Time Traveler: John Titor

[victor]

And Pinochet was installed by....?

That's right, gun-loving freaks. I don't see this happening in Western Europe.

Also, I doubt having guns solves any problem. If the people of Chile had rebelled with guns, they would just be slaughtered even more, and it would accomplish nothing, except maybe a stretched out civil war.

Armed civilians are no match at all for organized soldiers. And don't tell me about city guerilla and militia and such, because housewives just DON'T know how to use an M60.

Finally, a dictatorship has never occurred in the USA, and preparing for one might just cause it. Arm yourself when the time comes if you really need to.

And thank you, I'm no hippy. I hate those, and you saying this is ignorant, arrogant and stupid. If anything, it probably just means that you're having wet dreams about killing hippies with an OICW or something.

I enjoy shooting and aiming, but I just have the feeling that when you do it as a sport, which you should, you might as well use air rifles.

 

[Nomad]

Just a note, I agree with what John says here.

Should we be stockpiling guns?

The answer to this is NO! You will draw a great deal of negative attention to yourself. I recommend becoming familiar with firearms. This means taking a safety course and learning to shoot and clean many different types. There will be plenty of guns around when you need them.

You folks both loading up your arsenal for the war are just as stupid as the people who aren't even making an effort to learn about using guns.

[runs away before getting flamed]

 

[victor]

There's a difference between preparing for a nuclear war (quite pointless though) by learning how to use one and actually getting guns, and by doing that risking a war.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Who said anything about stockpiling guns? And as for gun courses i teach a gun safety course for the state of Minnesota.

I am just defending the US constitutions 2nd amendment is all.

@Sander, if you look at my other posts in other threads i usually do not flame others, as i enjoy a good debate. And you are correct it was uncalled for, but as i stated i was insulted, so i insulted back.

Baboon wrote

If anything, it probably just means that you're having wet dreams about killing hippies with an OICW or something.

Again this just illustrates my point for me. Ignorance is glaring.

Baboon you really need to pull your head out of your ass, if you want to debate the merits of gun regulation versus banning of firearms ownership i will be more than happy to accomodate you. But if you insist to keep up your childish name calling i will also be more than happy to accomodate you on that also. Your choice.

That's right, gun-loving freaks.

Now was this really called for?

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[Brother None]

Well Kharn, as usual for a European, you totally do not understand what the 2nd amendment to the US constitution represents.

Cute

I can't remember asking for an explanation of the way guns are treated in America, something of which I'm pretty aware, having read enough on such a small subject to be done with it.

My post was a joke, it didn't warrant such an arrogant, snoody reply.

Oh, and feel free to continue this thread on the gun subject, just remember the three facts of gun debates:

1) They never lead to anything, as both sides are adamantly convinced that they're right.

2) There are endless amounts of numbers proving the point of both sides.

3) It always end in a flamewar

Continue, please, but this thread'll be dumped as soon as you get out of hand (no if there)

 

[Big T]

If anything, it probably just means that you're having wet dreams about killing hippies with an OICW or something.

Again this just illustrates my point for me. Ignorance is glaring.

Actually, you were the one who brought up hippies:

I have never seen such a bunch of hand wringing pussies in all my life gathered like this. I bet all you gents also sing Kumbaya all the while saying things like if we ignore the problem it will go away.

The whole idea that peolpe either love guns or are pussies is ridiculous.

 

[victor]

That's right, gun-loving freaks.
Now was this really called for?

Cheers Thorgrimm

I wasn't targeting you. Are you saying you're a gun-loving freak? Are you admitting that the US was behind the coup in Chile (Duuuh...)?

 

[Elissar]

This therad started out well. However it has degenerated to a point where it is no longer even worth posting.

Alot of people need to open tieir minds up to the idea that they COULD BE WRONG. People on both sides of the argument.. And as for the name calling going on by a few participants around here. I can only say, grow up.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Baboon wrote

Are you admitting that the US was behind the coup in Chile (Duuuh...)?

Of course the US government was behind it. Never said it was not.

Big_T_UK wrote

Actually, you were the one who brought up hippies:

Nope never mentioned hippies. As a lot of the "let's get rid of the 2nd amendment crowd" are not even affiliated with them. I say what i mean, no hidden messages.

Big_T_UK wrote

The whole idea that peolpe either love guns or are pussies is ridiculous.

Never said that either, just made the statement as Elissar and myself were called retarded for standing up for the 2nd amendment.

Kharn wrote

My post was a joke, it didn't warrant such an arrogant, snoody reply.

Well i guess you should not have made it then. Certain misplaced humor is not humorous, just conflict provoking.

Gentlemen, understand this each and every attack upon the US constitution WILL be strenuously counterattacked by myself, even if the whole world stands opposed. As i believe with every inch of my being it is THE best governmental document made by man so far.

Now if you want to change that document i suggest you become an American, organize support for a new amendment and change it. Till then i will defend it. If you do not, then understand this, all your complaining will not change one thing. As the opinions of non Americans do not concern 99% of the citizenry.

If you think that i support the actions of the US government in all it's actions, you are mistaken. As the oath i took was to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION, not the government.

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[Brother None]

Well i guess you should not have made it then. Certain misplaced humor is not humorous, just conflict provoking.

Excuse me? I damn well have the right to joke with stuff like this whenever I damn well please. I won't joke about really serious things, like wars, diseases, terrorism etc. (well, not regularly anyway), out of respect, but c'mon...this is a piece of paper, and the whole atmosphere surrounding the gun-debate, especially Moore's documentary, is hilarious and easy to mock.

Gentlemen, understand this each and every attack upon the US constitution WILL be strenuously counterattacked by myself, even if the whole world stands opposed. As i believe with every inch of my being it is THE best governmental document made by man so far.

Great, good for you. But remember one thing: your problem with people against the US constitution (have you read all of it? And if so, have you read all other governmental documents? If the answer is no, how do you know the above for sure?) is your problem. The fact that you care a lot about this governmental document does not give you the right to flame people, or to snap at people that make jokes about it.

Now if you want to change that document i suggest you become an American, organize support for a new amendment and change it. Till then i will defend it. If you do not, then understand this, all your complaining will not change one thing. As the opinions of non Americans do not concern 99% of the citizenry.

Ok, if that's true, then why do you care enough about our opinions to snap at us?

Also, I would like the point out that not being an American and not wanting to become an American just to change your constitution doesn't mean we're not allowed to criticise it. It's our good right.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Kharn wrote

Moore's documentary, is hilarious and easy to mock.

You are correct about that. as i am not advocating stockpiling weapons just the constitution.

Kharn wrote

But remember one thing: your problem with people against the US constitution (have you read all of it? And if so, have you read all other governmental documents? If the answer is no, how do you know the above for sure?) is your problem. The fact that you care a lot about this governmental document does not give you the right to flame people, or to snap at people that make jokes about it.

As a matter of fact i have a copy of the constitution on my desk. If you would read the thread a little better you would see that i did not start the flamewar, just responded to it.

Kharn wrote

Excuse me? I damn well have the right to joke with stuff like this whenever I damn well please.

So by your logic i do have the right to "say what i damn well please."

Kharn wrote

Also, I would like the point out that not being an American and not wanting to become an American just to change your constitution doesn't mean we're not allowed to criticise it. It's our good right.

You are correct about that, but i also have the right to defend it as well.

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[quietfanatic]

Quietfanatic wrote

Even in the previously mentioned example of the anarchic Germany, there was a coup by military people but they were thrown out without the need for guns, by people power through passive resistance and industrial action.

Now that has got to be the stupidest statement on post WW1 Germany i have ever seen. As i seem to recall that the Socialist and communist revolts in Germany were put down by the FREIKORPS, aka former soldiers who fought tp prevent the communists gaining control of Germany.

Like I said, we studied this at school.

True the Freikorps viciously put down several left wing uprisings such as in the Ruhr, where they shot up Red Cross nurses and beat to death communist sympathizers. Good work men! But with my example of the Kapp Putsch (the attempted coup), guess who the 'soldiers' were. That's right, they were a company of FREIKORPS men who ended up marching off in disgrace when met with PEOPLE POWER. Although they were useful to back up the Army, they were incredibly dangerous and political (right wing of course). In 1920 the government forced them to disband so many joined the regular army. Some however, joined the Stormtroopers (SA) and would become Nazi bully boys. The leader of the SA in 26 was ex-Freikorps.

They did not need such groups to stop Communism because nearly all sections of the German people were so afraid of Communism that they would quickly join the regular army if a full blown civil war emerged and actually allowed Hitler to become a dictator. America commonly chose to let dictators do as they wish as long as they quelled communism (Chile as an example) in the Cold War.

And Quietfool, Australia would have been speaking Japanese if it were not for gun toting Americans, Europe would have been singing Deutschland Uber Alles, till hell froze over. That is what America gets for helping out the whiners of the world, ingratitude. So i just laugh at all you unfortunate people born someplace else without a bill of rights.

America took its sweet bloody time to enter both wars, letting Europe and specifically Britain to do most of the work. We Australians halted the Japanese advance in Papua New Guinea, we are just as capable of shooting people as anyone else. We might not be as powerful as the US, but at least we try to help people who are culturally close to us without being provoked by outside threats to our interests.

When the Indonesians walked into West Papua, JFK did nothing because the extreme nationalists were not Communists. They would probably have grabbed the rest if it were not for the presence of Australian troops. Had they had the whole population being a well armed militia they would have merely been totally slaughtered (as opposed to being mostly killed). Even when they became an independant state for a short time, they were conquered again by the bigger, more advanced nation. The US pretends to uphold justice etc. but is just as selfish, no, more selfish than the rest of the world. Maybe because many of you do not seem to care about the rest of the world it may cause terrorists to take a dislike to you.

So in WWI if the U-boats didn't kill Americans would you have got involved?

If England lost the Battle of Britain and there was no Pearl Harbour, would you have gone in to Europe to dislodge Hitler?

I think not.

You let Stalin take over East Berlin because you didn't want to get your hands dirty. Not that you haven't done many good things.

So i just laugh at all you unfortunate people born someplace else without a bill of rights.

We have civil rights in other counties believe it or not, and do not need to have it written down because we are advanced, Western, democracies who know what is right and think that all people should be treated equally.

Opposing fanatics should consider both sides of an argument and be more open minded. All opinions are valuable.
We shouldn't take things so seriously but argument is always fun.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Quietfanatic wrote

a full blown civil war emerged and actually allowed Hitler to become a dictator.

Sorry to contradict you but, Adolf and his bully boys used the tools of democracy to gain the reigns of power.

And his aborted putsch was put down by the army not "people power."

Quietfanatic wrote

True the Freikorps viciously put down several left wing uprisings such as in the Ruhr, where they shot up Red Cross nurses and beat to death communist sympathizers.

Nope i was referring to the battles where it mattered, Berlin Munich, koenigsberg, where for a time a communist regime was actually declared, and was not put down till the Freikorps entered the action.

Quietfanatic wrote

America took its sweet bloody time to enter both wars, letting Europe and specifically Britain to do most of the work. We Australians halted the Japanese advance in Papua New Guinea,

Yup the Australians did valiant work on the Koda trail, never said you did not fight valiantly, but if the US Navy had not won the Battle of the Coral Sea you valiant troops would have been cut off. Then the door would have been open to enter Australia. As the Japanese Solomons campaign was intended to isolate Australia from American interference in their invasion plans.

Quietfanatic wrote

The US pretends to uphold justice etc. but is just as selfish, no, more selfish than the rest of the world. Maybe because many of you do not seem to care about the rest of the world it may cause terrorists to take a dislike to you.

Never said that the US wasn't selfish, all i said was that your opinion does not matter to most of the citizenry. And if you take up arms against us, well we have every right to defend ourselves.

Quietfanatic wrote

If England lost the Battle of Britain and there was no Pearl Harbour, would you have gone in to Europe to dislodge Hitler?

This is where your argument falls apart, as FDR had commissioned a query of the senators as what would it take to bring in the US on the side of the Allies, want to guess what the results were? Yup an attack on the US, or the conquest of the UK.

Quietfanatic wrote

You let Stalin take over East Berlin because you didn't want to get your hands dirty.

You really need to read your history a little better. As the division of Berlin was to PREVENT the Soviets from gaining total control of the entirety of the former German capitol. That was an agreement reached at the Yalta conference. Just love your modern day spin on that. Shows what political bias can produce.

Quietfanatic wrote

We have civil rights in other counties believe it or not, and do not need to have it written down

Well the people who live in Australia with whom i talk to daily on IM would disagree with you, as since they are not guaranteed, they can be taken away. Do you honestly think politicians do things for altruistic reasons? It is for power, and if it means taking away your rights to maintain that power, they will do so.

Quitefanatic wrote

Opposing fanatics should consider both sides of an argument and be more open minded. All opinions are valuable.

I firmly agree, but it was you who started with the denigrating attacks. So try to apply that to your own statements.

Quietfanatic wrote

We shouldn't take things so seriously but argument is always fun.

I firmly agree. I love a good debate. 8)

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[quietfanatic]

Quietfanatic wrote

a full blown civil war emerged and actually allowed Hitler to become a dictator.

Sorry to contradict you but, Adolf and his bully boys used the tools of democracy to gain the reigns of power.

And his aborted putsch was put down by the army not "people power."

Quietfanatic wrote

True the Freikorps viciously put down several left wing uprisings such as in the Ruhr, where they shot up Red Cross nurses and beat to death communist sympathizers.

Nope i was referring to the battles where it mattered, Berlin Munich, koenigsberg, where for a time a communist regime was actually declared, and was not put down till the Freikorps entered the action.

I already said that Hitler was elected, so don't take me out of context. His own first attempted coup was put down by the army but members of the Freikorps also attempted a coup.

They did not need such groups to stop Communism because nearly all sections of the German people were so afraid of Communism that they would quickly join the regular army if a full blown civil war emerged,(EDIT) and actually allowed Hitler to become a dictator.

Maybe I should have been clearer about that. You chose the Freikorps as an example of a paramilitary group and I am saying that they were dangerous and unneccessary. Any government needs the support of the populace or they will have no power. Remember, this is all linked to the argument that civilians do not need guns.

Hitler was eventually supported by the vital middle class and industrialists, enabling him to take total control. This was because Germany was so strongly opposed to Communism that he was allowed to do as he wished. If the Communists tried to take over, the ranks of the regular Army would have been swelled and order restored.

I will study the Cold War in detail some time so I can develop a proper argument in that respect.

Democracy and PEOPLE POWER

 

[Brother None]

As a matter of fact i have a copy of the constitution on my desk.

Did you read it completely? And did you read all other constitutions in the world? Or at least the European ones...

If you would read the thread a little better you would see that i did not start the flamewar, just responded to it.

Oh, they started it!

Watch me care.

Being flamed/attacked doesn't give you the right to flame as you please. Also, technically you started it, your post in reply to my joke was very disrespectful and insulting, even though it didn't contain any real flames. Basically you call all Europeans "ignorant of the 2nd amendement", which is an insult.

So by your logic i do have the right to "say what i damn well please."

Cute. You think twisting my words will get you anywhere? By my logic you have the right to joke about the Dutch constitution, or about something ludicrous like our prime minister's hairdo or the high number of bike thefts in Amsterdam.

You have the right to say what you please within the rules of this forum

You are correct about that, but i also have the right to defend it as well.

Did I say you didn't? You just don't have the right to flame people.

Also, I would like to point out at this point that you're a guest on Odin's forum. You're acting VERY bad for a guest. I don't know if you noticed, but I'm an admin. You have the right to disagree with me, but the fact is I'm in the boss and when I say "that isn't allowed" to do this you either live with it or get the fuck out.

And flaming simply isn't allowed. It's not that difficult.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Kharn wrote

"Being flamed/attacked doesn't give you the right to flame as you please. Also, technically you started it, your post in reply to my joke was very disrespectful and insulting, even though it didn't contain any real flames. Basically you call all Europeans "ignorant of the 2nd amendement", which is an insult. "

So it is ok for the others to flame me, and i must set back and accept the insults?

Nope, as i stated if you would read the post a little better i said "you did not understand." The dictionary i have state that there is a difference between "Ignorance and understanding." Who is twisting words now.


"In America you must not have the sufficient morals, intelligence and patriotism to deal with possible problems, so you must rely on having fire arms. You must not be a Democracy because a democracy has no need of an armed rabble to maintain personal freedom.

"But then again, it could be something to do with an outdated amendment written in a totally different social and political context. It is like the Taliban whose extreme, archaic laws and lifestyle caused terrible damage to society.

Why do you like guns so much?

I think it is merely because you are a man whose testosterone warped mind has convinced you that we still live in the stone age where the threat of physical danger is commonplace. Has your neighbour tried to steal your SUV/livestock, rape your women and enslave your kids. Ahhhh NO. But how many kids accidentally get shot screwing around with guns only for 'self defense'. Guns are tools used for efficiently killing people, not for maintaining civil liberties. Play with an air rifle to stop your brains from melting because we are not having a war in America (well not until 2005 apparently."

This is where the flaming began. Why did you not warn this gent? Or is it ok for certain people to flame? Or is it because these are your thoughts on America also?


Kharn wrote

Did you read it completely?

As a matter of fact i did.

Kharn wrote

Did I say you didn't? You just don't have the right to flame people.

Also, I would like to point out at this point that you're a guest on Odin's forum. You're acting VERY bad for a guest. I don't know if you noticed, but I'm an admin. You have the right to disagree with me, but the fact is I'm in the boss and when I say "that isn't allowed" to do this you either live with it or get the fuck out.

So how come i am the only one you are warning? Why don't you apply the rules evenly and warn the other flamers.

You are correct about being an admin, just apply the rules evenly or what you are doing is censoring what you do not wish to read. And as for flaming i have been very civil about this. You are the one descending into cursing. As for me "living with it or get the fuck out." unless Odin tells me to stop or you ban me i will continue to defend myself and the constitution against all attacks. Be they from those in power and abuse that power, or the little guy.

Thorgrimm

 

[calculon000]

Are you really surprised to find out that Iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?

No nukes were found in Iraq.

that, along with a few other minor inconsistancies i spotted but cant really remember at the moment lead me to believe that this guy was just a crackpot looking for attention.

John Titor wrote these things back in 2001. He was referring to Bush using WMD as an excuse for the second gulf war. He predicted it over 2 years before it happened.

 

[quietfanatic]

Could someone give me a definition of 'flaming'?

I was just giving my opinion and asking questions to those who support universal gun ownership. I was not trying to offend any specific individuals, only try to get different views on this issue with justification, because I am curious to see why people hold their opinions.

I made a contradictory statement that might have seemed offensive. That is that some men have no balls. I used this written expression to convey my point and get a reaction. However it is your testicles that are vital for testosterone production, so this suggests that men are aggressive because they do have balls.

Why do you like guns so much (I like guns and attribute it to my balls)?

Why do you need them? (I am addressing everyone and Americans in particular).

How about you few girls who like guns (and fallout)? I ask that for obvious reasons.

So, lets all stop whinging.

 

[Johns Volition]

Could someone give me a definition of 'flaming'?

Flame \Flame\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. {Flamed}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Flaming}.] [OE. flamen, flaumben, F. flamber, OF. also, flamer. See {Flame}, n.] 1. To burn with a flame or blaze; to burn as gas emitted from bodies in combustion; to blaze.
The main blaze of it is past, but a small thing would make it flame again. --Shak.

2. To burst forth like flame; to break out in violence of passion; to be kindled with zeal or ardor.

He flamed with indignation. --Macaulay.