itself. Isreal is in a constant state of war with its neighbours. We call Iran and axis of evil and the Western countries are always at odds with them. Whats wrong with trying to talk to them. After all people are people no matter what there nationality or religion.
I cannot take credit for my beliefs and philosophy, these ideals come from far wiser individuals that myself. Peple like:
Gandhi who used employed non-violent civil disobedience to oppose British occupation.
Martin Luthor King who was leader in the civil right movement and also promoted peace and understanding.
When one has a biased view that others are evil and selfish, then that is all we will see and not the human being that they are. Taking a stance of tollerance and understanding will not make us defenseless, it affirms that we are a civilized society who are willing work together to strive for peace.
But history has shown that under Clintons more Liberal and progressive policies of live and let live, the economy was strong and the world was a much safer and stable place than it is today.
But the right wing elements in our society won't admit that. Remember last year when the mortgage crisis occured. People still tried to defame Clintons legacy of hope by implying that his pollicy of promoting mortgage companies to give loans to the low income and poor were the casue of the morgage crisis. They even blamed him for being soft on terrorism because he tried to bring peace to the Middle East.
My ideology and dreams may not fully reflect the horrors that go on in the world, contrary to popular beliefs I do know there is real suffering going on. But we must try to do all we can to put an end to it, not by using violence. Remember "an eye for and eye makes the world blind". We must make our world a better place through social changes, through tollerance and understanding of others not by shooting and bombing the so called "power hungry lunatics". We must create understanding between "us" and "them".
Take a look how philosophies of confrontation has created a world at war with itself. Isreal is in a constant state of war with its neighbours. We call Iran and axis of evil and the Western countries are always at odds with them. Whats wrong with trying to talk to them. After all people are people no matter what there nationality or religion.
I cannot take credit for my beliefs and philosophy, these ideals come from far wiser individuals that myself. Peple like:
Gandhi who used employed non-violent civil disobedience to oppose British occupation.
Martin Luthor King who was leader in the civil right movement and also promoted peace and understanding.
When one has a biased view that others are evil and selfish, then that is all we will see and not the human being that they are. Taking a stance of tollerance and understanding will not make us defenseless, it affirms that we are a civilized society who are willing work together to strive for peace.
OK Fudd, you obviously don't actually care about fairness, respecting other people's rights, or taking any sort of action which will actually improve the world (since it would be a lot more work than just bitching and making a lot of noise) - all that you really care about is making yourself out to be some sort of martyr, and then feeling all self-righteous and smug about it.
As I've told you, I fully understand and support the sentiment behind this incredibly misguided policy. Unfortunately, the policy is discriminatory, and therefore illegal. Oh wait, but in your world it's OK to discriminate against law-abiding individuals, as long as you can find a way to portray them as right-wing nuts. That's right boys and girls, discrimination is awesome, as long as you only discriminate against the people I tell you to discriminate against! That's a damn slippery slope you're going down, Fudd.
Additionally, even if the policy was legal, it would be one of the least effective ways to prevent workplace violence. Train your company's managers and team leaders to recognize the warning signs. That's the only way you can effectively reduce the chances of workplace violence. But hey, I guess since that would require making an actual effort, you wouldn't have the time to pat yourself on the back about it, so it's not an attractive option for you.
While you're at it, why not smugly announce that your company will refuse to hire anyone who owns inter-continental ballistic missiles? I guarantee it'll have the exact same effect on the level of violence in your workplace, and it'll be something else that you can feel smug about without having to actually come up with and implement any sort of real solutions.
And before you go lumping me in as a right-wing nutbar, remember, I've never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and I can't imagine that I ever will. I've also never once voted Conservative, I go out of my way to have a virtually non-existent carbon footprint, I actively support various groups and organizations devoted to local and international social change, and I'm very proud to work for a company which is recognized as a leader in ethical conduct, and social and environmental responsibility. The difference between me and you is that I look for solutions that will actually work. You, on the other hand, seem to only care about making a lot of noise. People like you make it a lot harder for people like me to actually make a difference, because you make the ideas of the extreme right wing look more sensible.
This discussion is moot anyways because the companies managers all voted in favour cant think af anything more fair or democratic. I couldn't reverse it even if I wanted to because realistically I am only one vote among 6 others. So it not just my opinion, its all the managers that want to make our company a safer place even the owner of trhe company was in favour. I don't think there was any objection from any of the employees either. That Xmas shooting got everbody scared.
So, you registering your air rifle somehow helps prevent crime?
Would you care to explain exactly HOW you registering your air rifle helps prevent a crime and which crime it helps to prevent?
I can't wait to hear your explanation of that one..
Of course, as usual, you'll just ignore the question because once again you made a statement that you can't justify or back up.
You seem to think that if a group of a half dozen people get together and VOTE to break the law, then somehow their actions are 'ok' because they democratically voted to break the law...
Good luck with that one in court when your company gets sued out of business.
Heck it's tempting to apply for a job there and make a point of being descriminated against for owning a gun just so I can get rich suing.
What a convenient rationalization you've come up with to avoid admitting to your coworkers that you supported an idea without thinking it through. I have to say, you're really taking the coward's way out on this one.
Like I said before, all you have to do is say to the other managers: "Hey, I've been thinking about this policy, and I've realized there are a few flaws with it. Here's an alternative that will avoid those pitfalls, and be more effective to boot." After that, if they choose to stick with the ridiculous "no employees who own guns" policy, then at least when your company gets hit with a lawsuit or a civil rights violation, you'll know that it's not your fault. And you know what? By speaking up about the glaring flaws in the policy now, chances are your personal stock at work will probably rise. As a manager myself, I know that if an employee of mine brings a potential problem to my attention before it becomes an actual problem, I remember that, and it makes me more likely to recommend that employee for promotions, raises, etc.
Well, never mind that, you just continue to keep your head in the sand and go with your illegal, discriminatory "solution" which pays lip service to the idea of reducing workplace violence, without doing anything to reduce workplace violence. Tell me, do you even bother to try to rationalize your hypocrisy in your own mind, or do you just avoid thinking about it?
So if me and 5 other guys all vote in favour of taking you out into the woods and leaving you there to feed the bears, by unanimous vote, then it would be completely fair and democratic, right?
None of the bears would complain, either.
After all, we're all worried that with the snow, the bears won't have enought to eat.
We're environmentalists.
All over north america, there are many thousands of people who bring a gun into their workplace every single day in this profession.
Yet, somehow, a quite exhaustive google search wasn't able to turn up a single example of one of them shooting a co-worker in the office. There were a few examples of them accidentally shooting themselves in the leg, but morons will always find SOME way to hurt themselves and there are far more examples of death by coke machine than by accidental workplace self-shooting every year.
But hey, the half-dozen or so managers at Fudd's company all agreed that the solution to workplace homicide is to fire all employees who have guns, and it was totally 'fair and democratic' so why not apply it to this profession as well?
Fire all the policemen who own guns.
Yet, somehow, a quite exhaustive google search wasn't able to turn up a single example of one of them shooting a co-worker in the office. There were a few examples of them accidentally shooting themselves in the leg, but morons will always find SOME way to hurt themselves and there are far more examples of death by coke machine than by accidental workplace self-shooting every year.
But hey, the half-dozen or so managers at Fudd's company all agreed that the solution to workplace homicide is to fire all employees who have guns, and it was totally 'fair and democratic' so why not apply it to this profession as well?
Fire all the policemen who own guns.
you do realize how easy it is to acquire a gun in the heat of the moment don't you? even if you do hire an employee without a gun, they can get one very easily if they become disgruntled and homicidal.
wasn't there a newspaper reporter who did this very thing a few years back to prove the point that guns are very readily available? i think he went into a bar looking for a very specific gun, ie. pearl handles, odd caliber something like that. in a couple of hours he had the gun he wanted.
Hey Fudd remember hurricane Katrina. Violence went up after the police confiscated guns even in the high and dry areas because none was able to defend theselves from angry mobs and rape gangs. Yea pepper spary and a taser really gonna help you against a crowd, thats where automatic weapons come in. You shouldn't have to kill anyone but if your life is in jeopardy what do u do?
There are reasonable forms of gun control, and there are unreasonable forms of "Gun Control". Total abolition, for all of the reasons discussed, is unreasonable. "Gun Control" advocates have suggested a compromise which would require that guns only be used at gun clubs, where they will be kept under lock and key. This is also unreasonable. What good is a gun for self-defense if it is locked up in a gun club? Licensing and registration, mandatory safety training, background checks, and waiting periods are all justifiable forms of gun control. Registration is necessary to prevent abuses of the privilege of owning a gun; it allows the police to trace a misused gun to its owner. Anyone purchasing a gun ought to be required to know how to use it, and proper training would greatly reduce most of the injuries and/or deaths inadvertently caused by negligent mishandling. That's right, I said "greatly reduce", not "totally eliminate". "Not good enough" you may say? I can only respond with: "What about cars, pesticides, electrical appliances, pets with claws and sharp teeth, nuclear power plants, and kitchen knives?" You get the idea. Are you willing to dispense with all of those things unless they are rendered completely harmless? Of course not. We have all decided that the benefits of some things outweigh their inherent risks. Although guns are inherently dangerous, when used properly they are the most viable means of self-protection. Because of their dangerous nature, some degree of control is necessary. When this "Control" takes on a form where guns no longer serve their intended purpose the "Control" has gone too far; it has become abolition.
http://www.lafn.org/education/swl/c1gc1.htm
http://www.lafn.org/education/swl/c1gc1.htm
Fudd likes the Dalai Lama - so do I...
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” --The Dalai Lama
Fudd likes Ghandi - so do I...
British Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880) proposed the Indian Arms Act in 1878. The Indian Arms Act exempted the British and ruled that an Indian could hold a weapon “only if” the British masters considers and declares him a “Loyal” servant.
The British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defence. The British were engaged in disarming Indians completely and destroying the local firearm production completely to avoid any further chances of mutiny.
Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control? Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” --The Dalai Lama
Fudd likes Ghandi - so do I...
British Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880) proposed the Indian Arms Act in 1878. The Indian Arms Act exempted the British and ruled that an Indian could hold a weapon “only if” the British masters considers and declares him a “Loyal” servant.
The British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defence. The British were engaged in disarming Indians completely and destroying the local firearm production completely to avoid any further chances of mutiny.
Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control? Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Throughout history guns and other weapons have been used to protect the rights of the people. Then what ever empire was around would disarm these people in order to take over. The last example was the British in America, pilgrims and farmers beat off British tyranny. The most powerful army in the world at the time to. Is there omething wrong with defending your country against a foreign oppressor?
