PDA

View Full Version : Faith, the Amish and that Terrible Shooting


Heliport
2nd Oct 2006, 18:51
Thread split for PPRuNe Admin reasons.

Heliport

lynchburglemonade
3rd Oct 2006, 09:17
What makes anyone do this sort of act again innocence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5400570.stm

Discuss.

Huck
3rd Oct 2006, 09:55
What makes anyone do this sort of act again innocence?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5400570.stm


El Diablo, I'm afraid to say.

The Amish are the meekest people on earth....

tony draper
3rd Oct 2006, 10:27
Baffling,especialy when its a apparently normal family man going about his normal business then out of the blue, this, almost makes one believe in demonic possession.
:confused:

RAC/OPS
3rd Oct 2006, 10:42
The Devil? Demonic possession? I'm sorry, although I see where you are coming from, these answers are indicative of the refusal of individuals to accept responsibility for their actions. Why can't we accept that someone is so f***ed up inside their heads that it is of their own free will that their own version of reality leads them to these atrocious actions?
It is but a small step from that sort of observation that leads the social do-gooders to look after these monsters and provide nurture, pronouncing them cured so they can go out and kill, maim, rape etc again and again. At least in this instance he did the right thing and removed himself as well.

woolyalan
3rd Oct 2006, 10:45
Extreme schizophrenia can lead seemingly innocent people to do such things if left untreated, the brain is a wierd thing :sad:

gingernut
3rd Oct 2006, 22:48
Just seen an Amish guy on ITV news, stating that the first thing he thought of after the massacre by Charles Roberts, was forgiveness.

Am I missing something?

AcroChik
3rd Oct 2006, 22:52
No, you're not missing a thing.

I've been fortunate to spend some time in and around Amish communities in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, area for aerobatics events and such. I've come to understand that the Amish truly do make every effort to follow the example of Chist's life in its most basic form: nonviolence, acceptance and forgiveness.

Heliport
3rd Oct 2006, 23:01
gingernut

I've edited a word in your title and post.
It's Amish.

"Hamish" is a traditional Scottish Christian name (male).


H.

gingernut
3rd Oct 2006, 23:03
Thanks for that.

reynoldsno1
3rd Oct 2006, 23:06
I have visited some of the Amish communities in Indiana, and I find there is something very.....(thinking of word here) ... appealing, I guess, about their way of life. That they should be visited upon with such dreadful violence seems to only reinforce their values.

This from a devout atheist .....:)

tony draper
3rd Oct 2006, 23:45
The idea of going back to a simpler agricultural non reliant on technology type society is appealing,but it is bean breeze it could not possibly work, there are simply to many of us walking about these islands now for it to possibly succeed, we need industrial food production and distribution heat, light,energy water, waste disposal, sewage sytems, just to survive.
No matter how much the Amish or people like them claim to live technology free lives they will still rely to a large extent on the industrial society that surrounds them
Not knocking the Amish,large population can always afford a few drop out or cults the problems would start if we all wanted that lifestyle

I also seem to recal a organisation called the Kamer Rouge(sp?) tried to impose such a lifestyle on a entire nation a few years back,and they also had great faith in a book.

Buster Hyman
4th Oct 2006, 00:37
It's not like there is an "extremist Amish" branch like some of the more popular religions. However, regardless of the community, it is a heinous crime.:suspect:

Farrell
4th Oct 2006, 00:43
Yes the Amish are wondering folk and I second the sentiment of being attracted to their way of life.

In fact at this stage, I'd almost be ready to go and join them.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
4th Oct 2006, 01:39
Am I going to be villified then if I mention shunning?

G-CPTN
4th Oct 2006, 01:56
Apart from the response from the Amish community, this NOT a religious story.
The guy just happened to live nearby, and I don't believe his grudge was with the Amish. Pure coincidence.

Two's in
4th Oct 2006, 02:16
Yup, this was all about 2nd Amendment Rights (The Right to Bear Arms), not the Amish. Not pro or con, but the inescapable fact is that if you don't have the access to weapons, it's much harder to shoot people. The good folk of the USA accept that being gunned down horribly by some loony tunes is the price of personal choice, and so be it, but other less enlightened cultures are still somewhat appalled by this type of senseless carnage. And yes, we all remember Hungerford and Dunblane, but those are notable for their horror, shock, and thankfully, scarecity. This is the 3rd Fatal school shooting in 5 days in the US.

pigboat
4th Oct 2006, 03:17
This is the 3rd Fatal school shooting in 5 days in the US.

...which are, in all probability, copy-cat killings of the fatal school shoot-out in Montreal on September 13th. That happened in Canada, a country that has one of the stiffest gun control laws in the world.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
4th Oct 2006, 04:20
Think how many they'd have then, if they didn't

Mr Lexx
4th Oct 2006, 08:39
I believe that I saw the same interview. It was with one of the community leaders, his words were "We have to accept that God allowed this to happen and get on with caring for our community. Forgiveness helps us to do this"

I may have mis-quoted that slightly, but the sentiment is there. You have to respect a culture where revenge hasn't even crept into their mindset.

One is also strangely drawn to their way of life, but then, I would be quite happy to go and live on one of the Scottish islands and try to grow all of my own food. I think that the appeal of the Amish lifestyle stems from the apparent lack of stress and constant climbing and fighting that the "English" (as the Amish call anyone who is not Amish) deal with every day of their lives.

tony draper
4th Oct 2006, 08:50
Where did the Amish originate?,presumably they are not a homegrown stateside cult, they must have come form Europe,strange about them calling all outsiders English.
:confused:

lexxity
4th Oct 2006, 08:55
They are of Swiss/German descent and fled Europe due to persecution of their strict Protestant beliefs.

Gouabafla
4th Oct 2006, 09:12
I've got a good mate who is from an Amish family. His first language is Pennsylvania Dutch (which, rather confusingly, is a dialect of German) rather than English. These days he lives in Oxford and is C of E rather than Amish.

My understanding is that the Amish are an offshoot from a Swiss Protestant group, the Mennonites. I've worked with quite a few Mennonite groups in Africa and I've got a lot of time for them. They tend to do small scale medical and poverty relief projects. Not big things bringing in huge amounts of money, making a song and dance and then disappearing in a cloud of corruption, but small scale projects on a village level that really help people to give themselves a step up the ladder.

BTW, I've never heard of the Amish trying to convert people to their views, much less would a pacifist group try and force people to join them.
Putting the Amish and the Khmer Rouge in the same basket just cause they believe in a book is one of the dafter things I've heard on this forum.

lynchburglemonade
4th Oct 2006, 09:20
Last night they released the names and ages of those taken from their families, the youngest only 7 the eldest 13!!!!!

Descriptions of how he tied and then killed them, execution style is beyond any persons imagination.

I can understand why some have forgiven him, their nature is to forgive, but I think it is the understanding of what has happened will take time to sink into the community.

My deepest sympathize go out to each and every one who has lost someone in this terrible tragedy. They were the innocent in all of this and my heart goes out to their immediate families. For the emergency services that had to attend and the scene that confronted them. :(

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/10/03/amish.shooting/index.html

Mr Lexx
4th Oct 2006, 09:25
I've got a good mate who is from an Amish family. His first language is Pennsylvania Dutch (which, rather confusingly, is a dialect of German)

I think this might explain it! :ok:

At home and in their community, the Amish speak a dialect of German. This language, originally known as Pennsylvania Deutsch, has gradually became known as Pennsylvania Dutch. Amish children learn English at school and also study High German for worship services.

Gouabafla
4th Oct 2006, 09:32
Must admit that being a lazy so and so and not being sure how to spell Deutsch, I went for the easy option and just wrote Dutch.

I went to Germany a few years back with my mate on a work trip and it was fascinating to see him in a Germanophone enviroment for the first time. He understood just about everything, but boy did the locals think he had a strange accent!

Flying Lawyer
4th Oct 2006, 10:03
The first immigrants, fleeing from persecution in Europe, settled in Pennsylvania as part of William Penn's experiment of in religious tolerance. There are now Amish communities in several American States and in Canada.
The Amish community in Lancaster County is well-established, known as 'Dutch Country' (from 'Deutsch' as has been pointed out). Most Amish are trilingual - a dialect of German known as 'Pennsylvania Dutch' at home, High German in religious services, and English when speaking to people who aren't Amish.

'Dutch Country' is a fascinating place - Amish and non-Amish living in harmony and tolerance. As the Amish population has grown, the farms can no longer support everyone so many live in the local community. The only way of telling Amish homes in a street is a buggy outside instead of a car!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Amish_buggy.jpg


I use 'Amish' in a broad sense - there are different names for the various branches of the movement which we think of as Amish. Some are stricter than others, but they all share the same core beliefs and values.

We might not be able to cope with their basic lifestyle, but we could learn a lot from their peaceful approach to life and to their fellow man.

.

BlooMoo
4th Oct 2006, 10:56
You have to respect a culture where revenge hasn't even crept into their mindset.

Why?

BM:confused:

chuks
4th Oct 2006, 12:25
I think we can leave the Amish out of this; it seems to be just that they were the victims of this crime since their school was easy to get at.

The thing I wonder about is how Mr Normal here can come up with such an arsenal, just like that. Too, when it was obvious that something was bothering him, no one bothered to make any moves to disarm him. It would have been an infringement of his personal liberties to have taken his guns away, I suppose.

Here we go again with 'God, Guns and Guts made America Great!' Or not, as the case may be, since firearms did not really play so much of a role in the making of America.

I don't know the answer to this one but it sure does look as though there is something very wrong when so many people seem to find it a good idea to work out their problems with a massacre of the innocents followed by suicide, 'going Postal,' as we say. It happens elsewhere too, but is it so prevalent as in the United States?

It looks to me like some unholy conjunction of the worship of fame, easy access to guns and a culture of violence.

lynchburglemonade
4th Oct 2006, 12:42
I don't know the answer to this one but it sure does look as though there is something very wrong when so many people seem to find it a good idea to work out their problems with a massacre of the innocents followed by suicide,I dobut this will ever be the last sadly. When you look at the tragic story in Britain recently of a man who jumped with his two young children on holiday? What drives any person to take another (mainly the total innocent and defenseless) to their deaths? The Dunblane in Scotland which was 10 years ago and still etched on my mind now. Can this ever be stopped? Not sure of the answer, just make the little ones not be frighened of going to places they enjoy, make them aware that there are bad people out there, but no one can police everybody all the time, realise that people who act rationally can turn out to be a mass murder, but then we get into the discussions of nanny states and how to stop the vigalanties going out and trying to spot these people before they strike.

I agree with this The thing I wonder about is how Mr Normal here can come up with such an arsenal, but would someone query buying of nails and a few ties etc? in this part of the world I don't think so as they are everyday used items. The bullets etc maybe in the amount that should be restricted more like in Britian.

I have no idea what the answer is to this horrid situation. But lets hope the copy cats of this world just don't jump on the band wagon with it.

Tolsti
4th Oct 2006, 12:47
In a note left for his wife, Roberts mentioned an incident 20 years ago, but it wasn't until he spoke on the phone with her that he revealed he had molested two female relatives who were between the ages of 3 and 5 at the time......

so basically he was a child molesting sicko....

Flying Lawyer
4th Oct 2006, 12:55
Just seen an Amish guy on ITV news, stating that the first thing he thought of after the massacre by Charles Roberts, was forgiveness.

Am I missing something?

Being able to forgive in such terrible circumstances is quite something.
I wouldn't be able to, and I doubt if many people would.

Standing by beliefs when they aren't tested is easy.

lynchburglemonade
4th Oct 2006, 12:59
I wouldn't be able to, and I doubt if many people would.
Flying Lawyer, forgiveness is a strange thing. You may forgive someone who has done something terrible to you or your family that is beyond words but not be able to forgive for a much lesser crime.
I speak from experience, I have partially forgiven for a crime just as hideous as this not totally and I never think I can, but I know the person's family involved because of their beliefs have forgiven his perpetrators. If they can then I should be able to too but I can't completely.

But if their beliefs set that attitude in their minds from an early age, then they humble me as my friend's family does.

Maybe this is a lesson learn for all of us.

Flying Lawyer
4th Oct 2006, 13:14
Flying Lawyer, forgiveness is a strange thing. You may forgive someone who has done something terrible to you or your family that is beyond words but not be able to forgive for a much lesser crime.
I speak from experience, I have partially forgiven for a crime just as hideous as this not totally and I never think I can, but I know the person's family involved because of their beliefs have forgiven his perpetrators. If they can then I should be able to too but I can't completely.
But if their beliefs set that attitude in their minds from an early age, then they humble me as my friend's family does.
Maybe this is a lesson learn for all of us.


I agree.

I wish I could say I'd be able to forgive anything, but I don't think I would be able to.
If it was bad enough, I probably wouldn't even try - which, for a Christian, is the bad part.

I'm not sure I entirely understand what 'forgiveness' really means.
Maybe Keef will see this thread and help.


FL

Huck
4th Oct 2006, 13:48
If you drive around the Katrina-ravaged areas of the gulf coast, you may see clumps of motorhomes parked in out of the way church parking lots.

These are inhabited by Mennonites, most of whom have travelled from up north to help rebuild homes for free. They don't advertise or paint their church names on their vehicles, but they are there. One of the truly under-reported stories of the Katrina fiasco.

Mr Lexx
4th Oct 2006, 13:52
Forgiveness in this case would be the Amish community praying for the dead mans soul, just as they are praying for their lost children, if they can pray for the murderers soul in the same way they pray for the children's souls, then they have forgiven the man. Total forgiveness is to wipe the slate clean and not to hold the act you are forgiving against the person you are forgiving in the future. Effectively, it is not to hold a grudge, but this seemed to pass by another poster earlier on!

Fun Police
4th Oct 2006, 14:14
...which are, in all probability, copy-cat killings of the fatal school shoot-out in Montreal on September 13th. That happened in Canada, a country that has one of the stiffest gun control laws in the world.

yes, and let's not forget Taber, AB, L'Ecole Polythecnique in montreal, which were also very tragic events but took place over a period of something like twenty years. maybe gun control does work? or at least helps.

Flying Lawyer
4th Oct 2006, 14:16
Mr Lexx

So, on that basis, forgiveness is a little easier if the person is dead.
My impression is that some people's faith and belief (eg the Amish) is so stong that they'd also be able to forgive in the total sense you describe.

Is not holding a grudge enough?
Or have we only truly forgiven if we can wish them well, as we would anyone else who's never harmed us or our loved ones?

I don't know, but suspect it's the latter.

Mr Lexx
4th Oct 2006, 14:30
You have it Mr. Lawyer, if you can only wish the best for someone without holding the original act against them, then you have truly forgiven them. As you say, it is probably easier for someone to forgive if the other party is now dead. It would be a whole other can of eggs if he was still alive. (for me anyway, but then, I am rubbish at forgiving!).

If you go by the definition of grudge, if you are not holding one, then you have, in effect, forgiven them :

Definitions of grudge on the Web:

stew: bear a grudge; harbor ill feelings
accept or admit unwillingly
a resentment strong enough to justify retaliation; "holding a grudge"; "settling a score"

XXTSGR
4th Oct 2006, 14:48
A definition of forgiveness which I heard a while ago is "giving up your right to resentment and your desire for revenge".

BlooMoo, your post above says worlds about you.

AcroChik
4th Oct 2006, 18:08
A definition of forgiveness which I heard a while ago is "giving up your right to resentment and your desire for revenge".


Wise words, indeed, XXTSGR.

Interviewed this morning on CNN, the grandfather of one of the murdered girls said, "'We must not think evil of this man."

An extraordinary demonstration of his faith.

G-CPTN
4th Oct 2006, 19:01
Forgiveness.
Those who were the victims of the Tsunami or Katrina have suffered just as severely. They have nobody on which to concentrate their anger (if any), so 'forgiveness' is either automatic or irrelevant. They COULD blame 'God', but either their religion doesn't entertain that or it doesn't do any good.
In some minds, the actions of others (whether for good or evil) are directed by some version of God (depending on region of origin) or belief in their religion.
As a born Christian, I have readily accepted that good deeds are based on 'the works of God' or the influence of a Godly way-of-life, yet I've pondered over acts of evil or sadness and natural disasters. It takes a deeper understanding of belief to accept that, whatever happens, it is the work of God. Non-believers have to resolve their feelings between seeking revenge and retribution (and what good does that do?) and forgiveness. Wasn't it in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus says?: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
It is, perhaps, but a few steps to reach the Amish attitude that, whatever happens, the perpetrator will be forgiven, and is, indeed, granted forgiveness in advance of the event. I'm not certain that I'm ready for that yet, but for those who HAVE made that move, I can but admire them. The converse, is mayhem, with everyone reacting with violence for violence, which escalates into further violence. I guess that many can see that schoolyard scuffles are best halted and the participants encouraged to 'make friends', and that gang-warfare is basically pointless. A few will abhor conflict between societies based (purely) on religion (or in some cases, creed), or race, or, in fact, nationality. Even neighbouring towns or football teams can be the cause of dispute. How sensible is THAT?

In this case, there is NO suggestion that the perpetrator bore any grudge against the Amish Community. Had the school been either a secular or non-Christian establishment I suspect the actions would have been identical.
Apart from the forgiveness, that is, and for THAT some will be amazed, others envious.

chuks
4th Oct 2006, 19:11
Have a look at this book, 'Miracle in the Andes,' for a useful slant on theology. It was written, perhaps 'ghost-written,' by a survivor of an FH-227 crash that took the lives of his mother and one of his sisters.

He had to come to terms with the nature of a Deity that could take the lives of two of his loved ones and yet allow him and a small group of survivors to live. He achieved a very interesting personal solution to this moral dilemma.

AcroChik
5th Oct 2006, 08:06
Bad things happen. Sometimes, very bad things. It's often the case that when faced with seemingly inexplicable very bad events we feel helpless ~ perhaps seeing ourselves as much victims as the ones who suffered the event itself. To escape this horrible helplessness the reflex is often to hate. Hate the people who did this bad thing, and ~ if they're not available ~ hate people like them and set out on a campaign of revenge.

But, like helplessness, the quest for revenge can be all-consuming to the point of obsession. Just like helplessness, perhaps, an obsession with revenge prevents us from regaining our equilibrium after the very bad event. I'd venture to say that, for the survivors, regaining some sort of equilibrium is paramount, because without it they cannot go on, cannot continue to live. And, in the face of the very bad, there is nothing more important than to somehow find a way to keep living.

It is said that a samurai would not draw his sword in anger, as anger diminished the quality of the art in swordsmanship. Perhaps the analogy is appropriate to the art of life itself: obsessive anger, the need for revenge, diminishes its quality.

The Amish use their deep faith to help them regain their equilibrium in the face of very bad things. I'm also a religious person, but not so close to an imitation of the life of Christ as they seem capable. There are non-religious ways of achieving forgiveness as well, schools of philosophy and meditative practices. In any event, the sun comes up tomorrow and we must keep living as best we can.

That said, revenge is a dish best served up cold. If served up hot, we often reap the whirlwind. To see the truth in this we need only look east of Suez.

tony draper
5th Oct 2006, 09:27
Well the above is all well and good, but it appers to me the the desire for revenge and pay back for slight or harm inflicted is universal, so I recon its hard wired into us,so it must have some evolutionary survival potential,and as stated above forgivness is rare, ergo it is probably not a good thing in evolutionary terms,forgiving your enemies is not a good thing overall.

Keef
5th Oct 2006, 11:15
I thought I saw this thread the other day, then it disappeared.

I can't add to what others have said about forgiveness - it's about loving someone despite what they have done, and accepting them. I have great admiration for the Amish in the way they can forgive others so readily. (There are tales of them being less forgiving of themselves and their own, but I know too little to understand or comment on that.)

Forgiveness is not easy, and I wish I could do it more fully. It's opposed to the natural "survival of the fittest" instinct that seeks to destroy all opposition, and particularly anyone who hurts "me".

BlooMoo
5th Oct 2006, 11:38
XXTSGR, what do you think my post says about me?

BM:hmm:

XXTSGR
5th Oct 2006, 14:27
BlooMoo, I'll leave you to consider that and have a think rather than being spoon-fed with the answer.

tony, there are quite a few things that we do and ways in which we act now that are entirely contrary to the way in which we are "hard-wired" by evolution. Stress, for example, can pump adrenalin into our systems which only decays slowly and can produce all sorts of unfortunate physiological effects. In the old days, we responded to a burst of adrenalin by boldly running away as fast as we could (a lot faster than without the effects of adrenalin) or by beating the sh!t out of the other bloke. Nowadays responses such as the latter are often frowned upon, so we are left with the "fight or flight" means and stimulus and having to do something else with it. Similarly, men are not hard-wired to be monogamous, but to spread the genes as widely and as fast as we can. Usual technique was to beat up anyone else who even looked at any female in our "herd". Come the day that you and I are too old, weak or ill to stand up to him, he beats us up and we lose our sexual privileges permanently. Nowadays, behaviour like that is normally dealt with through the courts.

Put simply, "civilised" behaviour (without which life would be "nasty, brutish and short") requires going against our ancient nature. Hence forgiveness my be difficult and painful for the individual submitting to it, but is probably necessary for all-round civilisation.

AcroChik
5th Oct 2006, 14:44
The idea that some behaviors are "hardwired," and some are not is, essentially, the nature vs. nurture debate.

Behaviors that are hardwired are instincts, the ones that require no conscious thought to accomplish, such as breathing or flinching away from physical pain. This is "nature."

The behaviors we need to think about, such as whether or not to be monogamous or whether or not to forgive those who tresspass against us, are conscious and to a great extent aculturated. This is "nurture."

Some months ago I was at a dinner hosted by my boss. Somehow, the conversation turned to this very debate ~ at a table full of accomplished people from the fields of science and finance. By far the youngest attending, I held my tongue.

Finally, the elder at the table said, "There is no debate, without nature there is no nurture."

This sounded right. Those things we can think of and make decisions about are all derived from the abilities encoded in our physical nature that is, ultimately, underpinned by our DNA.

The speaker, by the way, was Dr. Eric Kandel, winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine for describing the process by which memory is stored and recovered, on the molecular level. Despite this elevated credential, he's a funny guy who tells salty jokes.

Icryalot
5th Oct 2006, 15:19
I thought I saw this thread the other day, then it disappearedKeef part of it did.

I can't add to what others have said about forgiveness - it's about loving someone despite what they have done, and accepting them. I have great admiration for the Amish in the way they can forgive others so readily

According to the Times today, a state trooper held on of the little victuims (7years old) while she died in his arms with 20 bullet holes in her.

I find it hard to forgive anyone who would do that to anyone let alone an innocent child.

G-CPTN
5th Oct 2006, 16:55
Usual technique was to beat up anyone else who even looked at any female in our "herd". Come the day that you and I are too old, weak or ill to stand up to him, he beats us up and we lose our sexual privileges permanently.
What if you don't DO violence (for whatever reason)?
Should you forgive?
I wonder what the Amish would do?

XXTSGR
5th Oct 2006, 18:24
G-CPTN, I was pointing out some of the differences between humans as we might have been long, long ago, back when we had to club dinner over the head rather than go to the nearest drive-thru and now. "Nature vs. Nurture" is one way of putting it. So what the Amish would have done (had they even existed before we even had coherent speech) is a bit of an odd question.

If you don't do violence, nowadays you have a much better chance of having a nice, quiet, fulfilled and happy life. Back then you didn't get laid and got beaten up by anybody else who did do violence. Whether you forgive or not is up to you. Some would if they could but can't. Some wouldn't bother to try. Others (like so many Amish who have let their views be known) can and do. More power to their elbow, I say.

G-CPTN
5th Oct 2006, 18:44
I suppose I've been living on borrowed time. In ancient times I'd either never have 'won' my wife, or had her taken away from me long ago.
It's still difficult to accept.

BlooMoo
5th Oct 2006, 19:30
BlooMoo, I'll leave you to consider that and have a think rather than being spoon-fed with the answer.

XXTSGR, No doubt a surprise for yourself and many, but I asked my original question having applied some consideration and thought. I have some views although I wouldn't aspire to be clever enough to have 'the answer'.

Such a simple question; 'why?', yet so difficult for some people to hear it. Patronising dismissal of a question is a common reaction of those with little confidence in their abiklity to offer a credible response. That couldn't be you though could it?

BM:hmm:

El Grifo
5th Oct 2006, 19:34
Interestingly, out of all of the arsenal of weapons and assault rifles that the perp was toting, the only illegal item was an electric stun gun.

Sad indictment of American gun laws.:(

AcroChik
5th Oct 2006, 23:28
That's because we can have pretty much all the firepower we want, but the stun gun isn't firearms, so it's not legal.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's totally irrational, the stun gun ought to be legal, too :hmm:

con-pilot
5th Oct 2006, 23:33
I agree it does not make much sense, however, I have seen a man hit by a stun gun and still take out three guards. (The guy was on PSP, speed.)




(Me? I was going for help.):uhoh:

G-CPTN
5th Oct 2006, 23:36
I've frequently pondered why stun guns and/or tazers aren't standard issue for air crew (or at least air marshals).
I realise that high-voltage discharges (especially if they miss their intended targets) might be deterimental to avionics, but, surely, explosive-propelled lead isn't exactly safe.

(Me? I was going for help.):uhoh:
So YOU had the parachute?

AcroChik
5th Oct 2006, 23:41
(Me? I was going for help.):uhoh:

The risk of fraying the golden braid on your epaulets must be as bad as breaking a nail is for me :p


This 300 second business is bad for context.

brickhistory
5th Oct 2006, 23:44
A rebuttal to those who are placing this and other tragedies on the gun and not the SOB who did the slaughter:


Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

con-pilot
5th Oct 2006, 23:45
So YOU had the parachute?

Well, someone had to survive to let everybody know what happened:p

By the way, no problem with using tazers onboard aircraft. Well as long as you don't zap the pilots on short final.:p

Keef
6th Oct 2006, 01:26
An interesting one, brickhistory. As a shepherd (neither sheep nor sheepdog), I don't carry a gun. In fact, the law in my country absolutely bans handguns for anyone except police and military. Most of the police are banned from carrying guns, too.

There is no "right" answer to the gun/no gun argument. The USA has gone the route that pretty much anyone can have any weapon he/she chooses. So deranged indivduals buy machine guns and murder crowds of innocent people.

The UK has gone to the other extreme: deranged individuals won't be given a permit for a target rifle (not the ideal mass-murder weapon anyway) and nobody will be given a permit for a pistol.

Does that stop the wolves from getting firearms? No, it doesn't, because they can get them from their suppliers who probably smuggle them into the UK from the USA. But it's not quite as easy that way, and most criminals know that if they are caught with a firearm, the punishment is likely to be very much more severe (well, it used to be so - I hope it still is).

Which do I prefer? The thought that someone sitting in church may be packing a firearm scares me. What if that hitherto law-abiding person takes sudden umbrage at my sermon?

I do have shotguns (legal, with permits) left over from my youth when I was a farmer's boy and keen on shooting. I have this vague intention some day of going back to shooting, although I think the likelihood of doing so is getting lower. I did do a lot of target shooting with .22 and .303 rifles in my distant past, but that too is over and I have no firearm certificate. That is probably more "sheepdog-like" than 99% of the population of the UK. But as a shepherd, I carry no weapon (apart from the sword of the Gospel, but that's a different debate).

I think the UK has got it right, and the US approach of folks milling around spraying machine gun bullets into the middle distance scares me rigid.

con-pilot
6th Oct 2006, 04:14
Brick, thank you for posting that article. Sometimes the truth is too frighting to accept.

Keef, you as a man of the cloth, which I admire, really have no other choice but to respond as you posted. However, even the Shepard uses a sheepdog to protect his flock.

I to was an innocent of the world, a sheep, until September 1, 1988. Why September 1, 1988 you say? That is when I joined the United States Marshal Service. No I did not become a 'gun toting' Deputy US Marshal, I was a pilot before and since. However, I discovered the wolves in our population. When I realized that true evil resides in my fellow human being it was a very sobering discovery.

I have been around people that will kill you or any other person for no reason that is logical to us at all. I have flown men that have killed over a dozen people, one at a time, not in a blood bath, but just because they decided that they were going to kill them. One more than one of these killer were English. Some were South American and the worse were members of Jamaican drug gangs. These people would kill entire families, babies to the grandparents.

Let me give you an example about the Haitian drug lords. One trip I took a Boeing 727 to Port au Prince to rescue 150 people, families. Only 60 people showed up, the rest, fathers, mother, children and grandparents were killed, well slaughtered would be a better term, didn't make it to the airport.

Those poor people were sheep that didn't make it to where the sheepdogs could protect them.

Life as we know and understand it is changing, changing rapidly. We must reevaluate life as we knew it. ORCA posted this link in Jet Blast which is currently on page 2. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=246707 (hoped that worked)

Now Sir, that "scares me rigid".

I realize that Europeans as a whole do not or will not understand the attitude of we citizens of the United States when it comes to the "Right to bear arms". However, in every state that has passed the "Make My Day Law" the murder rate has decreased.

Wolves for the most part are a cowardly lot. If they have the slightest idea that the person they about to attack is armed, they'll find some one else.

Therefore, just why do you think that this sick perverted individual chose to attack an Amish school? Because there were armed personal on the school grounds? No, because the Amish abhorrer violence and are not armed.

There was a TV series in the US many years ago called, "All in the family". the main charterer in the series was named Archie Bunker, he portrayed an extreme right wing person. In one episode the subject of hijacking came up, Archie Bunker said, "I know how to stop hijacking, give everybody on the airplane a gun. Then lets see what happens?"

Think about it.

Anyway Keef, I have rambled too long and I do enjoy your posts, keep it up.

Thank you.:ok:

Keef
6th Oct 2006, 11:54
I agree absolutely that the "evil" people who use guns in the way you describe would think twice if everyone around them also had a gun. Likewise, hijackers would think hard if they knew everyone on the aeroplane also had a gun.

I'm still very uncomfortable about such proliferation of guns It means that disagreement can rapidly escalate. It means the "road rage" that I've seen several times in the UK (sadly) could escalate to trading of bullets.

I remember a restaurant in downtown Detroit where (I was told - I never went there) you could watch people over the road being held up and robbed at gunpoint. That doesn't happen in the UK. I prefer it that way.

I also know that I'll never prevail over the "gun lobby" in the USA. We must just agree to differ. I love the USA, I love visiting and flying round magnificent scenery and meeting wonderful people. But all the time I feel uncomfortable when out in a lonely place. The hairs on the back of my neck stand on end at the slightest sound.

Icryalot
6th Oct 2006, 12:07
Guns will always raise issues in any walk of life. We can't point fingers at countires and tell them this is working in the UK so you should follow our lead. The US is a vast country and each state is different in its own right.

But one has to remember these are people who are willing to block out the world with all our modern convienences, eg internet, use of cars, phones etc. The are one with nature. The heart breaking issues is that the media have now published what one of the surviving victims has said.

She told of how they were tied up, non pleaed for mercy but one, of the 13 year olds did ask for him to shoot her to spare the younger ones. That to me is an act of total unselfishness even for a young teenager in anymeans and shows the world how they are bought up with their views of unselfishness that is paramount.

That must never be forgotten in this especially when they are reporting one more family has taken their little angel back home to die.

Maybe the world will stop and think a little about others instead of themselves after this has left the media and becomes a tragic moment in history. But I somehow doubt it totally.

Flying Lawyer
6th Oct 2006, 14:38
The BBC report of the funerals of some of the Amish children refers to donations that have been coming in from around the world to help with medical expenses.

And then this - But the Amish have also reached out to the family of Roberts, the 32-year-old milk-tanker driver who killed himself at the end of the shooting spree.

Amish leaders have helped set up a fund for the family at a local bank.

A Roberts family spokesman said an Amish neighbour had also comforted the family hours after the shooting - and extended forgiveness to them.

"I hope they stay around here and they'll have a lot of friends and a lot of support," said Daniel Esh, an Amish artist whose grand-nephews were inside the school at the start of the attack.


Not only forgiving the man who killed their little girls in such hideous circumstances - but giving moral support and practical help to his family.

What amazing people.
Respect.


BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5408784.stm)

G-CPTN
6th Oct 2006, 18:00
God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform . . .

con-pilot
6th Oct 2006, 18:16
One of the things I admire about the Amish is that all they want is to live their lives according to their beliefs and be left alone. They obey the law of the land and never force their beliefs on anyone else.

They are a proud, peaceful people who live a clean wholesome life.

This is to me what makes this shooting so tragic.

Huck
6th Oct 2006, 20:54
By their deeds ye shall know them.

The Amish response to this will resonate ten times louder than any Bible-thumping sermon....

pigboat
7th Oct 2006, 03:17
Amen Huck.

Solid Rust Twotter
7th Oct 2006, 08:36
...I'm still very uncomfortable about such proliferation of guns It means that disagreement can rapidly escalate. It means the "road rage" that I've seen several times in the UK (sadly) could escalate to trading of bullets...

When travelling to the range with my firearms or carrying in any other situation, I find myself milder than usual and will back down and retreat from any provocation to avoid confrontation, quite the opposite to what you state. I'm 6'4" and if unarmed am prepared to stand my ground in most cases, but will avoid using a weapon if at all possible when armed.

Some food for thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_massacre

Wedge
7th Oct 2006, 09:23
The NRA has blood on its hands, Charlton Heston has blood on his hands, anyone who supports American gun laws has blood on their hands and is directly culpable in this tragedy. How many more of these appalling events Americans endure before they do something about their ludicrous gun laws? Sadly, I suspect they'll endure them on a weekly basis as a fair price to pay for being allowed to possess their beloved firearms.

"Guns are not the problem, criminals are the problem", said NRA figurehead Heston.

That's a curious argument isn't it? We have many criminals over on this side of the pond, but thanks to sensible strict gun laws it's harder for them to get hold of, and legally possess, guns.

"in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. Fourteen. Now-the United States...Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns...but there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone"

- Bill Hicks

XXTSGR
7th Oct 2006, 10:45
Well said, Wedge. If there was no connection, you would expect the UK (pop. c. 58m) to have a bit more than one sixth the firearms killings of the USA (pop. c. 300m) and then plus some, since the UK is much more densely populated than the USA. But for some reason, the figues don't stack up. :ugh:

Even during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, violent deaths in Northern Ireland in one year were still fewer than those in New York alone in one week. Go figure.

Flying Lawyer
7th Oct 2006, 11:05
Wedge

"directly culpable"?

Given your occupation, you might want to correct that typo. ;)



Tudor

brickhistory
7th Oct 2006, 16:21
The NRA has blood on its hands, Charlton Heston has blood on his hands, anyone who supports American gun laws has blood on their hands and is directly culpable in this tragedy.

Nope, the sick, evil SOB who pulled the trigger has blood on his thankfully cold, dead hands (get it?!). It's called personal responsibility. Luckily, you don't get a vote on our issue.

El Grifo
7th Oct 2006, 16:32
Is that responsibilty or irresponsibility wedge :ugh:

AcroChik
7th Oct 2006, 16:49
Even during the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland, violent deaths in Northern Ireland in one year were still fewer than those in New York alone in one week. Go figure.

Carefull, there big boy!

The highest ever annual homicide total in the city of New York was under 2200. Just for fun, let's say is was 2,200.

Under 50% of those homicides were committed with firearms. But, hey, just to make you happy let's say it was 50%, okay? So, it was 1,100.

Now, following your model, let's divide those (fictitious) 1,100 firearms murders by 52 (number of weeks in a year). We get: 21.1538.

According to you, an authority on New York murder rates and types, as well as political ~ or any other sort of ~ violence in Northern Ireland, there were never as many as 21.1538 deaths in any one year in Northern Ireland due to "the troubles."

That's a joke, right?

Another detail you might wish to check into is that over 50% of ALL homicides, committed by any means, are committed by people who already know each other and are often (meaning to a statistically significant degree) related by blood or marriage.

Even when inventing internet statistics, some measure of prudence is advised when flapping one's lips ~ or wiggling one's fingers. Or at least try to do it in a forum where a trained mathematician/statistician isn't going to call you out publically.

frostbite
7th Oct 2006, 18:12
Nice one AcroChik!


hope I never get on the wrong side of you

G-CPTN
7th Oct 2006, 18:26
hope I never get on the wrong side of you
I decided some time ago that one didn't mess with AcroChik.
She MAY be 'just' a young girlie, but she's got more knowse than most who have lived for at least twice the number of years.

And besides, she's a GREAT kid!



PS I've just read AcroChik's response above.
Believe me, fellers, she KNOWS (from extremely close personal experience) what she's talking about! So far she's remained amazingly silent, but, it appears, someone has just got on the wrong side of her.
Heads DOWN!

Mr Lexx
7th Oct 2006, 19:15
Please can we keep Islam out of this thread? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Not every thread on this board has to include the relative merits/detractions from Islam.

Thanks

J

Heliport
7th Oct 2006, 20:38
If you must discuss Islam, do so on one of the threads already running.


NOT IN THIS THREAD.




Heliport

AcroChik
7th Oct 2006, 20:43
I see that my significantly off-topic post was deleted.

It was right of the moderator to delete it.

Though I will continue to stand by the points I made in that post, it was inappropriate in this thread, and I apologize to all for letting personal matters deflect attention away from the real subject here, which is the inspiring faith demonstrated by the Amish in the face of heartrending adveristy.

Krystal n chips
8th Oct 2006, 09:18
The tragedy of this event has been discussed on many sites for obvious reasons. Hence I offer what can only be described as a utterly repugnant gesture ( I am being :mad: "polite" here please note ) from a group who, seemingly, are a law unto themselves---so my question is, how do they get away with such a repulsive stance and actions ?


http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/26432

Be rather nice if the US Marines--for example----were to. er, "picket" one of their funerals----seems only fair after all :E