posted 03-09-2004 08:17 PM            

THAT says a lot.

No one is stopping you from saying what you want or disaagreeing. I dont see what I have said as "negative". That's in the eye of the beholder.If anything its TRUE to Constitutional Law.

Guns dont kill people...PEOPLE kill people.

One thing you should keep in mind is the fact that people SEE things different than you. If you want to get in a huff about it i'm sorry.
You can't expect me to agree with you on gun control or your politics. If thats too "negative" well....I cant stop you from leaving. Disagreements happen oh highly spiritual one.

Finally.....your "faith" in THE MATRIX, THE SYSTEM, caall it what you like will only keep YOU down...not anyone else. WE ALL have to deal with it. How much aa part of the ILLUSION do you wish to be?

YOu make the call.

OH I forgot...you promote a SYSTEM sanctioned version of reality to young minds for a living....I forgot.

posted 03-09-2004 11:27 PM            

quote:

---

Guns everywhere are the sign of an extremely paranoid society.

---

No, an armed society is a polite society.

Educate yourselves here. http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/disarm1.html#metatop

The Citizen Disarmament Agenda - Part 1

``Knighthood flourished before the time of guns and gunpowder when battles still were won by hand-to-hand conflicts of heavy-armored knights. Even in peacetime knights looked for conflicts in which to engage. Fighting was almost an everyday occurrence, and the common people generally could not protect themselves against an invading foe. In times of danger they fled to the castles or strongholds owned by the nobles. To obtain protection the poorer folk became the serfs or villeins of their powerful neighbors, and those in turn were the vassals of those still more powerful. The institution of knighthood was part of this feudal system.''
-Encyclopedia Britannica, entry on knighthood, from http://search.ebi.eb.com/ebi/printArticle/0,8447,35027,00.html

``In the Middle Ages, alchemists in Europe [...] learned (probably from the Chinese) how to mix sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter to make gunpowder, the chemical product that more than any other single thing led to the end of the feudal system and the birth of the modern world.''
-from the script of Chemists at Work, part 1: "A Brief History of Chemistry", by Hawkhill Live Action Videos, from http://www.hawkhill.com/602s.html

Before I launch into the following tirade, I need to make one thing perfectly clear: no government, the USG included, has ever or will ever succeed in disarming the citizenry. Governments that try to, simply announce that they are the enemy of the people. The people do not, of course, disarm in such a situation. They haven't in Canada, in Australia, or in Britain. It's fairly easy to fabricate weapons, and in Britain that's exactly what the gangland suppliers have taken to doing.

*

Most rank-and-file gun grabbers are gun grabbers for two specific reasons: (1) they don't trust themselves, and in particular, don't trust themselves not to eventually wreak mayhem or suicide if they were armed with a gun, and they project this insecurity onto other people (expecting other people to eventually wreak mayhem or suicide when armed), and (2) they do not believe they have the confidence and courage to actually defend themselves with a weapon if they come under assault, so they view the ability of others to do so as an advantage others have over them, and they seek to negate their disadvantage. The first motivates them to voice hysterical expectations of blood running in the streets in states that pass concealed carry laws. The latter fuels their energetic, viciously hateful campaigns against all who seek to obtain and maintain the means of self-defense. Both are, of course, wholly without moral legitimacy.

*

In a war, the primary objective of a combatant is to destroy the capacity of the enemy to wage war. The preferred method of achieving this objective is with minimal destruction of the enemy's assets, since assets that survive the war enrich the victor. Destruction can be avoided by pursuing a psychological strategy rather than a strategy of violent confrontation. In particular, a psychological strategy can be pursued which prompts the voluntary disarmament of the enemy.

Today, as throughout the history of historical civilization, the establishment is waging war on the rest of the world's population. Psychological strategy is foremost. The establishment seeks to disarm the enemy - those people who are not within or aligned with the establishment - by convincing the enemy that it is in its interests to disarm. Wherever this disarmament transpires, the enemy itself becomes an asset of the victor - of the establishment. That is to say, those defeated by the psychological warfare become slaves of the victors. The establishment largely disarms itself, of course, and indeed members of the establishment are slaves to other members of the establishment. At no point does the principle of freedom rouse them from their stupor.

The mass media is a conduit for an eternal avalanche of intense renditions of psychopathic violence, much of it involving firearms. From the perspective of the establishment, the purpose of this campaign is to assure that wherever large numbers of ordinary citizens are in possession of firearms, psychopathic firearm violence regularly rips through the community, thereby destroying the community and concomitantly destroying the political capital of its former members. This strategy is a plain and pathetic failure, and always will be, since contrary to the wishes of the establishment, human nature is far less fundamentably mutable than is necessary for television and movies to transform basically respectful people into raging psychopaths - even part-time ones. The pathological media do, however, foster in many a pathological fear of weapons, which is second in its usefulness to the establishment disarmament campaign only to actual mass carnage.

With the War on Drugs and judicial practices that routinely release known recidivist violent criminals, the establishment assures that - at least in large cities - there is a steady, daily stream of firearms violence, which is selectively covered by television news. The law enforcement apparatus is utterly pathological: this phenomenon of recidivism and incessant criminal violence is artificial, a deliberate strategy of the establishment.

*

As long as the establishment believes that the common citizenry is equipped with weaponry that is sufficiently effective to repel any imposition of force by the state, the establishment will not attempt to impose that force injudiciously (chiefly, toward the end of overt deconstitutionalization), and so the power structure is stable. Once the establishment believes the citizenry no longer possesses the means to forcibly repel the state, the establishment will proceed with deconstitutionalization imposed with force. Nonetheless, the citizenry will likely still be equipped and impelled to repel them, and the violence that follows will topple the status quo power structure catastrophically. If through uncharacteristic competence and efficiency the state were to successfully disarm the common citizenry, the state itself would factionalize, and the various armed factions of the state would engage each other in brutal wars of attrition, fighting for supremacy. In particular, the Department of Defense would engage the Departments of Justice and the Treasury in an immensely violent and destructive conflict. Thus, any consistently self-interested beneficiary of the status quo will adamantly safeguard the means of the common citizenry to repel grossly unconstitutional affronts by the state, and moreover will assure that the establishment fully appreciates this capability of the common citizenry, and is not able to remove it by exploiting registration databases and through other machinations. Members of the establishment are not consistent, and are not truly self-interested, and so the aforementioned conflagrations are inevitable.

A state monopoly on armament is the most dramatic and absolute form of state power at the expense of citizen power. As the citizenry loses power to the state, the citizenry's capacity and tendency to innovate and produce declines in similar measure. As innovation and production decline, the capacity of the nation to sustain itself economically and defend itself militarily decline in similar measure. Eventually, the nation succumbs to collapse from within, and exploitation and invasion from without. This is the fate of all empires and all totalitarian regimes.

*

posted 03-10-2004 12:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FLKook:
No, an armed society is a polite society.

---

Well, Florida, I was wondering where you were. Good to see you!

Boomer and Mech debate........I agree with both of you to various degrees, and you both are correct to varying degrees. I don't think Boomer should leave because of a disagreement. Yes, there are still some debunkers and naysayers still polluting this board. The Mods here make the call, and we have to live with it. It is a chemtrail board, and personally, i would poop-can some people, like Megasprayer/chem11 does, but what the heck. Read on.....

Now, what I am saying is nothing personal. I agree that we must protect oursleves against perpetrators, but I absolutely see no need, both anatomically, or morally for hunting. As JBE said, this is a sticky point, and I would hope you see both sides as I do.

Statistically, countries with less guns have HUNDREDS of times less gun violence than the US, gun capital of the planet.

If every Tom, Dick, and Mary has a Piece, then that means EVERYONE, including street and government criminals. Sorry, if it comes to that, I don't want to be living in a culture that is based on everyone having weapons. Pull up to a toll booth, the toll collector is armed, and so is the driver. The US is a teenager in the world. Arrogant and not too bright as the ways of the world. The countries that have less violence and guns, tolerance towards marijuana, acceptance of the gay lifestyle, better art and music, and reluctance towards war, are simply more mature societies. America the Punk is growing up, and maybe, if we survive the next 10 years, we can join the rest of the planet. The Globalists are the problem right now, and they have no National Soverignty.

Gun advocates look at the picture in a somewhat linear fashion. If everyone person is armed, than it's a polite society. No, again, it's a sure indicator it is an insane society. What will change us to a Peace society. I don't agree that violence will always be with us. Babies are born innocent, and learn from the family and society around us. What causes violence? My opinions:

1) Fear of death
2) Consumption of animals
3) Lack of space migration
4) Lack of Love
5) Media pushing violence
6) New World Order
7) Belief Systems based on violence
8) Linear drugs, incluing alcohol and aspartame
9) Scarcity of Food
10) Lack of Life Extension research
11) Lack of Intelligence Increase Technology
12) Wrecking of Marriage, both traditional and gay

America right now is a crap culture. Did you watch the Grammy's and Music Awards? Rap music winning everything. Now don't get me wrong, some rap is great, but I grew up in a culture where people actually played instruments and sang. The really GOOD rap and hip-hop is ignored, while mediocre music is treated with Millions of Dollars.

Did you ever see the movie "Equilibrium". There is a scene where the female prisoner asks the Tertragrammaton Cleric what is his existence of living. He said, "To continue his existence". Is that what we must do as a society. just pull guns on everyone, to continue our existence. Do you really think the art, music, inventions, and culture of a firearm based society will be creative? The art will reflect that. The reason the most creative works of art came out of the 60's and 70's is because Peace and Love were the concepts of the times. The art and music now is militarized and when I hear a 12 year old saying Moby is boring, and Eminem is great, I know that DEVO was correct in saying as a culture we are going towards our colllective knuckles scraping the ground again.

And here's another one. Does anybody really think that a government is frightened of citizens armed? Look at Waco. It was a proving ground. What chance does a family have that is armed with rifles, against tanks, rocket launchers, flame throwers, plasma generators, particle accelerators, and sonic weaponry?

The government is frightened of informed citizenry more than anything else. I'll admit that the reason the US hasn't invaded China, Russia, or North Korea is because collectively or even individually, they could beat the crap out of the US. or at least put up a hell of a fight. Bullies don't like people who stand up to them. So there is some credibility to the "armed citizenry" is a deterent. Looking at it from an overview, it is still a sign a a frightened society, and Medievel analogies aside, what future are we creating. Peace through Violence? Is this any different then the Neo-Cons View of Pre-Emption?

In conclusion, as stated before, and we can argue until we're blue in the face, Guns everywhere are an indicator we have reached the Nadir of Fear. Guns taken away from the populace is an indicator we are to be taken over 100% by a Fascistic/Communistic government.

posted 03-10-2004 02:21 PM            

What i am saying is, look at it from the view of a Jesus or a very evolved Inter-Dimensional Alien Race that is Immortal and Peace Oriented. OK, it's a little far-fetched, but we have to have some guidepost.

posted 03-10-2004 02:25 PM            

Anyway, here's my point of how a gun ban wouldn't solve much anyway.
http://www.rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm

British Crime Rate Soars
After Gun Ban
By Richard W. Stevens, Esq.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
3-26-00
Beretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So) When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will sell guns. Exactly one year ago this column headlined "The $200 Machine Gun" We predicted that when guns become illegal to own and sell, then the criminal element would rush in to fill the demand. Thieves, smugglers and black market gun makers could supply machine guns for about $200 apiece. About three years ago, the British government all but outlawed private firearms ownership in Britain. Because one vicious killer used a firearm to commit multiple murders in 1996, victim-disarming politicians rushed to ban nearly all private gun ownership and possession nationwide. The result? According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions." What are the prices of illegal guns? According to the Sunday Times, "a third of young criminals, [ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions], own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200." ($320 U.S.) How do the guns get into the "gun free" island nation? The Sunday Times reported: "Criminals have maintained a steady flow of smuggled guns from eastern Europe, exhibition weapons reactivated in illegal "factories" run by underworld dealers, and guns stolen from private collections." As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times. British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory." Are British people safer? Crime rates are soaring in Britain. The British Home Office, according to the Sunday Times, released figures showing that "overall, armed crime rose 10% in 1998" -- the year after national handgun prohibition began. Usually, when the government passes a law that causes problems for people, the citizens can petition the government to change the law. Gun prohibition, however, does more than just endanger citizens by preventing them from protecting their lives and loved ones. Gun prohibition damages the whole society by creating a huge opportunity for organized crime to prosper. Even if the prohibition law is later repealed, the organized crime elements might be entrenched with enough money and power to get into other legal or illegal businesses. Political corruption, started during the prohibition, likewise will not just disappear when the laws are changed again. The British example shows how the ultimate "gun control" will likely work in America. Criminals will get rich selling illegal weapons to other criminals, and ordinary citizens will suffer a violent crime wave. The national "instant check" system and the "Brady Bill" won,t even matter. Americans must not give up their right to personal self-defense. We must not turn over the firearms industry to thieves and thugs. And we must not let Americans be so gullible as to believe the "dial 911" false promise of police protection, when actually we are legally responsible for protecting ourselves. (Get the facts for all 50 states from www.jpfo.org, or call (800) 869-1884. (Annual membership dues: $20 U.S.) News Flash: The Bill of Rights, with basic explanation, is now available in Spanish on the website. Copy and pass it on to all Spanish-speakers! Beretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So)

posted 03-10-2004 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
But the innate human nature of fear and violence seems to continuously perpetuate.

---

One of the results of living in the bottom of a Gravity Well!

posted 03-10-2004 05:16 PM            

Otherwise your gonna keep being pushed down.

posted 03-10-2004 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
That's why you don't "lay down"...you fight.

Otherwise your gonna keep being pushed down.

That's the nature of a bully.

---

True enough Mech!

We all fight, but in different ways.

Living in the dead center of the 60's, believe me, we had to fight for being a Peace advocate. How bizarre!

That's why Kucinich and Ron Paul would have been a dream team. One knows the value of Fighting for your Rights and keeping guns with the populace, and the other a True Visionary, where we should really be as a species. Living in this "Vertical Gravity Well" , I suppose both are needed.

The main thing is we agree on who the bully is.

posted 03-20-2004 09:20 AM            

American Gun Group Takes Its Mission Overseas
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
March 18, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is opening an office in London - "joining with embattled British citizens in their fight to restore their firearms rights," the group said in a press release.

"This is the first time an American firearm civil rights organization has opened an office on foreign soil," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

"With the attack on gun rights becoming global, it is important to fight these battles on every continent before we find ourselves isolated from an important human civil right," he said.

"Extremist gun control measures have disarmed the British people, leaving them vulnerable to criminal assault, he added. "Incredibly, if they do defend themselves, they can be prosecuted and imprisoned."

The United Kingdom banned privately owned handguns in 1997, but CCRKBA noted that since then, gun crime has nearly doubled.

"What more appropriate place for the Citizens Committee to be than in the middle of this battleground, offering whatever help we can to British citizens in their efforts to take back their neighborhoods and make their communities safe once again?"

Gottlieb said he plans to meet with Members of Parliament when he travels to London to open CCRKBA's office there.

The organization has named Conservative Party activist Greg Smith as CCRKBA's European representative, and it said British citizens and gun owners from other European countries will fund the effort.

Smith called the British gun ban "conclusive proof" that gun control does not work.

"You can take guns away from law-abiding citizens, whose only desire is to protect their homes and families. However, our experience has proved that you cannot stop criminals, who are reportedly bringing guns into the country illegally, while honest citizens find it nearly impossible to even own a sporting shotgun," Smith said.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says it has 650,000 members and supporters in the United States. It describes its mission as the "preservation of firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States."

posted 03-20-2004 11:10 PM            

But puhleeez!

quote:

---

True enough Mech!

We all fight, but in different ways.

---

OK so in your “different ways” you'll fight in some ethereal metaphysical way while ENEMIES (bad guys or what ever they are labeled) fight with bullets or EMF or Microwave or whatever technology that is available...well how effective is that?

It would be wonderful if those such as your self could simply wish “PEACE” on the world. This is not realistic. Learn how to direct the business end of a barrel or be directed by someone who has.

posted 03-20-2004 11:20 PM            

Weapon of choice could be your hand, a nuke, pistol, base ball bat or a sledge hammer. Violence begins in the heart.

posted 03-21-2004 01:28 PM            

That's the way it is. A baby is born innocent, and learns the way of violence. That is not an inherent trait. You can carry an arsenal if you want, but somebody has to "guard" free thinking, free art, free science, and free expression.

I already said I'd demolish somebody coming into my house unwanted and violent. Where does it stop? As I pointed out, there is ZERO need for animal proteins in humans diet, irregarless of one's childhood programming, and that is NOT a debate we would want to engage in.

I said it before and I'll say it again, my True Christian friend, if they take away guns, we are finished as a siciety, and likewise if everybody is armed, we are finished. Anything else said is stomping feet and screaming, but that is my Voice of Experience, having seen people and animals killed.

So here is my summary:

1) Guns should not be taken away from the populace

2) Some type of control must exist so criminals and kids don't have easy access

3) American society itself has centered around guns for as long as I can remember. JFK, 50's Westerns, War, and now SCi-Fi Channel.

4) It is the most violent society

5) Some weapon should be in your house to protect you and family: teeth, guns, knives, tasers, plasma generators, particle accelerators

6) Humans can exist without animal protein

7) Acknowledge the peaceful Christianity of Essenes and Gnostics, NOT Inquisitioners and Zionists.

8) Humans are born peacrful creatures and learn violence

9) Would Aliens, Interdimensionasl, and Secong Coming of Christ be a violent or peaceful event?

10) Would the NWO control/fake such events to control populace?

11) If we are fighting for American Values, what are they? The Constitution? Let's answer that correctly, and not in theory as you are claiming I am, working in defending creativity.

12) Move to Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, etc, where they can say anything they want, and 1/1000 the number of gun death ratio, and will never have a Religious thoecracy attempting to instill their views on atheists, Pagans, Essenes, Hindus, Nudists, and Buddhists.

So Frorida, I would never vote to take away your guns, but anarchy is not the answer.

Q: What do 4 Facists do when they pull up to a 4 way stop sign?

A: The one with the biggest SUV goes first.

Q:What do 4 anarchists do when they pull up to a 4 way stop sign?

posted 03-21-2004 03:44 PM            

quote:

---

8) Humans are born peacrful creatures and learn violence

---

Not quite.

Where is the evidence of this? Have you ever seen two year olds at play?

posted 03-21-2004 07:31 PM            

Violence is simply the approach-avoid circuitry being activated in animals for survival, and humans also go through a similar stage of "Evolution" (Sorry too much evidence).

posted 03-21-2004 07:55 PM            

Most species have some type of survival instinct.

The founding fathers set up the right to bear arms in the Constitution for a reason. Self-Preservation, keeping a despotic government in check as well as keeping crime down by letting criminals know that its population is armed...therefore won't tolerate any bull$#!+.

Violence comes from the R-Complex in the brain...It served a tremendous purpose during mans long evolution. Without it we most likely wouldn't be here right now.

Now that man is using the neo-cortex much more, he/she can use higher reasoning instead of violence...HOWEVER..the R-complex is still needed in an inherently UNSTABLE world, society,city, you name it.

posted 03-21-2004 10:00 PM            

As an after thought, 2 year olds still aren't brain washed by societal influence. That starts becoming apparent more toward the 4-5 age group.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Boortz20040319.shtml

Messing with the Constitution
Neal Boortz (archive)
March 19, 2004

There is a move a foot in the Congress to essentially change the way the United States Constitution is amended. Eleven Republican congressmen have decided that the old system of congressional passage coupled with state ratification is just too cumbersome for this enlightened age. Their idea? To simply allow the House and Senate to amend our Constitution with a simple two-thirds majority vote.

We’ll cover the methodology in a moment; first the motivation. These 11 stalwart defenders of our constitution, led by Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY) have decided that they’ve had it up to just about here (gesturing around my eyebrows) with what they call judicial activism. They are particularly concerned over the prospects of legal gay marriage. I think it would also be safe to say that they are less than thrilled over the prospect of the phrase “under God” being taken out of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Fair enough. The Supreme Court has been a bit feisty in the last few decades. Some think they’ve taken Al Gores “The Constitution should be a living, breathing document” routine a bit far. In the mid-1990s the court breathed the idea into our body of Constitutional law that local governments could take your home away from you and transfer it to some heavy campaign contributors who promise to bulldoze the house you were born and raised in and replace it with a cluster-mansion that will pay more in property taxes. Somehow I missed that part of the Constitution when I was studying law.

I do remember seeing something in the Constitution about amendments though. Perhaps Representative Lewis has heard of it. It seems the people of this country, acting through their federal and local elected officials, can amend the Constitution if they feel that the courts have gone just a bit too far in their activist roles.

Well, here’s what Lewis and his 11 Republican cohorts have dreamed up. Just last week they introduced H.R. 3920 which they call the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004. This legislation would allow the congress to overturn any Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of an act of Congress by a two-thirds majority vote. Simply put, H.R. 3920 would allow the Congress of the United States to amend our Constitution by a two-third vote of both houses. No involvement from the Executive branch, and no vetting through the states and the people. Just pass a law, wait for the Supremes to declare it unconstitutional, and then amend the Constitution with your two-thirds vote.

This might seem like a wonderful idea to Republicans at a time when they control both houses. But … consider this scenario. Let’s say the people of the United States suddenly succumb to a nationwide epidemic of mad voter disease and place the Democrats in full and complete control of both houses. The Democrats immediately pass a law making it a felony for any private citizen in the United States to own a firearm. Since government is the only entity in our system entitled to use force to accomplish its goals, the Democrats reason that government should be the only entity with the means to exert force. Along comes the Supreme Court and, in a rare exercise of reasonable Constitutional interpretation, declares the law to be at variance with the dictates of the Second Amendment. The Democrats merely produce their two-third votes in the Senate and the House and, voila, the Constitution is amended!

Consider another scenario: The entire congress, mindful of its constant struggle for self-preservation, passes a law stating that all congressional and Senatorial terms shall be for life. As soon as the court declares this absurdity to be unconstitutional the House and Senate votes almost unanimously to overrule the Supreme Court … and once again the Constitution is amended.

H.R. 3920 is, of course, going absolutely nowhere. It’s the Dennis Kucinich of legislation. A somewhat nutty one percent might consider taking this tramp to dinner, but nobody’s going to pick up the check. These Republicans are merely staking out some election-year territory in which they can claim to be the saviors of the American family and all that good and right with the world.

The outrage here is that eleven Republican members of the Congress of the United States have so little regard and respect for our Constitution that they would actually put their names on this insult. You would normally expect this depraved behavior from Democrats or the local mob. The offense, though, is so grave the guilty parties must be identified. See if one of these names is familiar to you. We have Lewis of Kentucky, Howard of North Carolina, DeMint of South Carolina, Kingston and Collins of Georgia, Everett of Alabama, Dolittle and Pombo of California, Franks of Arizona, Hefley of Colorado, Goode of Virginia and Pitts of Pennsylvania.

posted 03-22-2004 07:19 PM            

There is no utopian GOVERNMENT world wide or county wide that is in a position to mandate PEACE. "they" don't want what is best for you. Only what is best for the state. VIOLENCE STARTS IN THE HEART OF EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL SOUL PERIOD.

posted 03-22-2004 08:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FLKook:
It is not "learned" we are all flawed and fall short of the mark.

---

I have seen nothing to demonstrate that violence is not a learned behavior, conditioned mostly by culture and belief systems, including parental teaching, and secondary diet, which puts various hormones into the body that are 0% needed. Exercise, or lack thereof, is tertiary.