Norway attack - right wing terror

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Bushranger, Jul 22, 2011.

  1. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #121
    Thank you for your amazingly compelling argument.

    You're correct there, people are indeed the mechanism behind the intent. By the way, London already has a silly number of illegal pistols knocking about. If they wanted to bring guns they could have done. Instead they took Molotovs. Maybe we should look at banning milk bottles and rags next :D
     
    BRUm, Aug 7, 2011 IP
  2. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #122
    I suspect the killer was actually a leftist, desperately trying to be admitted to one of Norway's prisons.
    [video=youtube;C4beUC3-ckw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4beUC3-ckw[/video] 

    With a maximum sentence of 21 years, he'll have to do something similar at least twice in order to be taken care of the rest of his natural life. 
     
    Obamanation, Aug 7, 2011 IP
  3. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #123
    In my opinion they should have him in front of a firing squad.

    What the hell is that nutjob saying in the clip? "If we do this together, we show the inmates that we [the guards] are equal human beings"

    Really? Really??? Paedos and rapists are equal to honest men and women?

    No wonder atrocities like that can happen when all they have to defend themselves are nice thoughts and flowers...
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2011
    BRUm, Aug 7, 2011 IP
  4. IsraeI

    IsraeI Peon

    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    Ban petrol, iron rods, bricks, knifes etc 

    Seems there is no end to the violence and destruction and they are doing it without guns.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
    IsraeI, Aug 8, 2011 IP
  5. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #125
    That's human nature I'm afraid and those who want things banned are simply in denial and chasing their tail, while others like myself embrace and accept this fact and choose to accommodate for it realistically.
     
    BRUm, Aug 8, 2011 IP
  6. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #126
    Those that don't want guns banned are simply in denial that that weapon can take out a lot more people.

    How many PEOPLE are being killed by these molotovs?

    They are a weapon used to destroy THINGS.

    Are you seriously suggesting a molotov is worse than a gun?
     
    Bushranger, Aug 8, 2011 IP
  7. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #127
    Uh, when they raze buildings and victims die of asphyxiation and burns, yes.

    When you pour some petrol into a milk bottle and soak a rag in it for burning, that's created to destroy things. How can it not?

    It's silly to debate which is "worse" because it doesn't mean anything. A weapon is a weapon, how it is used and who it is owned by are important.

    I'm a self-disciplined and forgiving person. I've never had to fight nor do I wish to. I've never had trouble with the police nor have I broken any laws (except pirating software and being a few mph over the speed limit :rolleyes:). As far as the establishment is concerned I'm an exemplary citizen. All I ask therefore is to be "permitted" (how sad to use such a word) to defend my life and my family's. What other morons do does not affect my right or intentions in the slightest.
     
    BRUm, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  8. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #128
    Are you happy with the current riots then? They're getting mad like you asked. Is that your point? to get them mad as hell so the government WILL let you have a gun?

    If your argument is because it is your civil right then why can't I have a bazooka or spare atom bomb in the shed? Is that my civil right? Don't you see you have to stop allowing it at some weapon. Why not at a device that can take out the entire room at once.
     
    Bushranger, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  9. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #129
    Don't be childish Bushranger, we began to have civil discussions a couple of days ago, don't ruin it. Do I advocate the brain dead razing peoples' buildings? No. do I advocate them inuring others? No.

    They are angry, and I don't know whether it's justified because I haven't read up on the subject and frankly I don't want to considering the destruction they have caused.

    I think it is your right to have what ever weapon you wish so long as you don't use it for unlawful purposes. I don't care if my neighbour has scud-missiles as long as I'm satisfied that he's of sound mind and an honest person who won't harm me or others without justification. You may be correct about drawing the line at certain weaponry, but it's my opinion that in a voluntarist and independent society one should be supported my the state in prohibiting others' actions if it can be proven in a court of law amongst my peers that these said actions pose an imminent risk to others' personal property and/or well-being.

    From what I gather I trust you would be trustworthy with certain armaments; I wouldn't deny you from having them if you were my neighbour.

    My point about being angry, which was in another thread and concerns a different point, is about bringing emotion back into people. I see those around me in a slumber, they're so docile they have no emotions or opinions about many subjects. We need to be angry at these rioters and at the establishment for many reasons, but I never once said we should take up armed struggle, so don't put words in my mouth.

    I would love to have such devices like grenades. They would make a nice collection to look at and would be kept in a safe or other suitably safe environment in my home.

    The military in my country and yours is legally allowed to obtain such items and we know how unlawful they have been with their use; i.e. illegal immoral wars, yet you don't see many addressing this subject of their possession with protest.

    I wish others would be bold enough to share their opinions with us here.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2011
    BRUm, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  10. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #130
    How do you get mad without becoming violent? I'm not putting words into your mouth, you're the one who said get angry. Are you saying "some" people should get angry? And how do they get angry exactly? Vote green?

    The way I see it the government will arm you if the people turn violent. It's just a few having fun atm but if it got serious the government would even provide you the weapons. That's how gun laws work as far as I know. Once it gets to "emergency stage" they really have no choice.

    Not that it's good to see but hopefully it opens everyone's eyes up to what the other half put up with all the time, then we yell at them or take them over for shooting them. so we can't shoot them can we?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2011
    Bushranger, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  11. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #131
    Yes you are putting words in my mouth. If you don't understand the difference between anger and violence then there's something wrong. Do you think one can't be angry while conducting civil disobedience? Those Islamic morons demanding Sharia law were angry but they weren't violent. If I were expected to walk through a body scanner in an airport I would be as mad as hell, but I wouldn't become violent unless someone puts their hands on me or others. I won't bother to debate further if you continue to make ridiculous deductions or make claims about what I have said or what I believe without any actual indication on my behalf.

    That sounds like a good idea but it's far from the truth. The government would in fact impose even more strict gun law if an emergency state was declared. Look at the few instances of martial law in the US in its history.

    A point I forgot earlier was that for you to claim that guns can cause the most fatalities is ignorant. I know that, for instance, I could cause much more harm with a knife than the public display of gun murders.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2011
    BRUm, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  12. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #132
    I'm not putting words into your mouth. I may be NAIVELY TWISTING THEM! I'm asking a serious question to you and you totally avoided the answer by throwing it back with an accusation.

    At this point yes. What do you do when you're angry?

    Yes, do you think they had anything to do with the rising anger?

    Geez, you come up with some beauties lol. Why wouldn't you go through a scanner? You do realise it is for the safety of EVERYONE on the plane and not just you?

    Are you suggesting you did not post in huge black letters in the other thread that people need to get mad and get angry? I suggest getting mad and angry means getting violent. All I'm doing is claryfying your stance here. Not making ridiculous assumptions as far as I can see.

    This was not answered at all.

    Fair point, the law should be changed to make sure that happens if that ever became the case IMHO. Look at Libya they did that, though (they probably had liberal laws before though) but they handed out many more.

    Well that's rhetoric. I'm not going to ask you to prove it and I hope you wasn't going to. You would have to agree MOST people, not supermen like yourself, would be incapable of that. Even this Norway guy had to use a machine gun to take out so many.
     
    Bushranger, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  13. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #133
    It's because there is no answer. Violence = anger, but anger != violence. There's no way I can explain these simple things to you. If you can't understand that being angry doesn't necessarily mean you'll be violent then I'm just going to give up and spend more of my time making money, as I should be any way.

    This is my point. You're so grossly oversimplifying things that there's no real answer. What does this question even mean? What I do when angry is purely circumstantial! It depends on the circumstances... Jesus.

    Nope. Silly question.

    Then your suggestion is incorrect. Treat me with enough respect to know that responses like the one I gave obviously answer your question as no I don't mean violence otherwise I would have typed out the eight letter word v-i-o-l-e-n-c-e or some derivative of it.

    Because I'm no terrorists and don't want to be treated as one. I've flown on more planes that have had only metal detectors and been safe. You're using bullshit logic. I know in fantasy land everyone should just be assumed guilty but this isn't the world I live in. If you're completely unaware that there are movements and rights action groups then you're so naive that you shouldn't be debating here. This is another debate so let's leave this one. I was about to say that I'm shocked by how submissive people are, but I'm not really. If you know you're no threat to anyone on a plane why wouldn't you make it known? Why is it so hard for people such as yourself to demand that your rights of privacy be upheld because you know you're a sane and law abiding citizen? Assuming your logic you should be perfectly happy with police searching your arse in case you're harbouring bombs.

    Yeah, that's because Gaddafi actually cares more about his people and his country than those controlling our countries. Look at the situation here: London is on fire and peoples' homes and businesses - white, black and brown - are reduced to rubble because our pansy government doesn't realise that they could have helped them by encouraging them to hold defensive weapons.

    No I disagree. Most would be able to get away with more fatalities due the subtle nature of knife death. That's what I was implying but it seemed to have been lost on you. Do I have to break down that someone with a firearm would be stopped quicker than someone who is clever with a knife? I get stuck on these minor points because you make incorrect assumptions about them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2011
    BRUm, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  14. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #134
    Alright then, try and answer it this way, you posted in the other thread that people should be angry. Tell me, how should I be angry, what should I do? Obviously YES you DO need to clarify if you're going to make such a bold statement. I TAKE THAT STATEMENT TO MEAN GET ANGRY! - IF I WAS VIOLENT THAT MIGHT AFFECT ME!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND???? IS IT OKAY IF I SWEAR OR WILL THAT UPSET YOU?

    TELL ME HOW DO YOU WANT ME TO GET FUCKING ANGRY? apart from writing in capitals. WTF did you mean?
     
    Bushranger, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  15. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #135
    Wow, looks like I hit a nerve.

    Our discussion has deteriorated so this will be my last post here. Not only have you resorted to solely questioning such an insignificant point, which by the way was made in another thread under different context, that's it's embarrassing but also something which has no relation to even the subject at hand. Thanks for reaffirming my doubts of being so kind as to waste my time a entering a debate with one person as it seems my best efforts have been in vain, but we learn eh?

    My last act of kindness will be to still answer your problem, though:

    I'm not in the habit of micro-managing people's lives so I can't answer what you should do when angry. Of course there are lunatics out there who would seize the call of anger to be violent, but I have no responsibility over those idiots and don't address them nor do I include them in any reference or implications in my writing.

    As you seen to have found it difficult to understand the below post that I gave as an answer, I'll simplify one last time:

    I would hope all sound minded people such as myself to be angry enough to do something about the problems we face. It's common to hear people complain but not do anything about it for fear of reprisal and ridicule. Therefore having anger, having compassion, having something to drive motivation would be needed, in my opinion, whether it be used to stir up civil disobedience, strikes, peaceful protests, petitions or other acts of non-violent resistance such as merely voting differently or discussing.

    Enjoy the rest of your day.
    Brum out.
     
    BRUm, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  16. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #136
    Nps, sorry if you got upset. The caps was to make the point you're telling people to get angry do I was showing you the only other way to get angry these days, with caps. Note it solved nothing so I don't believe you when you say you weren't calling people to violence. One of which you can't seem to explain properly. I'll get over it.

    Merely voting... like we don't do that already! - I think you're talkin through your ass on this occasion.
     
    Bushranger, Aug 9, 2011 IP
  17. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #137
    Depends on what the question is.

    Relying on someone else with a gun to be responsible for your safety is a great answer... if you're a 5 year old girl.
     
    robjones, Aug 20, 2011 IP
  18. Nugggy

    Nugggy Guest

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #138
    Why isn't this sick freak labeled a terrorist. Why weren't all those sick bastards who committed shooting sprees in schools labeled terrorist. So what if Islam is on the grow, have you ever heard of Muslims complaining about the growth of Christianity. His just using Islam as a scape goat. He thinks he can get away with it by mentioning anti-Islam.. That seems to be everyone's excuse. That is all you need to realize its not a war on terror, its a war on Islam. But i guess its the way it goes these days as people don't tend to use their own knowledge for their own benefit, instead its what mummy and daddy had taught them along with what they see on the news. Knowledge is power, seek it.
     
    Nugggy, Aug 21, 2011 IP
  19. Nugggy

    Nugggy Guest

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #139
    Where is the love and harmony people.....?
     
    Nugggy, Aug 21, 2011 IP