South China/West Philippine Sea

[mokong10101]

You mean it got a professional military. Taiwan can be compared to Israel and Switzerland that got a citizen-military service making them a community of military volunteers.

 

You need to refer to history and realize that Filipinos have been in that total gun ban situation too during Martial Law - but we were never immune from abuses by those in power and those who commit to insurgency like the NPA and the MNLF.

 

Hay salamat! May Pinoy pa pla dito na nag iisip pa at hindi obobs. Hahaha!

 

It's very disturbing that these ignorant sheeple ay hindi alam before martial law malaking porsyento ng Pilipino (mostly the middle and upper classes) ay armado.

 

One of Marcos' first edicts when that scum declared martial law is to disarm every non-military/non-police na Pinoy.

 

Governments are afraid of its citizens na armado dahil it is a fundamental right of a citizen to bring down a government na corrupt. Marcos saw that.

 

Bravo dude! Bravo!

 

A rarity in a sea of obobs. hahaha!

[mokong10101]

I tend to agree with you. The threat coming from fellow citizens who are armed to the teeth is a lot greater than the threat coming from China. And the threat from the former is clear and imminent while the threat coming from China is largely speculative.

 

Bravo! Bravo!

 

Yan! Gumagana na ang utak at ulo sa taas! Bravo!

 

Bring out the champagne! Bravo!

 

If the government is reminded that ALL FILIPINOS ARE ARMED... Walang pork barrel. And foreign governments will think twice before sh_tting on us.

 

Salamat at naiintindihan nyo na!

 

Bravo!

[artvader]

Facepalm!

[jacuzzi]

MAJOR Non NATO Ally.... That's why we're shopping around for 2 Brand new Frigates... Scuttlebut from Aguinaldo and Roxas Boulevard's the Incheon Class Frigate of South Korea's currently the leading contender. A lot of people's apprehension (me included) on the said boat is that it doesn't have long range anti air missiles... She's an inshore frigate kasi and although she has long legs, the kimchi eater's naval doctrine doesn't see her going far offshore hence she can be covered by land based air defense fighters and missiles (which we currently don't have) but for our purposes (which is defensive) and limited budget, she's the best fit for our needs...

 

 

I am not sure where you get your ideas but this country is next only to Iraq in the war against terror. That high risk or terror classification stains any or all Filipino effort to modernize the military. Until the War on Terror is officially over, this country will be among the enemy and even if we got trillions of surplus cash to spare, legitimate purchase of military hardware would be drastically limited.

 

 

[jacuzzi]

And if we armed any Tom, Dick, and Harry as well, not only will military and police personnel be involved in bank robberies and kidnapping. Civilians could conceivably join their military/police counterparts in KIR/bank robberies as well. That isn't to say that civilians aren't already involved in such nefarious activities in some form or another.

 

But I do agree with you that we must professionalize the military and severely punish scalawags in uniform. Because these scalawags betrayed the public trust.

 

Fortunately, I believe that only a small minority of the men and women in uniform are involved in such activities. They are the rotten apples that give the entire military and police organizations a bad reputation.

 

I am not in favor of a complete gun ban. But people who are given the privilege of owning firearms must be deserving. They must know the basic safety procedures in handling firearms, pass neuro-psychiatric exams and must not have a police record. I myself am a registered gun owner. I never take my firearms out of my residence. It's basically under lock and key but ready to be used if necessary to protect my family.

 

I am definitely not in favor of civilians carrying their firearms with them outside their residence unless their lives are under threat, they have the permission of the PNP, and of course pass the first two requirements I mentioned earlier. And once an authorized civilian threatens another civilian with his firearm for whatever reason (eg. traffic altercation), his license should immediately be revoked and he should forever be banned from legally owning another firearm.

 

Also, gun aficionados who like to fire their pistols at firing ranges should continue to be allowed that privilege by simply applying for a license to transport. Essentially it allows the civilian to transport his/her firearm between his residence and the firing range only. And the firearm should be unloaded and stowed away in the trunk of his vehicle as the law requires.

 

 

You miss the point completely, the military is involved in ORGANIZED CRIME and even TERRORISM.

 

 

 

[mokong10101]

I am not sure where you get your ideas but this country is next only to Iraq in the war against terror. That high risk or terror classification stains any or all Filipino effort to modernize the military. Until the War on Terror is officially over, this country will be among the enemy and even if we got trillions of surplus cash to spare, legitimate purchase of military hardware would be drastically limited.

 

Salamat naman!

 

Another sensible Pinoy.

 

Which btw is a rarity dahil tila napapaligiran dito ng mga obobs at ignoramus maximus. Worse ipagpipilitan pa ang kaignorantehan.

 

Cheers!

 

The so-called "war on terror" is a lie. When will these ignorants realize that the true terrorists is the government itself who is taxing the citizen excessively and taking away liberties.

 

The so-called classification regarding terrorism is nothing but a coercing tool to force smaller, weaker nations to comply with the will of those who invented this lie which is the stronger countries. It's quite simple really. It's a CONTROL MECHANISM.

 

Tama ka dude. Dumami pa sana ang tulad mong NAG-IISIP at PINAPAGANA ANG ULO SA TAAS at di puro ULO SA BABA.

 

The key word here is DRASTICALLY LIMITED.

 

The country should be very careful in dealing with foreign corporations selling military equipment. These corporations by themselves have already become institutionalized and are military industrial complexes by themselves alone.

 

Dun sa mga obobs na di alam kung anu po ang MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX... hahaha! Manatili kang bobo ungas!

 

Wala ako sa mood magpaliwanag ng isang malalim na issue at pagod ako ngayon hahahaha! Maybe some other time.

 

On point again.

 

Those foreign corporations are unbelievably corrupt. If the country hastily deals with those goons, ibabaon lang tayo nyan sa utang. Worse they will use the country as proxy for their agenda. WHICH IS TO WAGE WAR WITH THEIR COMPETITOR COUNTRIES. Just look a few decades back at mga nangyaring PROXY WARS.

 

And we are not even talking about corruption and inefficiency on OUR PART. Everybody knows the government and military is corrupt.

 

Para po dun sa mga obobs. Mas maganda po manahimik na lang muna at magbasa. Me matutunan ka pa. As opposed sa pagkakalat mo ng kabobohan. Mas mainam sarilinin mo na lang ang kabobohan mo wag ka ng MANGHAWA. hahaha!

 

Kailangan pb i-memorize yan. hihihi!

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

if I may

 

that's still not 500 to 1.

 

prove that you didn't just pull this number out your ass. and then lecture us again about making guesses

 

 

 

read further and you'll find that these aren't gun related crimes.

 

 

 

 

 

wrong again

 

more guns equals more gun related homicides.

 

less guns equals more non-gun related violence

 

no guns means people just found a way to hurt each other without firearms.

 

that's a fact.

 

in the US where there's an average rate of 88 guns per 100 people, there are 9146 homicides by firearm, or 60% of the total homicide rate.

 

guns have s@%t to do with violent crime

 

if the people are violent they will find ways to k*ll each other guns or not.

 

 

 

again because reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

gun's don't have anything to do with violent crimes, and you just cited a strong example to the disadvantage of your argument.

 

you just said it yourself stricter gun control = less gun related crimes.

 

so how does your argument work again more guns = less crime?

 

 

 

for the third time, owning or not owning guns has nothing to do with crime rates. you even said it yourself.

 

any connection between violence and gun control can be attributed to a lot of other factors also and not purely gun ownership.

 

even your argument speaks of this

 

I'll give you a tip, there's a thing in debates called logic, you might want to read up on that, because everything you've setup is a strawman that diverts from the issue at hand.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll help you out

 

Switzerland has an active military of 134,000, with a call up of around 1.4M give or take.

 

the call up rate is high because military service is compulsory (if you don't know what that means, it means that it's required by law to enter the service once you hit 19)

 

nowhere does it say that the large military call up number is due to the fact that a majority of swiss own guns.

 

I'll give you another example.

 

Israel

 

the IDF has an active military of around 156,000.

 

with a call up number of around 1.5M

 

Israel has the same compulsory military service required of its citizens, theirs only starts at 18 years old.

 

exactly the same military conscription policies that the swiss have.

 

Israel has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Only people who work in security or law enforcement or former IDF officers (to a certain extent) can own guns. in fact their gun policy is the complete polar opposite of the US second amendment.

 

and surprise they haven't been conquered since they were founded in the 40s. Even when they were ganged up upon by the Arabs in the 70s they still haven't folded. and not everyone there owns guns, completely the opposite of your Swiss example.

 

now what does that tell you?

 

come on you're smart. you can do it.

Nice rejoinder bro Larry.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

You miss the point completely, the military is involved in ORGANIZED CRIME and even TERRORISM.

 

 

 

This is an all encompassing statement. Care to elaborate how many percent of the military is involved in organized crime and terrorism?

[mokong10101]

This is an all encompassing statement. Care to elaborate how many percent of the military is involved in organized crime and terrorism?

 

The key idea here is PERSONAL SAFETY IS A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

But of course IF you are another brainwashed sheep trained to be ignorant and clueless you will not realize the value of that sentence.

 

Are you? hahaha!

 

I'll give you a clue para mejo magising at mabawasan ang ka-obobsan dito.

 

The bombs which blasted parts of the country nun nag start na ang movement to abolish pork, tingin mo sino ang me gawa nun.

 

I'll make it easy on you and give you a clue. Sana mahulaan mo.

 

It starts with a letter G and ends with the letter T.

 

And no. The answer is not GAMOT.

[Larry]

I am not sure where you get your ideas but this country is next only to Iraq in the war against terror.

 

where do you get that the Philippines is next only to Iraq?

 

that makes us more high risk than Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Palestine, not to mention war torn areas such as Libya and Syria.

 

That high risk or terror classification stains any or all Filipino effort to modernize the military. Until the War on Terror is officially over, this country will be among the enemy and even if we got trillions of surplus cash to spare, legitimate purchase of military hardware would be drastically limited.

 

uhm i don't think so...

 

(a) It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in certain countries. This policy applies to: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Byelarus, Cambodia, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, North Korea, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam . This policy also applies to countries with respect to which the United States maintains an arms embargo (e.g., Burma, China, Liberia, Somalia, the Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, and Zaire) or for whenever an export would not otherwise be in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. Comprehensive arms embargoes are normally the subject of a State Department notice published in the Federal Register. The exemptions provided in the regulations in this subchapter, except §§ 123.17 and 125.4((13) of this subchapter, do not apply with respect to articles originating in or for export to any proscribed countries or areas.

 

we're nowhere on that list.

 

and that's just supposing that we only get arms from the US.

 

there's a clear dozen more countries where we can get arms from (and who won't give a s@%t who they sell to), there's Russia, China, the Euros like germany and the former baltic states too, plus the latin americans. Hell we can even make our own, if only we can find the steel to do it with (if ragtag Syrian rebels can make their own DIY remote controlled RPGs, we sure as hell can too).

 

so I don't think the high terrorism risk rating has anything to do with modernization. UNLESS we're looking to arm ourselves with NUKES (which we're too stupid to operate anyway), then I don't see any reason (besides money) for us not to get the weapons we need to defend ourselves.

 

It's an economic thing too, emerging/developing nations are the largest arms markets in the world. It'd be a stupid business decision not to sell to an emerging country such as the Philippines.

[tk421]

The key idea here is PERSONAL SAFETY IS A PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

 

But of course IF you are another brainwashed sheep trained to be ignorant and clueless you will not realize the value of that sentence.

 

I agree with your key idea. I don't agree on how you want to implement it. Arming everybody within 5 meters of oneself is not what I'd call 'safe'.

 

You have to take into account that not everybody is responsible enough to be carry weapons. In the same vein that not everybody should be allowed to drive a car (which is also poorly implemented currently, unfortunately).

 

Personal safety is also compromised by leaving your country without a first line of defense by denying military of hardware needed to do their jobs. Unless you want to volunteer to go to the front lines yourself and take over the military's duties, that is. That would be fine by me.

[heatseeker0714]

Pinapatulan nyo pa kase...

[mokong10101]

I agree with your key idea. I don't agree on how you want to implement it. Arming everybody within 5 meters of oneself is not what I'd call 'safe'.

 

You have to take into account that not everybody is responsible enough to be carry weapons. In the same vein that not everybody should be allowed to drive a car (which is also poorly implemented currently, unfortunately).

 

Personal safety is also compromised by leaving your country without a first line of defense by denying military of hardware needed to do their jobs. Unless you want to volunteer to go to the front lines yourself and take over the military's duties, that is. That would be fine by me.

 

Sigh.

 

Let's make this absolutely clear kahit na paulet-ulet and it's still not sinking in.

 

1. Tama ka. Not everybody is responsibly enough to carry weapons. We have a clearly defined term for most of those "IRRESPONSIBLE CITIZENS".

 

C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S

 

If you follow that line of thinking then the law-abiding citizens will be the ones who are disarmed while the criminals will be the ones who will obtain weapons no matter what. Criminals don't follow the law. Law abiding citizens do.

 

I don't know about you. But when my family is in danger, I'm not going to wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive, if they ever arrive. I'm going to exercise my God-given right to protect myself and my family. A right which I willingly relinquish only to God.

 

2. You keep mentioning the word "ALLOWED". Allowed by the government?

 

Here is the fundamental flaw. Do not trust the government. It doesn't have your personal safety in mind. The very term implies RESTRICTION. Which is an implicit theft of a FREEDOM that should be enjoyed by a law-abiding citizen. Here in the Philippines because there are no effective checks on the power of the government and by extension the police and military, hindi nyo napapansin WALA NA KAUNG MGA FREEDOMS.

 

Have I mentioned that I personally know of someone who's colleague has murdered enough people to fill 2 buses just to get ahead in promotion. And that's just 1 police.

 

If you trust the government you give away your God-given liberties. Which you all will find out shortly.

 

3. Sigh. Hindi ba kau nagbasa ng mga libro nun highschool at college nyo at puro kalibugan ang laman ng utak nyo? I mean, I read posts made by the huge majority of you and I'm amazed how IMMENSELY STUPID most of you have become.

 

1 guy was so stupid that I had to explain the paradigm of 500 to 1 and still incapable of understanding. That is the measure of how clueless most of you are.

 

This is an absolute fact.

 

The institutions of the police force and the military throughout history turns on the citizen if you give it enough power. Napakadaming examples nito sa history.

 

You cannot empower the police and military without an effective COUNTER-BALANCE coming from the citizen. And that counter-balance is an armed citizenry. If you modernize the military without implementing an effective check, then you run the risk of AUTHORITARIAN RULE.

 

Do I need to point out another lesson in history? I bet most of you here are so fcking stupid you'll still be unable to see the parallels.

 

During the time of Marcos the scum dictator, the Philippine military is one of the best in southeast Asia, arguably one of the best in Asia. Marcos used his "modernized" military to take away liberties from the Filipino citizen.

 

The more effective guardian of national sovereignty, more than a modernized military, is an armed citizenry. Again napakadaming examples nito throughout history.

 

And yes... If only you will find time to read a book.

[tk421]

Gee... If you hate governments so much, why are you living in a civilized country? Who's stopping you?

 

Furthermore, you're assuming ALL criminals carry guns. Therein lies the fault in your argument. Arm the whole population, and suddenly, we'll definitely end up with ALL CRIMINALS possessing guns, not just some. Double edged sword yan proposal mo. Arm the populace, arm the criminals din.

 

You end up where you began: fearing for your life.

Edited November 5, 2013 by tk421

[mokong10101]

Gee... If you hate governments so much, why are you living in a civilized country? Who's stopping you?

 

Furthermore, you're assuming ALL criminals carry guns. Therein lies the fault in your argument. Arm the whole population, and suddenly, we'll definitely end up with ALL CRIMINALS possessing guns, not just some. Double edged sword yan proposal mo. Arm the populace, arm the criminals din.

 

You end up where you began: fearing for your life.

 

I understand that ignorance is inbred and that an unbelievable amount of stupidity are floating in your heads and it's very hard to remove it.

 

Prior to martial law, a significant portion of the middle and upper classes of Filipinos are armed. Crime rate was very small then. More guns equals less crime. Stats prove it. The FBI admits that crime rates in the US steadily decreased in the last few decades in areas where majority of the citizens in a given area is armed.

 

Klaro na po yan ha? O baka di pa din kayang intindihin.

 

Meanwhile in Mexico, the country which has the STRICTEST GUN CONTROL in the world, has suffered 250,000 deaths in a few years due to drug violence. And yes in Mexico only the criminals have guns. And the corrupt police and military.

 

I understand that you are also ignorant regarding criminal psychology and I don't blame you. Ganyan ba talaga kau katatanga?

 

Mejo bawas-bawasan kasi ang libog at un ulo naman sa taas ang paganahin. Nakakahawa ang kabobohan senyor.

 

A criminal's psychology to simplify is quite basic.

 

A criminal will not abide by the law therefore he/she will still be able to get a gun even if there are a million laws forbidding it. Mexico, UK and other strict gun control countries show the obvious example.

 

It has been shown by empirical evidence that a criminal thinks twice, thrice or more in carrying a criminal act if he knows that he's committing a crime in an area where people are armed.

 

Mejo bawasan pa naten ang kabobohan mo senyor at bibigyan kita ng matinding sikreto.

 

Alam mo ba kung saan nakakakuha ang Abu Sayyaf, MNLF, MILF and other private armies ang kanilang mga armas?

 

Dali i-google at wikipedia nyo.

 

Siret?

 

It's a starts with a letter M and ends with a letter Y.

 

And no. The answer is not MANOY. Think harder moron! Wag puro libog.

 

A criminal will be able to get contraband because the laws does not apply to him. Kaya nga kriminal eh. HINDI SUMUSUNOD SA BATAS. Grave-cious na kabobohan mo na yan ha. Nakakasukang kabobohan na. Naloloka na talaga ako sa-yo Prince Charming. Nasisira na talaga beauty ko.

 

Alam nb ang sagot sa M and Y kung sino nagbebenta ng armas sa kanila? Google na kasi.

 

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

It should be obvious by now I'm just using ur ignorant words as a tool to further highlight my points to the anonymous reader.

 

I could care less if I convince you or not.

Edited November 5, 2013 by mokong10101