WHERE IS THE LINE TO DRAW BETWEEN ANTI GUN LAWS AND...AT A TIME WHERE THE PATRIOT ACT TRIES TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR CIVIL RIGHTS AND POSSIBLY PUT US ON RED ALERT LOCKDOWN...SOME SAY THE ONLY WAY WE CAN 'SURVIVE' THAT IS TO ARM OURSELVES....VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE BUT WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN BEING 'CONTAINED' AND PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS...JUST A THOUGHT

This argument (we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the [fascist] authorities strikes me as absurd. They have NUKES for chrissake! David Koresh was pretty well armed, it didn't save his ass. No, the FBI loves this game and has demonstrated that it will use spy sattelites, army tanks, troops, gas, hot-shot snipers, night vision, psychological torture, whatever. They're well-trained, experienced and heavily financed at this, and of course, have access to weaponry you never dreamed existed.

You're better off with a pen, website, or slingshot.

Hey, turn off the all-caps.

The only way to confront violence is with non-violence. If they shoot us we do not shoot back. If they push us we do not push back. If they curse us we do not curse back. If they hate us we do not hate back.

Gandhi could not have freed India with a gun. He freed India by confronting his oppressors with non-violent civil disobedience. We too must confront our oppressors and the oppressors of the world by refusing to strike back. Eventually the violent will be forced to look at thier behavior. And then they will know peace.

The only way to confront violence is with non-violence. If they shoot us we do not shoot back. If they push us we do not push back. If they curse us we do not curse back. If they hate us we do not hate back.

Gandhi could not have freed India with a gun. He freed India by confronting his oppressors with non-violent civil disobedience. We too must confront our oppressors and the oppressors of the world by refusing to strike back. Eventually the violent will be forced to look at thier behavior. And then they will know peace.

The only way to confront violence is with non-violence. If they shoot us we do not shoot back. If they push us we do not push back. If they curse us we do not curse back. If they hate us we do not hate back.

Gandhi could not have freed India with a gun. He freed India by confronting his oppressors with non-violent civil disobedience. We too must confront our oppressors and the oppressors of the world by refusing to strike back. Eventually the violent will be forced to look at thier behavior. And then they will know peace.

some thoughts:

ghandi's revolution involved physical violence. it may have been on the periphery, but it was there. and sitting down and peacefully practicing civil disobedience is a form of violence.

all creation is destruction and vice versa. all struggle is violence. even "non-violent" tactics are violent. just look at the rabid reaction you get from bush-supporters when you do something as "non-violent" as standing on the sidewalk with a protest sign. they direct violence at you because you are directing violence at them, and you are directing violence at them because bush is directing violence at you.

don't assume you are "non-violent" and above the "violent" element rabble just because you do not engage in physical violence. it's all violence, in varying degrees. when I drive down the street and see a Nike billboard, I am assaulted first by the reality that I am forced to be driving in order to get anywhere realistically in this city, second by the isolating, alienating reality of urban geography with its streets and concrete, third by the big hole of crap filling what would have been a clear, pristine sky. this is violence, and when we demonstrate against it, we are returning it with our own kind of violence.

birth is violent. the formation of earth is violent in the eruption of volcanoes and the shifting of land masses. the universe is violent, but it is also creative. creation is violent. we are one part of a violent struggle toward higher evolution, and that will necessarily involve a lot of destruction in order to give birth to creation.

this is not some Orwellian double-speak, but creation is destruction and vice versa, the two complete one another. and war really IS peace and vice versa. if you did not have war, how would know what peace is? if you did not have bush, who would you be out there fighting against? how many people woke up specifically because bush took power and galvanized them? where were they before when that paragon of peace and morality, clinton, was running the show?

our enemies define us and we define them. it's all violent struggle, whether you are on the side of struggle toward creation or struggle toward destruction. you can't have one pole without the other.

double wow

a. It's when the noise, smoke, death and terror stops.

I see your point violence. For some war supporters my peaceful protest confronts them and that confrontation feels violent to them. But I believe there is a difference between the violence of hate and a confrontation (or as you would say "violence") of love. When one confronts another with love the confrontation may be violent by your philosophy, but it is also moral and just. When one confronts another with hate it is immoral and unjust.

I know some believe that we must fight back and defend ourselves and I am not against them I am with them. We are all fighting for the same thing: the end to this war. Together we will know peace.