Guns and Drugs:A veiw on prohibition

[Billy the Great Khan]

You think of pacifism as weakness. You should study Gandhi. He freed the Nation of India through pacifism and a direct refusal to do what he was told.

Ghandi used passive resistance, not pacifism. Neither is a good idea for foreign policy. Now isolationism (outside of trade), that's an idea I can get on board with.

 

[wanderingbear]

I have studied Gandhi. He succeeded with non-violence because he had control of vast labor and resources that Britain needed, and the Brits, being a moral and just people, didn't have the stomach to kill millions of them and enslave the rest. Do you honestly think that tactic would work against Napoleon, Hitler, al-Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Al Queda?

I didn't say that pacifism doesn't come without risk. A pacifist is willing to take those risks in order to propagate the Ideas of pacifism.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You think of pacifism as weakness. You should study Gandhi. He freed the Nation of India through pacifism and a direct refusal to do what he was told.

Would you care to explain why the same tactic's didn't seem to work for the Jews, prior to WW II??

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I have studied Gandhi. He succeeded with non-violence because he had control of vast labor and resources that Britain needed, and the Brits, being a moral and just people, didn't have the stomach to kill millions of them and enslave the rest. Do you honestly think that tactic would work against Napoleon, Hitler, al-Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Al Queda?

The Brits most certainly did have the stomach for such atrocities. Look no further than Easter rising and subsequent trials/hangings.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The Brits most certainly did have the stomach for such atrocities. Look no further than Easter rising and subsequent trials/hangings.

So you're saying that "MILLIONS" were killed, by the British, during the two circumstances you've referred to??

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

So you're saying that "MILLIONS" were killed, by the British, during the two circumstances you've referred to??

No, I'm saying the Brits weren't the morally opposed to oppressing foreigners.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I'm saying the Brits weren't the morally opposed to oppressing foreigners.

But the initial argument was that they weren't willing to murder MILLIONS to force the issue.

 

[wanderingbear]

Would you care to explain why the same tactic's didn't seem to work for the Jews, prior to WW II??

The rest of the world didnt know what was happening to the Jews. When they found out they put and end to it. Yes sometimes force should be used.But negotiation should be the first thing to be tryed.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

But the initial argument was that they weren't willing to murder MILLIONS to force the issue.

And I say they were willing to do so. That they didn't is irrelevant, they were willing to, both at the political and public level.

 

[wanderingbear]

Some where we have gotten off subject in this thread.Its suppose to be about prohibition.

 

[DamnYankee]

I didn't say that pacifism doesn't come without risk. A pacifist is willing to take those risks in order to propagate the Ideas of pacifism.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[DamnYankee]

Some where we have gotten off subject in this thread.Its suppose to be about prohibition.

Now you want to avoid the question altogether.


It all comes down to personal responsibility, which you, my friend, seek to avoid.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The rest of the world didnt know what was happening to the Jews. When they found out they put and end to it. Yes sometimes force should be used.But negotiation should be the first thing to be tryed.

I thought we were takling about how pacifism worked, not outside intervention; or are you trying to suggest that the British would have killed "millions", if the outside world hadn't been aware of what was occuring??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And I say they were willing to do so. That they didn't is irrelevant, they were willing to, both at the political and public level.

And your PROOF that they "were willing" is ................................... what??

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Some where we have gotten off subject in this thread.Its suppose to be about prohibition.

Agreed. Back on the topic of gun prohibition, I'd like to see it rewritten that non-violent felonies do not strip one of their right to bear arms. And for drugs, I'd like to see strong penalties for public intoxication on them, or at least their use when combined with a motor vehicle. I'd also like to see public establishments where one could go to indulge and be in a relatively safe environment.

 

[DamnYankee]

Agreed. Back on the topic of gun prohibition, I'd like to see it rewritten that non-violent felonies do not strip one of their right to bare arms. .....

I think everyone should have the right to bare arms. Shit even the worst criminals need to roll up their sleeves once in a while.

 

[wanderingbear]

I'd also like to see public establishments where one could go to indulge and be in a relatively safe environment.

Like Bars that have cheep rooms for rent for when your to drunk to drive.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And your PROOF that they "were willing" is ................................... what??

Private commentaries on the Irish rebellion by chief British officials, various newspaper articles, previous British history involving oppressing the Irish. All from the time period that it happened.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Like Bars that have cheep rooms for rent for when your to drunk to drive.

Something like that, yeah.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I think everyone should have the right to bare arms. Shit even the worst criminals need to roll up their sleeves once in a while.

Got me.