What do advocates of gun control think of how it's working in Burma?

What sort of gun control laws do they have in Burma?

What sort of gun control laws do they have in Burma?
your typical police state, only the police have guns.

An unarmed populace is a populace that is at the mercy of the government and that has no recourse other than obedience.

your typical police state, only the police have guns.

I suspect you're correct, but I was hoping for something a little more specific. :)

An unarmed populace is a populace that is at the mercy of the government and that has no recourse other than obedience.

Perhaps, but Ghandi might disagree. I'm not trying to compare Burma's situation to that of India's when the Brits were still in charge, but I also can't see a bunch of Buddhists taking up arms. Granted there are militant Buddhists, but they're pretty rare, and I think your average Buddhist would prefer more peaceful means of protest.

Perhaps, but Ghandi might disagree.
As would a lot of other people/countries.

Perhaps, but Ghandi might disagree. I'm not trying to compare Burma's situation to that of India's when the Brits were still in charge, but I also can't see a bunch of Buddhists taking up arms. Granted there are militant Buddhists, but they're pretty rare, and I think your average Buddhist would prefer more peaceful means of protest.

Ghandi was successful only because the English government was not willing to shoot into crowds and kill on a massive scale. Faced with a ruthless government an unarmed populace has little recourse other than dying or obeying.

I suspect you're correct, but I was hoping for something a little more specific. :)
when the government is in total control, laws are a formality often overlooked:(

An unarmed populace is a populace that is at the mercy of the government and that has no recourse other than obedience.

And the same thing is true of a populace that has 300 million guns in its possession, yet who have been indoctrinated to never think critically or to think for themselves.

When the powers-that-be are, as is the case in America, able to tell a populace what they ought to think and how they ought to think, all the guns in the world are of no use to them.

_________________________________

Rather than educating our youth and ivesting them with the power to think for themselves and the power to reason in a critical manner, we have, through the power of propaganda, chosen to domesticate them, deciding that it is preferable that they become flag-waving patriots and loyalists; apologists chauvinistically pledging their allegiance to the Fatherland.

I can't argue with you about that, Freethinker. A nation of armed sheep is still a nation of sheep. We happen to disagree on the amount or efficacy of the brainwashing you see having occured.

when the government is in total control, laws are a formality often overlooked:(

Is that the case here? Does Burma have laws on the books, and are they enforced?

Ghandi was successful only because the English government was not willing to shoot into crowds and kill on a massive scale.

Exactly why I stated I wasn't comparing the two situations.


Faced with a ruthless government an unarmed populace has little recourse other than dying or obeying.

Perhaps. What about a general strike? The government certainly doesn't have enough troops to force everyone to go to work.

Faced with a ruthless government an unarmed populace has little recourse other than dying or obeying.

Which is why the Neo-Cons (IOW, the fascists) in this country chose the much more devious --yet much more certain-- method.

Instead of mandating the populace be unarmed, and trying to force them to obey and submit, they begin from birth to brainwash every citizen into fastening the chains around their own ankles. they do this by indoctrinating the masses to not think critically, and to not think for themselves.

Much of the current disastrous state of affairs can be traced directly to the father of Neo-Conservatism, Leo Strauss.

Leo Strauss, the neocon "philosopher," taught that the elite (the Neocons) need to deceive the masses who cannot handle or benefit from the "truth." Consequently Neocons feel justified in hiding the real reasons for the war behind the WMD excuse or giving secret documents or technology to Israel, since they "know better" what is "good for America".

What do advocates of gun control think of how it's working in Burma?
What does the pro-gun crowd think of how the availability of guns is working in Iraq?

It's not reasonable to take examples from impoverished, third-world countries when deciding on our policy in this country.

And the same thing is true of a populace that has 300 million guns in its possession, yet who have been indoctrinated to never think critically or to think for themselves.

When the powers-that-be are, as is the case in America, able to tell a populace what they ought to think and how they ought to think, all the guns in the world are of no use to them.

_________________________________

Rather than educating our youth and ivesting them with the power to think for themselves and the power to reason in a critical manner, we have, through the power of propaganda, chosen to domesticate them, deciding that it is preferable that they become flag-waving patriots and loyalists; apologists chauvinistically pledging their allegiance to the Fatherland.

The topic is about democracy in burma and you manage to turn it into an indictment of the US. :rolleyes:
You are one obsessed dude. That or pretty fucked up.

The topic is about democracy in burma and you manage to turn it into an indictment of the US. :rolleyes:
You are one obsessed dude. That or pretty fucked up.
he could be both.

Is that the case here? Does Burma have laws on the books, and are they enforced?
from what little i know about Burma, they do, and they exist solely for the benefit of military rule.

I can't help but notice waldo is ignoring Jester's excellent question.

Not a surprise, really.

The availability of guns in Iraq did not do much to stop the tyranical government of Saddam Hussein. In my opinion the major reason for that was cultural. Arabs have no history of political freedom. They have for their entire history been ruled by strong men who made the rules and enforced them. There is not even democracy on the tribal level or the family level. The father rules the family with an iron hand. The sheik rules the tribe with an iron hand. The ruler rules the country with an iron hand. Had the Iraqis had any real desire for democracy they would have toppled Hussein on their own years ago.

It is different in Burma. The people are actively seeking democracy and are being thwarted in their desires because all the guns are in the hands of the dictators and their military supporters. Were there as many guns in private possession in Burma as in Iraq the military junta would already have been overthrown.

What does the pro-gun crowd think of how the availability of guns is working in Iraq?

It's not reasonable to take examples from impoverished, third-world countries when deciding on our policy in this country.

It seems to be working out OK. Iraq appears to be on a path towards joining the connected world.

Why not?

This is what can happen when only the government has guns. The people are totally defenseless against a dictator who isn't afraid to kill thousands of his own people.



Burma: Thousands dead in massacre of the monks dumped in the jungle
Last updated at 11:37am on 1st October 2007

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand.

Meanwhile, the United Nations special envoy was in Burma's new capital today seeking meetings with the ruling military junta.


Ibrahim Gambari met detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Rangoon yesterday. But he has yet to meet the country's senior generals as he attempts to halt violence against monks and pro-democracy activists.

It is anticipated the meeting will happen tomorrow.

Heavily-armed troops and police flooded the streets of Rangoon during Mr Ibrahim's visit to prevent new protests.

Mr Gambari met some of the country's military leaders in Naypyidaw yesterday and has returned there for further talks. But he did not meet senior general Than Shwe or his deputy Maung Aye - and they have issued no comment.

Reports from exiles along the frontier confirmed that hundreds of monks had simply "disappeared" as 20,000 troops swarmed around Rangoon yesterday to prevent further demonstrations by religious groups and civilians.

Word reaching dissidents hiding out on the border suggested that as well as executions, some 2,000 monks are being held in the notorious Insein Prison or in university rooms which have been turned into cells.

There were reports that many were savagely beaten at a sports ground on the outskirts of Rangoon, where they were heard crying for help.

Others who had failed to escape disguised as civilians were locked in their bloodstained temples.

There, troops abandoned religious beliefs, propped their rifles against statues of Buddha and began cooking meals on stoves set up in shrines.

In stark contrast, the streets of Rangoon and Mandalay - centres of the attempted saffron revolution last week - were virtually deserted.

A Swedish diplomat who visited Burma during the protests said last night that in her opinion the revolution has failed.

Liselotte Agerlid, who is now in Thailand, said that the Burmese people now face possibly decades of repression. "The Burma revolt is over," she added.

"The military regime won and a new generation has been violently repressed and violently denied democracy. The people in the street were young people, monks and civilians who were not participating during the 1988 revolt.

"Now the military has cracked down the revolt, and the result may very well be that the regime will enjoy another 20 years of silence, ruling by fear."

Mrs Agerlid said Rangoon is heavily guarded by soldiers.

"There are extremely high numbers of soldiers in Rangoon's streets," she added. "Anyone can see it is absolutely impossible for any demonstration to gather, or for anyone to do anything.

"People are scared and the general assessment is that the fight is over. We were informed from one of the largest embassies in Burma that 40 monks in the Insein prison were beaten to death today and subsequently burned."

The diplomat also said that three monasteries were raided yesterday afternoon and are now totally abandoned.

At his border hideout last night, 42-year-old Mr Win said he hopes to cross into Thailand and seek asylum at the Norwegian Embassy.

The 42-year-old chief of military intelligence in Rangoon's northern region, added: "I decided to desert when I was ordered to raid two monasteries and force several hundred monks onto trucks.

"They were to be killed and their bodies dumped deep inside the jungle. I refused to participate in this."

With his teenage son, he made his escape from Rangoon, leaving behind his wife and two other sons.

He had no fears for their safety because his brother is a powerful general who, he believes, will defend the family.

Mr Win's defection will raise a faint hope among tens of thousands of Burmese who have fled to villages along the Thai border.

They will feel others in the army may follow him and turn on their ageing leaders, Senior General Than Shwe and his deputy, Vice Senior General Maung Aye.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484903

This entire thread is a fucking joke.

I have to wonder what rightwingers imagine that Buddhist monks would do with guns even if they had them.

I didn't realize it was only Buddhist monks who were protesting against the regime, Freethinker. I think it was pretty sneaky of so many of them to get rid of their robes and dress as civilians.

Thanks for letting me know it was only Buddhist monks protesting.

This entire thread is a fucking joke.

I have to wonder what rightwingers imagine that Buddhist monks would do with guns even if they had them.


Another socialist expresses his deep and abiding concern for humanity.:woohoo:

This entire thread is a fucking joke.

I have to wonder what rightwingers imagine that Buddhist monks would do with guns even if they had them.

Good point FT.

Well said.

The availability of guns in Iraq did not do much to stop the tyranical government of Saddam Hussein. In my opinion the major reason for that was cultural. Arabs have no history of political freedom. They have for their entire history been ruled by strong men who made the rules and enforced them. There is not even democracy on the tribal level or the family level. The father rules the family with an iron hand. The sheik rules the tribe with an iron hand. The ruler rules the country with an iron hand. Had the Iraqis had any real desire for democracy they would have toppled Hussein on their own years ago.

My question was about the present situation in Iraq, not the Saddam era.

It seems to be working out OK. Iraq appears to be on a path towards joining the connected world.

Why not?
Here's my point... you used Burma as example of what happens when a populace is unarmed. Could one therefore not use Iraq as an example of what happens when a populace is armed (such as widespread lawlessness, violent insurgencies, civil war, terrorist attacks, etc.)?

My question was about the present situation in Iraq, not the Saddam era.
So what? Personally, I think your question is a loaded one. Frogger pointed out what the difference was (and it's key here):

"The people are actively seeking democracy (in Burma) and are being thwarted in their desires because all the guns are in the hands of the dictators and their military supporters. Were there as many guns in private possession in Burma as in Iraq the military junta would already have been overthrown."

My question was about the present situation in Iraq, not the Saddam era.


Here's my point... you used Burma as example of what happens when a populace is unarmed. Could one therefore not use Iraq as an example of what happens when a populace is armed (such as widespread lawlessness, violent insurgencies, civil war, terrorist attacks, etc.)?

Context is everything. You can use any example you'd like. The question is does your example support your opinion?

Since we're talking about creating democracies from tyrannies i think one would have to agree that gun control is not a good idea. Given that tyrannies can spring from wherever one could make the arguement that for the long run benefit of society too many guns (and there attendant tragedies) might be the price a society pays. The flip side is what you see in burma or saddam's iraq.
You are free to think otherwise, make your case.

So what? My question wouldn't make any sense if we're talking about Saddam-era Iraq.

Let me break this down:
Waldo used Burma to show the disadvantage of an unarmed populace, ie. that the populace is unable to fight against a dictatorial government.
I used Iraq to show the disadvantage of an armed populace, ie. that the populace is able to fight against a democratic government.

Waldo seemed to imply that the situation in Burma weakens the argument of gun-control advocates in the US.
I countered by implying that if that was the case, the situation in Iraq would weaken the argument of anti-gun-control advocates in the US.

My ultimate point, however, is that the situations in the two countries do not apply to our gun policies here in the US.

Context is everything. You can use any example you'd like. The question is does your example support your opinion?
As I said before, examples from countries like Burma and Iraq do nothing to support one's opinion on gun control policies in the US. If they did, one could say that we need to take guns away from the population here to prevent extremists from mounting an insurgency against our democratic government and committing terrorist acts. However, that's obviously not a good reason to prevent people from owning guns. Similarly, the threat of a tyrannical government taking power in this country is no good reason to prevent policies that control gun ownership.

Fair enough, and I think I misread your initial argument.

Maybe we should put a gun in the hands of every man woman and child inthe world,and see what happens... When the dust settles maybe the world would learn a lesson... I doubt it.

That would almost be as devastating as say, a Koran, in the hand of every man, woman, and child....

My question wouldn't make any sense if we're talking about Saddam-era Iraq.

Let me break this down:
Waldo used Burma to show the disadvantage of an unarmed populace, ie. that the populace is unable to fight against a dictatorial government.
I used Iraq to show the disadvantage of an armed populace, ie. that the populace is able to fight against a democratic government.

Waldo seemed to imply that the situation in Burma weakens the argument of gun-control advocates in the US.
I countered by implying that if that was the case, the situation in Iraq would weaken the argument of anti-gun-control advocates in the US.

My ultimate point, however, is that the situations in the two countries do not apply to our gun policies here in the US.


As I said before, examples from countries like Burma and Iraq do nothing to support one's opinion on gun control policies in the US. If they did, one could say that we need to take guns away from the population here to prevent extremists from mounting an insurgency against our democratic government and committing terrorist acts. However, that's obviously not a good reason to prevent people from owning guns. Similarly, the threat of a tyrannical government taking power in this country is no good reason to prevent policies that control gun ownership.

Examples like burma highlight the position of advocates of no or little gun control. The guys that don't want gun control often cite the BoR and the citizens right to defend themselves from the gov't. Iraq, to the extent that the gov't still has a sectarian flavor, also fits for those people. You won't see the mahdi army marching up to fallujah or ramadi or anywhere else where they'd be outnumbered.
To the extent you want to use iraq as an example of a lawless society i'd suggest that you need a gun, to protect yourself from a range of bad guys.

If you want to argue that too many guns make for a dangerous society i won't disagree. Playing the devil's advocate i'd say it's the price of entry to stay in the game.

Forgive me for pointing out that no one has posted anything yet to confirm that private gun ownership is outlawed in Burma. So far that's just an assumption, and I think FT's point also has some validity. It may not be just monks who were protesting, but they were leading the protests, and they may not be the only Buddhists reluctant to practice violence. I have little doubt that if the Burmese people wish to take up arms, they'll find someone willing to give them plenty of free guns, or someone willing to pay for them.

Forgive me for pointing out that no one has posted anything yet to confirm that private gun ownership is outlawed in Burma. So far that's just an assumption, and I think FT's point also has some validity. It may not be just monks who were protesting, but they were leading the protests, and they may not be the only Buddhists reluctant to practice violence. I have little doubt that if the Burmese people wish to take up arms, they'll find someone willing to give them plenty of free guns, or someone willing to pay for them.

Well, yeah, but in putting it that way, you're describing the situation from a reasonable, rational point of view.

An approach such as that will never register with people like waldo.

Well, yeah, but in putting it that way, you're describing the situation from a reasonable, rational point of view.

An approach such as that will never register with people like waldo.

You mean it's the sort of post you wish you could write.

Forgive me for pointing out that no one has posted anything yet to confirm that private gun ownership is outlawed in Burma. So far that's just an assumption, and I think FT's point also has some validity. It may not be just monks who were protesting, but they were leading the protests, and they may not be the only Buddhists reluctant to practice violence. I have little doubt that if the Burmese people wish to take up arms, they'll find someone willing to give them plenty of free guns, or someone willing to pay for them.

No one has suggested that gun ownership has been outlawed in Burma.
One is allowed to own a gun. Gun ownership is controlled through licensing. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the military gov't.

http://www.blc-burma.org/html/Burma%20Code/lr_e_bc02_18.html

Buddhists as practitioners of non-violence? You mean like the junta? They are ostensibly buddhists. Moral suasion only works with people who are moral. i.e. Britain and iNdia. Any evidence that the military junta fits that description?

No one has suggested that gun ownership has been outlawed in Burma.

No one has come out and directly stated it, but several people have "suggested" it. :)


One is allowed to own a gun. Gun ownership is controlled through licensing. Licenses are issued at the discretion of the military gov't.

http://www.blc-burma.org/html/Burma%20Code/lr_e_bc02_18.html

Thanks. :)


Buddhists as practitioners of non-violence? You mean like the junta? They are ostensibly buddhists. Moral suasion only works with people who are moral. i.e. Britain and iNdia. Any evidence that the military junta fits that description?

Nope. On the other hand, I would imagine there are good Buddhists and bad ones just as with any religion.

Buddhists as practitioners of non-violence?

Yes, real Buddhists are non-violent.
just like real Christian are non-violent.


You mean like the junta?

They are no more real Buddhists than Hitler was a real Christian.

:thumbs:
DB

They are no more real Buddhists than Hitler was a real Christian.

:thumbs:
DB
Work on your syntax, palsy.

Yes, real Buddhists are non-violent.
just like real Christian are non-violent.



They are no more real Buddhists than Hitler was a real Christian.

:thumbs:
DB

Is there an echo in here?

Precisely my point. That's why moral suasion, i.e. non-violence, is extremely difficult to employ as a tactic in such a situation.

Is there an echo in here?

Precisely my point. That's why moral suasion, i.e. non-violence, is extremely difficult to employ as a tactic in such a situation.

Non-violence is always a difficult tactic to use. It was difficult for Ghandi to use against the British and for Dr. King to use here in America. That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

:thumbs:
DB

News flash to Dharmabum.

Non-violence only works when the other side eschews violence. The British in India did not gun down thousands and when some white civilians were violent during the civil rights protest troops were sent in to PROTECT the protestors.

Such is not the case in Burma where it is the government that is committing violent and deadly acts against its own citizens.

Jesus, some of these people are stupid, Frogger.

"troops" (representatives of authority) were not always used to protect students. They were also used to silence protesters.

http://www.crmvet.org/crmpics/bham-firehose.jpg
http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/king/images/birm3.gif

Neither of those pictures shows troops. One shows firefighters and the other local cops.

Once again you make up facts, Dharmabum. At least if you are going to lie try to do it in a less ham handed manner that is less easily detected.

Jesus, some of these people are stupid, Frogger.

Why don't you try posting something of value for a change, Prat?

:thumbs:
DB

Why don't you try posting something truthful for a change, DB?

Neither of those pictures shows troops. One shows firefighters and the other local cops.

Once again you make up facts, Dharmabum. At least if you are going to lie try to do it in a less ham handed manner that is less easily detected.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Kent_State_massacre.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Kent_State_massacre.jpg

What a powerful picture and an excellent example.

Froggy has no clue what he is babbling about.

Why don't you try posting something of value for a change, Prat?

:thumbs:
DB
You first, helmet.

Nice of you to come to his rescue, Frannie. He isn't too capable and needs all the help he can get from his fellow leftists.


If I remember Kent State correctly a scared National Guard Soldier fired after thinking he was being fired on and killed that poor student. Rather than the rest of the Guard firing, their was an inquiry by the government. The government did not try to oppress people. It was a tragic accident.

There are thousands killed by government troops in Burma. Are you trying to find some sort of moral equivalency between that and the accidental killing of a single college student, something that so seared the psyche of America that the picture still resonates with an eerie power decades later?

You first, helmet.

Wow, your homoerotic fantasies are in over-drive today. :rolleyes:

Sorry kiddo, I am straight and I am taken.

:thumbs:
DB

How you got something homoerotic out of Prae's post I'll never know. Perhaps you have homosexuality on your mind, Dharma, not that there is anything wrong with that. You're among friends. You are free to be yourself here.


I'll look for your response when I return in two weeks. In the meantime, anything that floats your boat is fine.

Are you trying to find some sort of moral equivalency between that and the accidental killing of a single college student, something that so seared the psyche of America that the picture still resonates with an eerie power decades later?
Unbelievable, isn't it?

Unbelievable, isn't it?

Yeah, it is pretty unbelievable that Froggy is stupid enough to claim that the shooting at Kent State was accidental.

Especially since the tapes where you can the order given were just released this year. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/4/30/1321/87280)

:thumbs:
DB

If I remember Kent State correctly a scared National Guard Soldier fired after thinking he was being fired on and killed that poor student.

Your memory fails you. In fact, your entire "memory" of the event is wrong. No surprise there!

:thumbs:

When it was obvious the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G began to advance on the hundreds of protesters with bayonets fixed on their weapons. The guardsmen had little training in riot control. As the guardsmen advanced, the protesters retreated up and over Blanket Hill, heading out of The Commons area. Once over the hill, the students, in a loose group, moved northeast along the front of Taylor Hall, with some continuing toward a parking lot in front of Prentice Hall (slightly northeast of and perpendicular to Taylor Hall). The guardsmen pursued the protesters over the hill, but rather than veering left as the protesters had, they continued straight, heading down toward an athletic practice field enclosed by a chain link fence. Here they remained for about ten minutes, unsure of how to get out of the area short of retracing their entrance path (a move some guardsmen considered could be viewed as a retreat). During this time, the bulk of the students were off to the left and front of the guardsmen, approximately 50 to 75 meters away, on the veranda of Taylor Hall. Others were scattered between Taylor Hall and the Prentice Hall parking lot, while still others, perhaps 35 or 40, were standing in the parking lot, or dispersing through the lot as had been previously ordered.

While on the practice field, the guardsmen generally faced the parking lot which was about 100 meters away. At one point some of the guardsmen knelt and aimed their weapons toward the parking lot, then stood up again. For a few moments several guardsmen formed a loose huddle and appeared to be talking to one another. The guardsmen appeared to be unclear as to what to do next. They had cleared the protesters from the Commons area, and many students had left, but many stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. At the end of about ten minutes the guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward the Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as the latter passed over the top of the hill and headed back down into the Commons.

At this point, at 12:22 PM, a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand semi-automatic military rifles into the students. The guardsmen directed their fire not at the closest students, who were on the Taylor Hall veranda, but at those on the grass area and concrete walkway below the veranda, at those on the service road between the veranda and the parking lot, and at those in the parking lot. Bullets were not sprayed in all directions, but instead were confined to a fairly limited line of fire leading from the top of the hill to the parking lot. Not all the soldiers who fired their weapons directed their fire into the students. Some soldiers fired into the ground while a few fired into the air. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons. A total of 67 bullets were fired. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired is widely debated.

The Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard told reporters that a sniper had fired on the guardsmen, which itself remains a debated allegation. Many guardsmen later testified that they were in fear for their lives, which was questioned partly because of the distance of the wounded students. Time magazine later concluded that "triggers were not pulled accidentally at Kent State". The President's Commission on Campus Unrest avoided the question of why the shootings happened and harshly criticized both the protesters and the Guardsmen, but concluded that "the indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

On May 1, 2007, various news agencies reported the claim of a former student who was injured in the shooting to have uncovered new evidence that the guardsmen were ordered to fire upon the crowd. Terry Strubbe, a student who lived in a dormitory overlooking the anti-war rally site, placed a microphone at a windowsill and recorded nearly 30 minutes of the event on reel-to-reel tape. He sent a copy of the tape to the FBI and kept a copy in a safe deposit box. The government copy has been archived at Yale University. According to Alan Canfora, who was injured in the wrist that day by a gunshot, a voice can be heard on the tape yelling, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!" before there is the 13-second volley of gunfire. Canfora said he has obtained a copy of that tape and that he plans to release it on CD. He wants the government to reopen the investigation of the 37-year-old case.

The shootings killed four students and wounded nine [one permanently paralyzed from the chest down]. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, were walking from one class to the next. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet (22 m) to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet (81 m) away. --Wiki (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)


There are thousands killed by government troops in Burma. Are you trying to find some sort of moral equivalency between that and the accidental killing of a single college student, something that so seared the psyche of America that the picture still resonates with an eerie power decades later?

1. FOUR students were murdered by the National Guard at Kent State; nine others were wounded (one of which is paralyzed from the chest down as a result).

2. The murders at Kent State were no accident. Twenty-nine members of the Ohio National Guard admitted to opening fire on unarmed students who were NOT any sort of immediate (or even non-immediate) threat - for god's sake, the closet person shot was 71 feet away; the closest person murdered by the Guard was 265 feet away. I wonder how many more didn't admit to their crime?

3. I thought you used to be a school teacher. Why don't you know this stuff? Too inconvenient a truth for you?

4. The Burmese military and the US National Guard at Kent State did/are doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is in the numbers.

Wow, your homoerotic fantasies are in over-drive today. :rolleyes:
LOL. Wow, you really DO suck at this, don't you? How pathetic. ROTF.
Sorry kiddo, I am straight and I am taken.
Speaking of which, what's that new wife of yours tip the scales at anyway? A deuce? A deuce and a half? I can only imagine what kind of woman would voluntarily sleep with you, much less one who'd commit to doing so for the rest of her natural life. She probably has a "toy" the size of fucking Montana.

ROFL!!!

I have to laugh at how sad your life must be that you feel the need to make such transparent and hypocritical attempts at insults.

:thumbs:
DB

Yeah, they definitely take a close second to yours.

An unarmed populace is a populace that is at the mercy of the government and that has no recourse other than obedience.
Congratulations on recognizing this obvous truth. Indeed, this was all I was trying to accomplish in OK City. Hope to see you soon Waldo.
Sincerely, Timothy McVeigh
- Seventh Circle of Hell

:rolleyes:

An unarmed populace is a populace that is at the mercy of the government and that has no recourse other than obedience.
Congratulations on recognizing this obvious truth. In fact, your magnificent gun laws made it possible for me to pick up a Beretta in Florida using immigration papers, bring it up to New York City and shoot 7 people on top of the Empire State Building! Is this a great country or what! Thank you for supporting me as I stand up against the injustices of the federal government! Hope to see you soon Waldo; all the virgins are to die for!

Ali Hasan Abu Kamal,
- in Paradise

Congratulations on recognizing this obvous truth. Indeed, this was all I was trying to accomplish in OK City. Hope to see you soon Waldo.
Sincerely, Timothy McVeigh
- Seventh Circle of Hell

If you're going to quote me at least make it accurate. Falsifying stuff that is readily apparent to even a half wit makes the half wit look like a genius compared to u.

My bad Waldo, that quote was from Frogger.