now playing: eddie money, “trinidad”
there was a post that I’d made some time back regarding the occupation of iraq that someone had commented on…for those who don’t drill down through the comments, i’ll reprint here for your convienence:
x (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote the following:
“think about it – if you were sitting at your
kitchen table, minding your own business, and a
horde of camoflauge-clad rifle toters came
stompin’ in and proceeded to tell you how you were
going to conduct yourself from that point
forward…now, let’s just say that you’re not the
timid type, and you decide that you’re not gonna
go along – would you consider yourself an
“insurgent”? if, after your entire world as you
knew it were being rearranged for you, and you
took a couple of shots at the people responsible,
would you consider yourself the aggressor, or
would you consider the aforementioned camoflauged
individual the aggressor?”
Moot point. If up to Michael Moore types, we won’t
have firearms to take shots back at them. But you
well, i did post a retort, but i also want to pass this along, reprinted from an interview with mr. moore himself:
May I just review, Michael, here are gun deaths in a year. We hear this all the time, but it just — Germany, 381, France, 255 — this is one year. Canada, 165 deaths, United Kingdom, 68, Australia, 65, Japan, 39. The United States of America, 11,127.
I mean, what will shame us? Yet you’re saying that this is not, as you would say, not a gun control movie. Is that so?
Right. Because honestly, I don’t think, ultimately, getting rid of the guns will be the answer. I think if we got rid of all our guns in the U.S., we would still have the psyche problem — the problem that says we have a right to resolve our disputes through violence. That’s what separates us from these other countries.
personally, i’m still not sure what michael moore or gun control has to do with invading a country based on a pretext of lies, but anyway….