They only let their citizens have guns in war against countries that don't ~have gun control?
..."Well give you guns and send you off to fight that country that doesn't have gun control?"
In effect a country like that wants to be aggressive so that they can they create passivity?
So one could say the gestalt is an aggressive nation is aggressive because they can't compete in the world without leveling down human rights the world around?
When the threat to them is ingenuity created by freedom.
*****"
They are only gun control until their form of gov fails? And I wonder how many countries view war as a form of population control? How would you view the world if you had all the money in the world and could control people's lives? Because you had everything given to you you might be insanely jealous of the capabilities and intelligence of a normal person? You might loathe them like Satan did Jesus Christ?
*****"
You never see one a gun control country in a time of war say, we are going to abide by our gun control policy no matter if war or not? Because a country like that won't be one after a war. They will just be part of someone else's domain or in mass graves?
So in effect you have a power structure in a foreign country with gun control that only temporarily ditches gun control in times of war in order to maintain that power structure. So can it be called a country or does it more fit the term of a controlling power structure. To borrow words from our Constitution, not of the people or for the people.
Perhaps the best way to view foreign enemies of the US in war is a controlling power structure and it's people. But we seem to support the foreign power structures and perhaps the best terminology I have heard as to why is, we don't want to destabilize regions? Destabilize regions? Has a depth to it that needs explanation. And both you and I know we don't get a straight answer.
But for the first time in his life, when that foreign combatant from a gun control country is charging at us with his bayonet, what does he think he is? He thinks he is one of us doesn't he! For the first time in his life he believes himself to be free and he thinks he is one of us!
Now lets extract that concept. For the first time in a bad persons life, when they are attacking you, they believe themselves to be you and hence therefore they also believe themselves to be free. And we might then ask ourselves, what is it like for someone to live in a state of perdition like that? Does someone like that have a sense of purpose in life that could be defined as only proving themselves better through conflict? And that is an interesting belief system. Proving oneself through conflict.
Now lets expand that concept to the big picture again. Does the United States need to prove itself better through or rather initiating conflict? No for the sake of argument we say that the answer is flat out no. Then we might ask ourselves if there are people present here who disagree with a concept that seems to be consistent with our foundation?
Now let's throw in the term Independence. The idea that we are not independent if there are those here who want everyone here to prove themselves through conflict? Did you ever ask yourself who looks ten thousand years bc?
Round full circle with "destabilizing regions." Why doesn't that verbal mind believe that such countries are not stable to begin with? Aha! That persons belief system just revealed itself! That person (a she, Hillary?) considered such types of foreign govs to be stable? Then you ask yourself, if that person in question does not view a country like that to be de-stabile to begin with, how do they view us? Do you see? Where is their gradient of judgment? Now do you say, such a person lacks a gradient of judgement? Then you ask yourself, why does such a person lack a gradient of judgement? To put it simply, why don't they view our country, the people of our country, as better? Better for living in freedom? Better for abiding by the principle and respect for living in freedom? You would doubt that if you couldn't be it?
And philosophically a conclusion might be, someone doubts what they can't comprehend? Now have you ever found that to be a source of conflict in your life? Perhaps personal or work life? Someone you can easily see doubts a great many things because they have very shallow and vain comprehension? And so you take it in stride. Because your above it. Conflict with it can only level you down.
© 2024 Thomas Paul Murphy
Off topic?
So will Trump take on the cause of gun control and use the fact that someone tried to shoot him as all the simple justification he needs to do do? That would seem to fit a patterning of blunt deceit?
Off topic. Not relevant.
You know what it's like? You work for an @$$h0le long enough and you're going to hear the $h17 that's going to come out of their mouth long before they say it. And you have to put up with that fuming envy for the rest of your life.
