-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
This thread is about firearms in India.
Indian History 101: Jallianwala Bagh massacre, April, 13 1919
[video=youtube;0hgRLqBZuMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgRLqBZuMQ[/video]
Government advocate: General Dyer, is it correct that you ordered your troops to fire at the thickest part of the crowd?
Gen. Dyer: That is so.
Government advocate: One thousand, five hundred and sixteen casualties with one thousand, six hundred and fifty bullets.
Gen. Dyer: My intention was to inflict a lesson that would have an impact throughout all India.
Indian barrister: General, had you been able to take in the armored car, would you have opened fire with the machine gun?
Gen. Dyer: I think, probably, yes.
Lord Hunter: General, did you realize there were children, and women, in the crowd?
Gen. Dyer: I did.
Government advocate: But that was irrelevant to the point you were making?
Gen. Dyer: That is correct!
Government advocate: Could I ask you what provision you made for the wounded?
Gen. Dyer: I was ready to help any who applied.
Government advocate: General, how does a child shot with a .303 Lee-Enfield "apply" for help?
Indian History 101: Jallianwala Bagh massacre, April, 13 1919
[video=youtube;0hgRLqBZuMQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgRLqBZuMQ[/video]
Government advocate: General Dyer, is it correct that you ordered your troops to fire at the thickest part of the crowd?
Gen. Dyer: That is so.
Government advocate: One thousand, five hundred and sixteen casualties with one thousand, six hundred and fifty bullets.
Gen. Dyer: My intention was to inflict a lesson that would have an impact throughout all India.
Indian barrister: General, had you been able to take in the armored car, would you have opened fire with the machine gun?
Gen. Dyer: I think, probably, yes.
Lord Hunter: General, did you realize there were children, and women, in the crowd?
Gen. Dyer: I did.
Government advocate: But that was irrelevant to the point you were making?
Gen. Dyer: That is correct!
Government advocate: Could I ask you what provision you made for the wounded?
Gen. Dyer: I was ready to help any who applied.
Government advocate: General, how does a child shot with a .303 Lee-Enfield "apply" for help?
Actually, if you successfully protected yourself from being harmed using a gun or anything else, then God HAS protected you. 
In fact most of the time when an ordinary citizen uses a firearm in self-defense no casualties result. And severe crimes like rape or murder are avoided. Everyone's saved. Everyone's happy! Except for the would-be criminal who's sentenced to a few years in prison for attempted rape, battery or murder.
Praus.
That made me cry. The truth is - This is what really happpened.
The death of thousands of peaceful protesters by the hands of people who had guns. You brought it to memory.
This is our history ,our past, how our people fought against an empire. I remember reading how there was widespread anger across the nation, how people wanted retribution.
But the Mahatma rightly emphasized, India could never be occupied by violence. True swaraj could never come through violent, untruthful means.
Here is what he has said.
"Granted that India produced sufficient arms and ammunition and men who knew the art of war, what part or lot will those who cannot bear arms have in the attainment of Swaraj? I want Swaraj in the winning of which even women and children would contribute an equal share with physically the strongest. That can be under ahimsa only. I would, therefore, stand for ahimsa as the only means for obtaining India’s freedom even if I were alone."
"
Nonviolence is a power which can be wielded equally by all-children, young men and women or grown up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts.
It is a profound error to suppose that whilst the law is good enough for individuals it is not for masses of mankind."
"
I would say to my critics to enter with me into the sufferings, not only of the people of India but of those, whether engaged in the war or not, of the whole world. I cannot look at this butchery going on in the world with indifference. I have an unchangeable faith that it is beneath the dignity of men to resort to mutual slaughter. I have no doubt that there is a way out. "
Thank you Elizabeth.
I hope to see you around and thank you once again, for the discussion and the courtesy.
God bless you.
"
My resistance to war does not carry me to the point of thwarting those who wish to take part in it. I reason with them. I put before them the better way and leave them to make the choice. "
Mahatma Gandhi
I hope to see you around and thank you once again, for the discussion and the courtesy.
God bless you.
"
My resistance to war does not carry me to the point of thwarting those who wish to take part in it. I reason with them. I put before them the better way and leave them to make the choice. "
Mahatma Gandhi
Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Maybe Mahatma Gandhi's right when it comes to oneself. Maybe we should let others use and abuse us at their leisure. Maybe it will serve God's purposes by invoking empathy from the perpetrators. But if anyone were to ever threaten a member of my family I'd be a fool to apply this philosophy to that situation. I think each teaching has its appropriate application. But, personally, most people you can reason with, as Mahatma Ghandi says, are reasonable people. I'd say for any reasonable person to find themselves attempting rape or murder one day that a simple slap on the wrist would be enough to confront them of the low point in their lives to make them rethink their moral grounding and turn to God. You point your gun at them, they flee, you give the cops a description, they get picked up and put in jail. While in jail they think about what they've just done and realize they need to turn their life around. This is how it works with reasonable people (i.e. people you can reason with). For everything else there's MasterCard. And by MasterCard I mean .40 caliber rounds.
Maybe Mahatma Gandhi's right when it comes to oneself. Maybe we should let others use and abuse us at their leisure. Maybe it will serve God's purposes by invoking empathy from the perpetrators. But if anyone were to ever threaten a member of my family I'd be a fool to apply this philosophy to that situation. I think each teaching has its appropriate application. But, personally, most people you can reason with, as Mahatma Ghandi says, are reasonable people. I'd say for any reasonable person to find themselves attempting rape or murder one day that a simple slap on the wrist would be enough to confront them of the low point in their lives to make them rethink their moral grounding and turn to God. You point your gun at them, they flee, you give the cops a description, they get picked up and put in jail. While in jail they think about what they've just done and realize they need to turn their life around. This is how it works with reasonable people (i.e. people you can reason with). For everything else there's MasterCard. And by MasterCard I mean .40 caliber rounds.
Last edited:
For anyone who believes that Jesus taught to let our children be abused and to let rapists have their way with us, let's look at his teachings:
I don't see anything in there about rape, not defending your household or letting murderers kill you. All I see is something about being slapped, walking two miles, giving someone a coat, etc. All allowances for fairly minor civil offenses. Now let's look at the 21st century version so many people are fond of:
I think Jesus' teachings stop when it comes to unreasonable people who are interested in more than the civil offenses he covered. But if this doesn't convince anyone, then there's always a dark alley with your name on it. Because we all know Satan will be waiting. By the way, here's how Paul handled a similar situation:
I don't see anything in there about rape, not defending your household or letting murderers kill you. All I see is something about being slapped, walking two miles, giving someone a coat, etc. All allowances for fairly minor civil offenses. Now let's look at the 21st century version so many people are fond of:
I think Jesus' teachings stop when it comes to unreasonable people who are interested in more than the civil offenses he covered. But if this doesn't convince anyone, then there's always a dark alley with your name on it. Because we all know Satan will be waiting.
By the way, here's how Paul handled a similar situation:
Last edited:
The debate in this thread is yet another evidence of how Christians despite believing in the same Bible are deeply influenced by the culture they live in.
For instance, American citizens are permitted by the law of their land (country) to own gun for self-defense and so, majority of American Christians are seen arguing in support of it. Whereas the reverse is true for Indian citizens and as such majority if not all Indian Christians (including me) will be against it.
For instance, American citizens are permitted by the law of their land (country) to own gun for self-defense and so, majority of American Christians are seen arguing in support of it. Whereas the reverse is true for Indian citizens and as such majority if not all Indian Christians (including me) will be against it.
Last edited:
What does it matter what our national values are as long as we're not twisting the words of the Bible to suit our agendas? The Bible doesn't talk about guns. But it also doesn't say to be helpless and defenseless all the time. I like having the option to be well-prepared for myself and for my family if the need arise to save someone's life. First you choose the nonviolent approach such as running away, avoiding shady places or in Paul's case getting a number of guards who have weapons of their own to protect you. I don't think anyone would argue that Paul should've just let the Jews murder him. That's illogical. Because Paul had men with weapons at his side there was peace. If not possible, then you defend yourself. Maybe that's just an American value. But it's an intelligent one.
Owning a gun with the proper training and preparation means self-defense and defense of one's loved ones. I don't think the Bible is against this. And I'd hope people would stop trying to use it to club gun laws over the head. It's tiresome and just wrong.
I don't see what the motivation for this campaign against gun laws is. Maybe it's what you feel most comfortable with. Maybe guns scare you. Usually the word "gun" just sounds evil to someone from another culture whenever you speak it. But I've been in a gun culture. We use guns for hunting, target practice, self-defense. You can go to a gun range and swap guns with total strangers and shoot targets and have a laugh. Most people aren't out to shoot you dead. Most people don't want to be murderers. I'm familiar with this gun culture and how to deal with firearms. I know what precautions people can take, how safe they can be when used properly and how useful they can be. The best bullet for self-defense in my opinion is hollow-point. It shatters easily on things like wood and bone, so you don't have bullets flying all over the place. There are also holsters that lock the gun in place unless you take it out a certain way. So no one can take your gun from you even if they see it in plain view. For six-shooters you can half-cock the gun so if you're out hunting and a branch catches the lever it won't set the gun off. Anyway, I'm familiar with this culture and comfortable in it. Just because we own guns doesn't mean we want to use them on people or will have people dying left and right. In fact several years ago in Washington, D.C. when they made gun-ownership illegal violent crime increased. So they held a court session and brought back the freedom of gun ownership in that city. Now you can own a gun there again. And the world is a safer and healthier place because of it. Why fight that? For me that doesn't seem very christian. Sure, the Bible says nothing about guns. But it also doesn't say to needlessly sacrifice your life to criminal violence when there are peaceful solutions.
Owning a gun with the proper training and preparation means self-defense and defense of one's loved ones. I don't think the Bible is against this. And I'd hope people would stop trying to use it to club gun laws over the head. It's tiresome and just wrong.
I don't see what the motivation for this campaign against gun laws is. Maybe it's what you feel most comfortable with. Maybe guns scare you. Usually the word "gun" just sounds evil to someone from another culture whenever you speak it. But I've been in a gun culture. We use guns for hunting, target practice, self-defense. You can go to a gun range and swap guns with total strangers and shoot targets and have a laugh. Most people aren't out to shoot you dead. Most people don't want to be murderers. I'm familiar with this gun culture and how to deal with firearms. I know what precautions people can take, how safe they can be when used properly and how useful they can be. The best bullet for self-defense in my opinion is hollow-point. It shatters easily on things like wood and bone, so you don't have bullets flying all over the place. There are also holsters that lock the gun in place unless you take it out a certain way. So no one can take your gun from you even if they see it in plain view. For six-shooters you can half-cock the gun so if you're out hunting and a branch catches the lever it won't set the gun off. Anyway, I'm familiar with this culture and comfortable in it. Just because we own guns doesn't mean we want to use them on people or will have people dying left and right. In fact several years ago in Washington, D.C. when they made gun-ownership illegal violent crime increased. So they held a court session and brought back the freedom of gun ownership in that city. Now you can own a gun there again. And the world is a safer and healthier place because of it. Why fight that? For me that doesn't seem very christian. Sure, the Bible says nothing about guns. But it also doesn't say to needlessly sacrifice your life to criminal violence when there are peaceful solutions.
The rates are about 1/6 that high in the United States.
-> How often does sexual assault occur? | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
"According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey --there is an average of 237,868 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year.
There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year. That makes 31,536,000 seconds/year. So, 31,536,000 divided by 237,868 comes out to 1 sexual assault every 133 seconds, or about 1 every 2 minutes."
-> How often does sexual assault occur? | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network
"According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey --there is an average of 237,868 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year.
There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year. That makes 31,536,000 seconds/year. So, 31,536,000 divided by 237,868 comes out to 1 sexual assault every 133 seconds, or about 1 every 2 minutes."
If anything is to go by the debate in this thread, one's "national values" seems to be the colouring factor in shaping one's perspective towards the use of gun. Hence the reason for bringing up one's national values.
Not opting to choose gun for protection / self-defense does not necessarily equate helplessness and defenseless. For that matter, owning gun does not ensure one's safety either. Both the arguments (for and against gun) have their share of merits and demerits and I don't think one is more "intelligent" than the other. Just a case in point, In India, we don't have incidents of random mass public shooting or mass school children / college shooting as often as in America. Now, one may ask why is that? Maybe it has something to do with gun culture in America? I don't know.
Not opting to choose gun for protection / self-defense does not necessarily equate helplessness and defenseless. For that matter, owning gun does not ensure one's safety either. Both the arguments (for and against gun) have their share of merits and demerits and I don't think one is more "intelligent" than the other. Just a case in point, In India, we don't have incidents of random mass public shooting or mass school children / college shooting as often as in America. Now, one may ask why is that? Maybe it has something to do with gun culture in America? I don't know.
J
Thank you Elizabeth.
I hope to see you around and thank you once again, for the discussion and the courtesy.
God bless you.
"
My resistance to war does not carry me to the point of thwarting those who wish to take part in it. I reason with them. I put before them the better way and leave them to make the choice. "
Mahatma Gandhi
I hope to see you around and thank you once again, for the discussion and the courtesy.
God bless you.
"
My resistance to war does not carry me to the point of thwarting those who wish to take part in it. I reason with them. I put before them the better way and leave them to make the choice. "
Mahatma Gandhi
i do agree there is always the entire rest of the bible to follow,,,that is lot,and his women,servants,friends,ect were carried away by certain kings,,in a "violent act",,,Abraham,318 of those circumcised,and other kings went to protect lot and his family,(from the booger man),,,and Melchizedek met him after he returned from defending the women,children ect. from the face of the same danger we are facing,,,,"and no one thinks him a gun toting eccentric",,,
there is nehemiah,4;13-14,,,exodus 22,2-3,,,,psalms 144;1,,,Luke 22;36,,,proverbs 25;26,,,romans 13;4,,,1 tim.5;8,,,psalm 82;4,,,proverbs 24;11,,,ezekiel 33;6,,,,and many others explaining that a godly man will protect his family,,,but whose' counting???
there is nehemiah,4;13-14,,,exodus 22,2-3,,,,psalms 144;1,,,Luke 22;36,,,proverbs 25;26,,,romans 13;4,,,1 tim.5;8,,,psalm 82;4,,,proverbs 24;11,,,ezekiel 33;6,,,,and many others explaining that a godly man will protect his family,,,but whose' counting???
I don't think it's good that Ghandi has more influence over you than Jesus does.
Well. I follow JESUS, not GANDHI. Don't worry about it.
Please don't use such a straw man to defend a position about non violence.
ALSO I don't think it's good that you get highly offended when other people post scripture. Do you consider yourself ABOVE God and OTHERS to proclaim which is ''better'' and which is '''accurate'' verses?
I don't think it's good that Ghandi has more influence over you than Jesus does.
HISTORY Lesson from India.
Gandhi's tryst with Christianity.
Gandhi's closeness with Christianity began when he was a young man practicing law in South Africa. Apart from being attached with the Christian faith, he intently studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and was also seriously exploring becoming a Christian, which led him to his discovery of a small church gathering in his locality.
These strongly entrenched Biblical teachings have always acted a panacea to many of India's problems during its freedom struggle.
After deciding to attend the church service in South Africa, he came across a racial barrier, the church barred his way at the door. "Where do you think you're going, kaffir?" an English man asked Gandhi in a belligerent tone.
Gandhi replied, "I'd like to attend worship here."
The church elder snarled at him, "There's no room for kaffirs in this church. Get out of here or I'll have my assistants throw you down the steps."
This infamous incident forced Gandhi to never again consider being a Christian, but rather adopt what he found in Christianity and Jesus Christ.
***************************
When the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Gandhi he asked him, "Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"
Gandhi replied, "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today,” he added.
***************
Thought to consider - Gandhi's influence over India.
The national values comment was only aimed at correcting the view that the Bible can be used to support one's national values. If that's what was originally implied. But I don't believe the Bible says anything about guns, so if we argue for or against guns we'll have to ultimately use something else to back up our arguments such as you have done with "look at all the mass-shootings in America" and such as I have done with "look at the violent crime avoided in Washington, D.C. after the ban on gun ownership was repealed." Neither of these have anything to do with the Bible, but they're still valid arguments.
I would argue that gun ownership is more intelligent than lack of gun ownership because it deprives one of a facet of self-defense. And there's no guarantee that guns would be off the streets of America if America banned ownership of all guns. You could still get them from military stockpiles on military bases, you could get them from manufacturing plants, they could be smuggled in from Mexico, and they could be assembled privately, etc. And you can bet that any serious criminal organization would do its best to take advantage of this opportunity. So what ordinary citizens would not do in their attempts to manufacture or otherwise smuggle in a gun - organized crime would certainly do. And all of those law-abiding citizens who don't own a gun would be easy prey to criminals.
When I say "gun culture" I don't just mean anything and everything that is pro-gun. I mean a culture that deals with guns on a daily basis. In fact my estimate would be that about 40% of Americans are anti-gun. And our laws reflect that. You cannot carry a gun onto school campuses. This is why criminals know it is an easy target for gun-related violence.
The krux of the matter is this: guns are the great equalizer. The more guns you have the less it matters how big you are or how many people you need, especially if they are automatic weapons such as were used in Columbine. This means one criminal can wield great power over many who do not own a gun. And it also means a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun can wield great power over many criminals who do not own a gun. In America those who have committed federal offenses are already outlawed from owning guns. But law-abiding citizens are still allowed the legal right to own a gun. In most cases. We don't have the big federal government that other countries have, so each state has separate laws and our government is less centralized. Which I'm also comfortable and happy with.
And I'd like to mention to anyone here who has gotten the wrong impression that America is the Wild West that you've only been hearing one side of the story about guns. That is that guns are evil. Why? Because the media in America is largely liberal, and liberals hate guns. Also, probably because it fits your own politicians' anti-gun agendas. But there are websites you can find online that record gun self-defense stories. And usually what happens when a law-abiding citizen pulls a gun on a criminal who is about to attack them, the criminal runs away. And no one gets hurt. If anyone does get hurt, then it's usually 1-2 people injured or dead instead of 20 people injured or killed. You see, in public schools in America there are no security guards and no one is allowed to have a gun. So the criminals who have guns there have all the power. And they shoot anyone they want. This is an example of how anti-gun laws have killed more people than they have saved. And why? Because criminals will commit criminal acts. A lot of them are smart enough to know how to abuse America's laws. And if there were absolutely no guns in America criminals would use bombs or knives and gangs. And anyone a gang approached would be helpless against that gang.
So getting rid of guns is pointless and will increase the rate of violent crime - especially against women. Because men will have greater physical strength and power over women. They can rape them at their leisure without fear of being confronted by a gun. Also, the increase in anti-gun laws without immediately doing away with guns will cause many more incidents like these school shootings. So why not stop focusing on guns and focus on how to prevent crime or reduce it within the society we already have? For one, you could put security guards in schools. Because our schools are defenseless against gun crime right now. But I'm sure no liberal politician will do that, because then we could live a lot more safely with guns and it'd probably stop most gun-related violence in schools. And it would invalidate the illogical disdain of guns liberals hold.
I would argue that gun ownership is more intelligent than lack of gun ownership because it deprives one of a facet of self-defense. And there's no guarantee that guns would be off the streets of America if America banned ownership of all guns. You could still get them from military stockpiles on military bases, you could get them from manufacturing plants, they could be smuggled in from Mexico, and they could be assembled privately, etc. And you can bet that any serious criminal organization would do its best to take advantage of this opportunity. So what ordinary citizens would not do in their attempts to manufacture or otherwise smuggle in a gun - organized crime would certainly do. And all of those law-abiding citizens who don't own a gun would be easy prey to criminals.
When I say "gun culture" I don't just mean anything and everything that is pro-gun. I mean a culture that deals with guns on a daily basis. In fact my estimate would be that about 40% of Americans are anti-gun. And our laws reflect that. You cannot carry a gun onto school campuses. This is why criminals know it is an easy target for gun-related violence.
The krux of the matter is this: guns are the great equalizer. The more guns you have the less it matters how big you are or how many people you need, especially if they are automatic weapons such as were used in Columbine. This means one criminal can wield great power over many who do not own a gun. And it also means a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun can wield great power over many criminals who do not own a gun. In America those who have committed federal offenses are already outlawed from owning guns. But law-abiding citizens are still allowed the legal right to own a gun. In most cases. We don't have the big federal government that other countries have, so each state has separate laws and our government is less centralized. Which I'm also comfortable and happy with.
And I'd like to mention to anyone here who has gotten the wrong impression that America is the Wild West that you've only been hearing one side of the story about guns. That is that guns are evil. Why? Because the media in America is largely liberal, and liberals hate guns. Also, probably because it fits your own politicians' anti-gun agendas. But there are websites you can find online that record gun self-defense stories. And usually what happens when a law-abiding citizen pulls a gun on a criminal who is about to attack them, the criminal runs away. And no one gets hurt. If anyone does get hurt, then it's usually 1-2 people injured or dead instead of 20 people injured or killed. You see, in public schools in America there are no security guards and no one is allowed to have a gun. So the criminals who have guns there have all the power. And they shoot anyone they want. This is an example of how anti-gun laws have killed more people than they have saved. And why? Because criminals will commit criminal acts. A lot of them are smart enough to know how to abuse America's laws. And if there were absolutely no guns in America criminals would use bombs or knives and gangs. And anyone a gang approached would be helpless against that gang.
So getting rid of guns is pointless and will increase the rate of violent crime - especially against women. Because men will have greater physical strength and power over women. They can rape them at their leisure without fear of being confronted by a gun. Also, the increase in anti-gun laws without immediately doing away with guns will cause many more incidents like these school shootings. So why not stop focusing on guns and focus on how to prevent crime or reduce it within the society we already have? For one, you could put security guards in schools. Because our schools are defenseless against gun crime right now. But I'm sure no liberal politician will do that, because then we could live a lot more safely with guns and it'd probably stop most gun-related violence in schools. And it would invalidate the illogical disdain of guns liberals hold.
Last edited:
In summary, America is not a dangerous place because it has more guns. If it's dangerous it would be because it is a country in transition. Half the country wants to keep their guns. The other half wants to keep people from using guns. So what do we have? We have a lot of guns with no one able to legally use them to defend themselves on the street. So the only people who use them are criminals. But your politicians sit back and wink at each other and say, "My! What a grand opportunity to control our own people. We can just say, 'Look at what happens when a country has guns!' and everyone will believe us! And they'll all be easier to control too! So we can do anything we want to them afterward and they can't fight back."
A few years back there was an incident in China where a man with a knife killed a bunch of kids. China doesn't have a lot of guns. And now they require certain knives to be registered. What is registering a knife going to do except tell the authorities who killed all the kids? If they were smart they would have placed security guards in their schools. But it's not about protecting the citizens. It's about controlling them, and it's about surveillance. Those "benevolent" politicians want to know what you're doing, and they don't want you threatening their power or their control over you. NSA anyone?
A few years back there was an incident in China where a man with a knife killed a bunch of kids. China doesn't have a lot of guns. And now they require certain knives to be registered. What is registering a knife going to do except tell the authorities who killed all the kids? If they were smart they would have placed security guards in their schools. But it's not about protecting the citizens. It's about controlling them, and it's about surveillance. Those "benevolent" politicians want to know what you're doing, and they don't want you threatening their power or their control over you. NSA anyone?
- Status