NationStates Jolt Archive

... honestly, I really think you're a little bit paranoid...

It's not like I don't like guns, I mean it feels reallly good to waste a target on 200 metres with a H&K G3 Assault Rifle, or to punch through a little wood with 1800 rounds per minute with a H&K MG3, but... Why the heck would anyone want to attack me with such a force that would make it nessecary for me to actually use Assault Rifles or Machine Guns...

I mean... that just sounds ridiculous to me...

You have points. I would use something like that more for defending against the government type of thing, not your typical mugging or something like that.

You really won't find all that many using a fully-automatic rifle to defend their houses.

But that doesn't mean you can just will the rights away, nor are you justified in attempting to do so.

i agree, its not that im "uncomfortable" aorund guns, or "afraid" of guns, im just uncomfortable with people already predisposed to violence and killing OWNING said guns and carrying them with them all the time

Except many in your camp have lumped us all together, just because of the item in question.

Okay, so you're not uncomfortable around the tool itself. You do seem to regard it as a catalyst that will turn people into killers. At least that's what I'm seeing from a large group of gun-control advocates.

I killed a bird with a pellet gun when I was 12. I haven't killed anything with any kind of gun since then.

The VAST majority of us aren't killing people, even if a large chunk are killing animals. The majority of the ones killing people are using illegal firearms--which has nothing to do with law-abiding firearms owners.

It just doesn't make logical sense to me that by disarming the populace (or severely limiting their access to firearms--it is basically the same thing to me), that you're going to stop or even decrease crime. And yes, I'm not trying to stem gun crime specifically, I'm looking for all crime.

Making a law that may or may not affect a very small percentage of the population doesn't justify limiting the freedom of the citizens of the US.

i agree, its not that im "uncomfortable" aorund guns, or "afraid" of guns, im just uncomfortable with people already predisposed to violence and killing OWNING said guns and carrying them with them all the time

Hey! Might be getting somewhere!

So it would follow then that you support the concealed carry of pistols to stop these people already predisposed to violence and killing (Read: Criminals) who will get thier guns anyway, regardless of your laws?

Craig

Tighter gun control is what always LEADS to confiscation.Rubbish. Do you understand what "always" means? You really are pananoid.We know your stance--you're scared of those you deem not not "competent enough" having guns, or using them in a way you, yourself wouldn't use them. These are all opinions that can't be measured, due to their ties with emotions. It's not your call how I use my firearm, if I'm not infringing upon your rights.

Who's opinion of "competent enough" do we go by? Do we go by their ability to shoot, or do we create mandatory psychological profiles of every gun owner, or what?

How far? And who decides what others get or don't get?

What if everything over a .223 isn't acceptable, because someone is even more uncomfortable about the situation than you? Your argument cannot work, due to the fact that all of us wouldn't be able to decide on where the lines need to be drawn. Plus, you get people that have zero hunting experience (I'm using hunting example because you're a hunter), making decisions on what you can and cannot do. Sure, you CAN take a deer down with a .223, but a .308 or a .30-06 is going to do the job better. You and I know that, but the ignorant (using it in the classical definition of someone that doesn't know anything about a specific topic) can't possibly make a decent decision, not knowing anything about the issue. Feinstein has already said she'd take all the guns away if she could, and she has a lot more power influencing what happens in this country than we do. You ready to stop hunting anything larger than a squirrel?

Just because someone doesn't do something, doesn't make someone else who does do that particular thing wrong, misguided, evil, etc. It's being different, and humans seem to fear different. It's not how they would do it, so it's automatically wrong (not saying you in particular--just human nature).This shows you do not understand my stance.

I never said I have all the answers - merely suggestions. Anyway, here's a newsflash for you - laws are made all the time that do not require the consent of the public. Laws are made FOR the public, not BY the public. America isn't the anarchist state that you so obviously wish it was...

P.S. If the government told me I had to hand in my .30-06 and couldn't use anything larger than a .22LR to hunt with, I would be pissed off, but not go into a psychotic tantrum like some people apparently would. Unlike yourself, I accept that I live in country that may pass laws that I don't like (the price of democracy - I am allowed to participate in the voting process, but I do not get to control the actions of politicians after they are elected). And unlike you, I wouldn't see this as a step of a disarmament conspiracy...anyway, let's agree to disagree - you can have your bunker, wear your tinfoil hat and sleep with an AKM in your arms; I'll go on living my life like I always have...

i agree, its not that im "uncomfortable" aorund guns, or "afraid" of guns, im just uncomfortable with people already predisposed to violence and killing OWNING said guns and carrying them with them all the time

So, anyone owning a gun is predisposed to violence and killing? That would mean that 60 million gunowners in America are out there committing violence and killings. I wonder why the statistics do not back that "claim" up? Maybe because it is a claim based on emotions and not FACTS.

Animals I have killed using a gun = 0
People I have killed using a gun = 0

Animals I have killed using a automobile = 6
People I have killed using a automobile = 0

Animals killed using a gun = ballpark - 100,000 million
People killed using a gun = again ballpark - 10,000 million

Animals killed by not using a gun = to many to count in my lifetime
People killed by not using a gun = to many to count in my liftime

So we should ban all other ways of killing animals and people.

Rubbish. Do you understand what "always" means? You really are pananoid.This shows you do not understand my stance.


Really? Look at Britain, look at Australia. More and more restrictive laws were placed on firearms, and now they are pretty much banned. It does happen that way.


I never said I have all the answers - merely suggestions. Anyway, here's a newsflash for you - laws are made all the time that do not require the consent of the public. Laws are made FOR the public, not BY the public. America isn't the anarchist state that you so obviously wish it was...


Laws made by the people don't make an anarchist state. It's lawyers that turned this nation into one ruled from above, by a government. This nation was created to be ruled by those elected to actually represent the people, not be controlled and raped by lawyers. Yes, I have a VERY low opinion of the profession. That's what's wrong with this country. People suing others left and right, getting laws made for evey little instance, taking personal responsibility completely out of the loop of human interaction.


P.S. If the government told me I had to hand in my .30-06 and couldn't use anything larger than a .22LR to hunt with, I would be pissed off, but not go into a psychotic tantrum like some people apparently would.


You have no idea what I'd do. You're making false assumptions.


Unlike yourself, I accept that I live in country that may pass laws that I don't like (the price of democracy - I am allowed to participate in the voting process, but I do not get to control the actions of politicians after they are elected). And unlike you, I wouldn't see this as a step of a disarmament conspiracy...anyway, let's agree to disagree - you can have your bunker, wear your tinfoil hat and sleep with an AKM in your arms; I'll go on living my life like I always have...

You really don't have any clue what many people are like, do you? I don't have a tinfoil hat, I don't have a bunker, and I don't sleep with a gun in my arms. You just like to portray me in that fashion because it's easier to sway opinions if you can paint me into a monster. I have had three whole speeding tickets in my life--no other charges or allegations. I'm not the insane criminal that you either want to see, or want everyone else to see, or both.

The United States is not a democracy. It's a federal republic. Where the freedoms of individuals are supposed to supercede that of the majority, due to the fact that 51% of the population could control the entire nation. Get it through your head--majority is NOT supposed to rule here. Just because you accept and embrace it doesn't mean it's right.

Really? Look at Britain, look at Australia. More and more restrictive laws were placed on firearms, and now they are pretty much banned. It does happen that way.
Can't speak for Britain, but as regards Australia - bullshit. You are spouting lies and/or uninformed ingnorance. I live in Australia, and legally own several registered firearms. Have for years.
Laws made by the people don't make an anarchist state. It's lawyers that turned this nation into one ruled from above, by a government. This nation was created to be ruled by those elected to actually represent the people, not be controlled and raped by lawyers. Yes, I have a VERY low opinion of the profession. That's what's wrong with this country. People suing others left and right, getting laws made for evey little instance, taking personal responsibility completely out of the loop of human interaction.
That's your opinion, you're fully entitled to it. Although I think you are a little confused about the definitions of anarchy...
You have no idea what I'd do. You're making false assumptions.
Hmm, how did "some people" become "Zaxon". *cough* paranoid *cough* :p
You really don't have any clue what many people are like, do you? I don't have a tinfoil hat, I don't have a bunker, and I don't sleep with a gun in my arms. You just like to portray me in that fashion because it's easier to sway opinions if you can paint me into a monster. I have had three whole speeding tickets in my life--no other charges or allegations. I'm not the insane criminal that you either want to see, or want everyone else to see, or both.
*sigh* Yes, I literally meant that you wear a tinfoil hat and live in a bunker. Sarcasm - look it up sometime. ;)
The United States is not a democracy. It's a federal republic. Where the freedoms of individuals are supposed to supercede that of the majority, due to the fact that 51% of the population could control the entire nation. Get it through your head--majority is NOT supposed to rule here. Just because you accept and embrace it doesn't mean it's right.
Again, your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Can't speak for Britain, but as regards Australia - bullshit. You are spouting lies and/or uninformed ingnorance. I live in Australia, and legally own several registered firearms. Have for years.


Fine. Inform me. What's the process to purchase a handgun these days?


That's your opinion, you're fully entitled to it. Although I think you are a little confused about the definitions of anarchy...


Anarchy=no government at all (anyone feel free to correct me).


Hmm, how did "some people" become "Zaxon". *cough* paranoid *cough* :p


You can call it what you want. I'm not sitting in my house, waiting for someone to kick in the door, gun in hand. I have the tools ready, that's all. That's preparedness in my book--paranoia in yours.


*sigh* Yes, I literally meant that you wear a tinfoil hat and live in a bunker. Sarcasm - look it up sometime. ;)


I'm an American, we don't get that, remember? :D


Again, your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

It's not my opinion that I'm worried about being legislated away at this point. It's the right that allows me to protect my opinion that's under assault.

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.


How, exactly, do you plan on keeping guns out of the hands of those that want them? I maintain that it is impossible in a nation such as the United States, in which millions of firearms are already present. Even if you could manage to stop people from smuggling more in across the border (and I'd like to know how you plan to manage that, then apply it to cocaine), there would still be an abundance of weapons available to those willing to go out and get them. For the reason that we cannot keep criminals from having guns, we need to allow ordinary, responsible citizens to have them in order to protect themselves.

That said, the following is still true:

The idea of firearms being useful as a defense against a tyrannical government is ridiculous. Case in point: Afghanistan. Taliban fighters had fully automatic AK's, and the best they ever managed was 7 Americans killed and 14 wounded, in a battle that cost them over 300 of their own fighters. Even in Iraq, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are mostly useless against the U.S. military. The vast majority of recent U.S. military deaths have been due to various explosive devices and terrorist acts. If you tried it, you would die. At least it would be a quick death.

Therefore, I make the claim that the only firearms with an actual purpose in society are concealed firearms, for their crime-deterrent properties. The key here is that criminals will not know who has a gun, and will therefore be disinclined to attack the average citizen. For this purpose, background checks and the like are entirely reasonable, as long as the firearms are still actually accessible to the average, responsible citizen.

listen you incompetent little twit
owning a gun is NOT a NATURAL right, it is a CIVIL right, and its purpose has changed in 400 years. there are no more federalists, not for a few hundred years

your stupidity proceeds you to my ignore list, good day

Keep repeating the same thing all you want. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural extention of the right to self-defense, which is a natural extention to the natural right to live. Feel free to give a bit of explanation as to why you disagree with this.

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.

No, you don't have the right to be safe. You have the right to defend yourself because of the second amendment. You have the right to pursue your own safety, provided you don't infringe others' rights to pursue their safety.

Me having a semi-automatic weapon in no way interferes with your pursuit of safety. You only equate an "evil" tool with interfering with your safety. You don't have an argument for disarming me--not one that's legal, anyway.

Keep repeating the same thing all you want. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural extention of the right to self-defense, which is a natural extention to the natural right to live. Feel free to give a bit of explanation as to why you disagree with this.
you are ignorant. i am done

natural rights, AS STATED BY JOHN LOCKE AND THOMAS JEFFERSON: right to life, liberty and property (happiness under jefferson)

the right to own a gun is a CIVIL RIGHT, prescribed by the society in which you live, it is NOT a natural right and is ONLY a right if the society in which you lvie says so

Just as the right to "free speech" does not encompass the right to commit libel and slander or yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to bear arms has reasonable restrictions and is not an "absolute" right. The issue is what is a "reasonable" restriction.

There's a huge difference between these so-called restrictions on free speech and gun control. Gun control is a form of prior restraint, meaning that the law attempts to prevent criminal action by prohibiting the means. If prior restraint were used to prevent people from yelling fire in crowded theaters (by sewing their lips shut or something), it would prevent people from yelling "fire" whent there actually was a fire.

As it is, lible and slander or "yelling fire" cases must be proven after the fact.


Some say reasonable means flintlocks are all that is allowed, others would say anything a single person can carry. I would argue that since at the time the 2nd A. was passed the militia was made up of men bringing into service the weapons they typically had in their homes (self-defense hand guns and hunting rifles) that those are the types of weapons contemplated as being protected by the 2nd A. and that grenade launchers, mortars, missiles, etc. are the types of weapons that were equivalent to cannons in the days of the constitution's adoption.

Some ordinary private citizens private citizens did own cannons in those days.

No one should be licensed to carry a gun that can't hit the target.

BTW- I feel that so long as you're licensed, you should be able to carry. Here in the US, it's a state (or even local!) issue. CT only started with state permits recently... I think it should be a NATIONAL license. If I'm legal to carry in CT, I should be legal to carry anywhere in the US, provided I don't break the fundamental rules -- not in schools, courts of law, drinking sections of bars/restaurants, etc.

National license? That would be unconstitutional. You don't want that. Please leave it up to the states. States are free to recognize each other's permits. Feel free to encourage your state to enter reciprical agreements with other states.

BTW, my state of Arizona allows open carry without a permit. Vermont allows concealed carry with no permit, and apparently so does Alaska now. How do you think the people in those states would feel about having to get a federal licesense to exercise a right their state protects?

National license? That would be unconstitutional. You don't want that. Please leave it up to the states. States are free to recognize each other's permits. Feel free to encourage your state to enter reciprical agreements with other states.

BTW, my state of Arizona allows open carry without a permit. Vermont allows concealed carry with no permit, and apparently so does Alaska now. How do you think the people in those states would feel about having to get a federal licesense to exercise a right their state protects.

In case you hadn't noticed, our feelings don't seem to count when the "social good" is in jeopardy, regardless if it infringes upon rights or not.

Kinda makes it easy to trample people, no?

There's a huge difference between these so-called restrictions on free speech and gun control. Gun control is a form of prior restraint, meaning that the law attempts to prevent criminal action by prohibiting the means. If prior restraint were used to prevent people from yelling fire in crowded theaters (by sewing their lips shut or something), it would prevent people from yelling "fire" whent there actually was a fire.

That's not a free speech issue, it's a property rights issue. If you yell fire in a theater then you are either a) a customer who has disrupted the performance violating the property rights of the owner, or b) an employee of the theater who has violated the contract to provide a performance to the customers. You can't yell fire in a theater for the same reason you can't come into my house in the middle of the night and sing opera.

Govt does not prevent crime by banning guns, it causes crime. So that excuse goes out the window.

There's a huge difference between these so-called restrictions on free speech and gun control. Gun control is a form of prior restraint, meaning that the law attempts to prevent criminal action by prohibiting the means. If prior restraint were used to prevent people from yelling fire in crowded theaters (by sewing their lips shut or something), it would prevent people from yelling "fire" whent there actually was a fire.

As it is, lible and slander or "yelling fire" cases must be proven after the fact.
that doesnt stop the fact doing so is illegal and people knowing it is illegal, you can be charged after you do it, but its illegal before hand.

and gun control is not banning guns, therefore it is completely legal, NOR is it making guns "excessively" hard to procure. those are the rules. it cant outright ban or make it excessively hard to do. you can still implement background checks, gun tags, and restrictions on place and time of buying, and you can make the price on them whatever you want above the commercial rate if its not maknig them "excessively" hard to procure

National license? That would be unconstitutional. You don't want that. Please leave it up to the states. States are free to recognize each other's permits. Feel free to encourage your state to enter reciprical agreements with other states.

BTW, my state of Arizona allows open carry without a permit. Vermont allows concealed carry with no permit, and apparently so does Alaska now. How do you think the people in those states would feel about having to get a federal licesense to exercise a right their state protects?

How would a national license be unconstitutional?
Ok, let me rephrase that: a state license should be automatically good in every other state, just like a driver's license.

I think they'd be pretty darn happy to be able to legally pack a pistol anywhere they please, just for getting fingerprinted and paying a fee every 5 years. The local laws can still stand (per your examples) that's no big deal.

It should also ban any kind of firearms and (expecially) their manufacturing.

otherwise we will all end up as screwed up as fucking USA is

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.
- Attributed to Adolf Hitler, 1935

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.
- Attributed to Adolf Hitler, 1935
adolf hitler was batty, it doesnt mean every single idea he had was wrong. you cant go around citing single instances in history to prove your point

How would a national license be unconstitutional?
Ok, let me rephrase that: a state license should be automatically good in every other state, just like a driver's license.

I think they'd be pretty darn happy to be able to legally pack a pistol anywhere they please, just for getting fingerprinted and paying a fee every 5 years. The local laws can still stand (per your examples) that's no big deal.
lets not mentino alaska has worse crime rates per capita than new york

How would a national license be unconstitutional?
Ok, let me rephrase that: a state license should be automatically good in every other state, just like a driver's license.

I think they'd be pretty darn happy to be able to legally pack a pistol anywhere they please, just for getting fingerprinted and paying a fee every 5 years. The local laws can still stand (per your examples) that's no big deal.

Simple--any forced registration or licensing is infringement. That's the unconstitutional part. Vermont and Alaska are the only states following the constitution at this time.

adolf hitler was batty, it doesnt mean every single idea he had was wrong. you cant go around citing single instances in history to prove your point

Tell me you just didn't say that. Too funny. That's precisely how you prove points that aren't scientifically related. You reference previous instances.

lets not mentino alaska has worse crime rates per capita than new york

How about Vermont?

lets not mentino alaska has worse crime rates per capita than new york


For a major city, New York has an incredibly low crime rate. Rudy really cleaned up the city in only a handful of years.

For a major city, New York has an incredibly low crime rate. Rudy really cleaned up the city in only a handful of years.
new york is a state

Screw Gun Control!!

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!!


That is all!!

new york is a state
It is also a city.

Simple--any forced registration or licensing is infringement. That's the unconstitutional part. Vermont and Alaska are the only states following the constitution at this time.

Article II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringement:
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

IMHO, Registration is not infringement. You have the right to bear arms, provided you have a license. Or are you saying I don't need to register to vote? :)

adolf hitler was batty, it doesnt mean every single idea he had was wrong. you cant go around citing single instances in history to prove your point

The whole POINT of history is to learn from the mistakes of others!
For what it's worth, every Communist nation has also had gun control. I've been to four. I'd never want to live there. Until you've been somewhere that isn't free, you don't appreciate what that means.

Of course not every idea he had was wrong. But that doesn't make that particular one a good idea either.

Article II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringement:
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

IMHO, Registration is not infringement. You have the right to bear arms, provided you have a license. Or are you saying I don't need to register to vote? :)
By your own posted definition of infringement it IS unconstitutional. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.
Perhaps voting registration is also an infringement. That's for another to argue.

By your own posted definition of infringement it IS unconstitutional. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.
Perhaps voting registration is also an infringement. That's for another to argue.

Encroachment
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits

HOW is registration an encroachment? It's a 1 step!

True. But that's my point. :)

First of all- Why would I hunt when I can buy already killed animals at the grocery store?

Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic.

Ok I will try to educate you, not belittle you. In the above mentioned quote you said we can buy everything at the grocery store already. FALSE, have you every seen packages of deer, elk, bear, caribou, squirrel, etc. in the local Kroger? Nope and I prefer to eat animals I HARVEST in the wild because the meat is actually leaner and has less fat in it than alot of beef products you purchase at the store. So don't use a thread based on gun control to attack the fact some people actually enjoy the hunting experience. I don't have to "get" an animal to say I have had an enjoyable hunt.

Next point, second part of quote. A typical talking point used by gun control advocates. Pick a major incident and apply kindergarten logic to it. First, any number of things could have been used to cause significant damage or loss of life in Columbine. These two widgits could have filled a car with fertilizer and diesel (aka Oklahoma City) and done just as much damage or more as shooting the place up. The point that always seems to be missed about this incident is the fact the weapons used were purchased illegally through a straw purchaser. I bet if you would research the topic you would see the person who sold the guns to these kids is doing time in Levanworth, KS.

The sticking point about gun control is where does it end? Laws whether we like it or not are put in place for honest people to follow. Criminals, wackos, terrorists, etc. are going to obtain weapons illegally, they always do. Gun Control should be a truely states rights issue. If New York decides they want stricter laws than say Wyoming then rip and get it. Don't set in DC and tell me what is best for me (Chuck Shumer) when I am 1500 miles away from you and you have no idea what I need or don't need.

In closing Don't use a Sledge Hammer to kill a gnat........

And Practice Gun Control.....................Use both hands.


TXAGMAN

By your own posted definition of infringement it IS unconstitutional. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.
Perhaps voting registration is also an infringement. That's for another to argue.


Apples and oranges. Someone will not come knocking on your door to remove you right to vote, but they have done this to remove your gun.

The road to disaster is paved with good intentions.

Backgound check to weed out the people who are not allowed to have a gun, then leave the law-abiding citizen alone. You really need to do some homework so you do not keep spouting out garbage.

adolf hitler was batty, it doesnt mean every single idea he had was wrong. you cant go around citing single instances in history to prove your point


Those that forget history WILL repeat it. So, back to history class, Junior.

So why can't we just ban guns like the Kalashnikov AK-47 :sniper: or all the other types of guns that aren't used for hunting, but are used in military applications? Seriously who uses an automatic machine gun to hunt?

lets not mentino alaska has worse crime rates per capita than new york

Source:
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/contents.html

Washington D.C. does not allow any citizen to have a gun and it is number 1.
Maryland with it's crazy gun control laws is number 2.

Alaska #14 563 per 100K
New York #17 496 per 100K

Difference 67 per 100K
Not much of a difference compared to D.C.'s 1,633 per 100K. Boy you really made your point didn't you. I've got goosebumps <dripping in sarcasm>

So why can't we just ban guns like the Kalashnikov AK-47 :sniper: or all the other types of guns that aren't used for hunting, but are used in military applications? Seriously who uses an automatic machine gun to hunt?


All AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are illegal to own by private citizens in the U.S.A..

Sniper rifle? Do you have any idea what a "sniper rifle" is? Basicly it is like any other rifle with a scope on it. You could put them side by side and you would swear they were the same gun.

All AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are illegal to own by private citizens in the U.S.A..

Sniper rifle? Do you have any idea what a "sniper rifle" is? Basicly it is like any other rifle with a scope on it. You could put them side by side and you would swear they were the same gun.

Um ... that depends upon what kind of "sniper rifle" and whether it's been modified.

It's actually not illegal to own automatic weapons, you just need a special ( and very expensive! ) license to do so.

Um ... that depends upon what kind of "sniper rifle" and whether it's been modified.

It's actually not illegal to own automatic weapons, you just need a special ( and very expensive! ) license to do so.

Curiousity has the best of me. You wouldn't happen to know how much that license costs?

Curiousity has the best of me. You wouldn't happen to know how much that license costs?

Not precisely, but it's my understanding that it's well over $5,000.

Apples and oranges. Someone will not come knocking on your door to remove you right to vote, but they have done this to remove your gun.

The road to disaster is paved with good intentions.

Backgound check to weed out the people who are not allowed to have a gun, then leave the law-abiding citizen alone. You really need to do some homework so you do not keep spouting out garbage.
You must have not read anything I have posted in this thread :rolleyes:

Markreich wrote that registration was not an infringement. He quoted the definition of infringement. I pointed out that registration of guns and/or gun owners was indeed infringement as per his definition, and therefor unconstitutional.

You really need to read what people have written, rather than accuse anyone who you think disagrees with you is spouting garbage.

Not precisely, but it's my understanding that it's well over $5,000.

Holy moly! O.O I guess that makes sense, kind of a way to discourage people from stockin' up on automatic weapons. Can't really find every dealer and force them to tack on a 500% tax or something, so making the license prohibitivly expensive seems smart.

Anyhoo, thanks Eutrusca for that information! I'm off to bed, and, if there are any typos in here, they're staying.

All AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are illegal to own by private citizens in the U.S.A..

Sniper rifle? Do you have any idea what a "sniper rifle" is? Basicly it is like any other rifle with a scope on it. You could put them side by side and you would swear they were the same gun.
Here is another example where you failed to read what the man (please forgive me UltimateEnd if you are a woman, I mean no offense) wrote.

No where in his post did he say anything about "sniper rifles". He also didnt mention automatic weapons of any kind.

He mentioned weapons with military applications and the Kalashnikov AK-47 in particular.

Please, do not take anything personal in here... and read before you "fly off the handle".

Not precisely, but it's my understanding that it's well over $5,000.
Oh, no.. not even close. It's closer to $200-300 a year. And it depends on your state as well.

Oh, no.. not even close. It's closer to $200-300 a year. And it depends on your state as well.
Doing a bit more research, the different types of firearm license cost differently.
A class 1 will cost you $200 for 3 years initially and (I believe) $90 a year after than.
The class 3 license will cost $2000. Not sure for how long that one will last.

It is the class 3 license that allows the possession and use of automatic weapons (again, depending on the state you live in).

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.
Son, if you need a semiauto to kill an animal, you need more target practice before anyone should allow you to hunt.

If it takes you more than one shot to drop the animal, you are no hunter. You are a butcher.

just go to canada, they arn't as hostile

Article II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringement:
1. A violation, as of a law, regulation, or agreement; a breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.

IMHO, Registration is not infringement. You have the right to bear arms, provided you have a license. Or are you saying I don't need to register to vote? :)

The regulated militia means, "In properly working order", not regulated by government (yeah, the history scholars agree that is what regulated meant back then). So, registration is a form of control, which is not supported by the US constitution, and therefore, and infringement.

Doing a bit more research, the different types of firearm license cost differently.
A class 1 will cost you $200 for 3 years initially and (I believe) $90 a year after than.
The class 3 license will cost $2000. Not sure for how long that one will last.

It is the class 3 license that allows the possession and use of automatic weapons (again, depending on the state you live in).

Okay guys, once and for all, here are the federal class III regs. State regs will vary.

http://www.vectorarms.com/instructions/how_to_own.html

It's only $200, one time fee, for EACH instance of item that falls under the category of class III--full auto fire, silencer, etc.

They're not that tough to get a hold of. However, the real expense comes in the form of the firearm itself. There is a LARGE gap between the full-auto and semi-auto versions of the same firearm, generally.

[Why would federal carry permits be unconstitutional?]

Simple--any forced registration or licensing is infringement. That's the unconstitutional part. Vermont and Alaska are the only states following the constitution at this time.

Actually, that's not what I meant. I meant that the federal government is granted no such power in the Constitution.

So why can't we just ban guns like the Kalashnikov AK-47 :sniper: or all the other types of guns that aren't used for hunting, but are used in military applications? Seriously who uses an automatic machine gun to hunt?

Who said anything about hunting?

Okay guys, once and for all, here are the federal class III regs. State regs will vary.

http://www.vectorarms.com/instructions/how_to_own.html

It's only $200, one time fee, for EACH instance of item that falls under the category of class III--full auto fire, silencer, etc.

They're not that tough to get a hold of. However, the real expense comes in the form of the firearm itself. There is a LARGE gap between the full-auto and semi-auto versions of the same firearm, generally.
Sorry, I must have been mistaken.
The sites I looked up on the fly all showed a yearly renewal of some sort and one site showed a fee of $2000. My mistake.

The regulated militia means, "In properly working order", not regulated by government (yeah, the history scholars agree that is what regulated meant back then). So, registration is a form of control, which is not supported by the US constitution, and therefore, and infringement.

Registration is NOT control! Is the government controlling your right to free speech because you have to register to vote? Or assembly because you need a permit in a public place? I don't think so.

Also, I've yet to see the government even attempt to issue an order to "the militia", whomever they may be.

My issue comes down to this: it is illegal to drive without a license. Yet with a state license, you can drive anywhere in the USA.
It is legal in some areas to have a gun without a license. Yet with a state license, it is illegal to carry a gun in most other states.

Please go to http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/connecticut (and choose whatever state you live in from the pull down menu) to see my point.

My original point (waaaaay back) was that EVERY state's permit should be valid in every other state, and that any local laws allowing you to carry/whatever should stand for locals only.

I am NOT against the Second Amendment, I am FOR it.

You must have not read anything I have posted in this thread :rolleyes:

Markreich wrote that registration was not an infringement. He quoted the definition of infringement. I pointed out that registration of guns and/or gun owners was indeed infringement as per his definition, and therefor unconstitutional.

You really need to read what people have written, rather than accuse anyone who you think disagrees with you is spouting garbage.

Although still I disagree that registration is an infringement. :)

Although still I disagree that registration is an infringement. :)
in no way is gun registration infringment because it does not place excessive controls on gun ownership

Who said anything about hunting?
DUH...read the opening post, goof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independant Turkeys
All AUTOMATIC WEAPONS are illegal to own by private citizens in the U.S.A..

Sniper rifle? Do you have any idea what a "sniper rifle" is? Basicly it is like any other rifle with a scope on it. You could put them side by side and you would swear they were the same gun.


Here is another example where you failed to read what the man (please forgive me UltimateEnd if you are a woman, I mean no offense) wrote.

No where in his post did he say anything about "sniper rifles". He also didnt mention automatic weapons of any kind.

He mentioned weapons with military applications and the Kalashnikov AK-47 in particular.

Please, do not take anything personal in here... and read before you "fly off the handle".
********************************************
I goofed. "Sniper" came from icon. So I spout garbage at times too.

An AK-47 is an automatic weapon, and the word automatic is in his/her post.

in no way is gun registration infringment because it does not place excessive controls on gun ownership


Try to register a gun in NYC or washington DC and you will see how registration does indeed place excessive controls on gun ownership.

Try to register a gun in NYC or washington DC and you will see how registration does indeed place excessive controls on gun ownership.
Try and get a General Contractor's license in Florida. The point is, they can put all the red tape on it they need to protect society, but once you comply, they can not deny you a gun, unless you have lost the right to bear arms as part of a felony convition.

Thus a "well regulated militia".

Try and get a General Contractor's license in Florida. The point is, they can put all the red tape on it they need to protect society, but once you comply, they can not deny you a gun, unless you have lost the right to bear arms as part of a felony convition.

Thus a "well regulated militia".

Last I checked, a general contractors license was not specifically protected in the constitution. Red tape is an "infringement". Something that the Constitution expressly prohibits.

Last I checked, a general contractors license was not specifically protected in the constitution. Red tape is an "infringement". Something that the Constitution expressly prohibits.
erm...then explain to me what "well regulated" means.

Tactial nukes in every backyard!

erm...then explain to me what "well regulated" means.

ZAXON had put up this up a few posts ago:

The regulated militia means, "In properly working order", not regulated by government (yeah, the history scholars agree that is what regulated meant back then). So, registration is a form of control, which is not supported by the US constitution, and therefore, and infringement.

erm...then explain to me what "well regulated" means.

Whatever it means, it applies to the militia.

check out this article with referance to "well regulated"

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Whatever it means, it applies to the militia.

check out this article with referance to "well regulated"

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

What i know about dictionaries is that the most common usage is listed first. You use the fourth definition, which is the least likely of the four, according to that principle.
And "to put in good order" implies a defined version of order, in other words...REGULATION.

Son, if you need a semiauto to kill an animal, you need more target practice before anyone should allow you to hunt.

If it takes you more than one shot to drop the animal, you are no hunter. You are a butcher.

Noone is perfect. I am happy that you have taken out all of the animals you hunt with one bullet. Some people are not so skilled and never will be. At least having that second bullet ready increases the odds that the animal will be taken down on the second shot instead of getting away and bleeding to death a mile or more away.

I personnally do not hunt and have only been hunting once for rabbit and squirrel - I hit no animal - hunter 0, animals 1.

Noone is perfect. I am happy that you have taken out all of the animals you hunt with one bullet. Some people are not so skilled and never will be. At least having that second bullet ready increases the odds that the animal will be taken down on the second shot instead of getting away and bleeding to death a mile or more away.

I personnally do not hunt and have only been hunting once for rabbit and squirrel - I hit no animal - hunter 0, animals 1.

Where i grew up, hunting is a way of life. You don't take a shot unless you are sure you can get a kill. If you wound the animal, you are morally obligated to track it and put it out of its misery. Letting it go to bleed to death is just as cruel as riddling the poor thing with numerous semi-fatal shots. Once you have had to track an animal across rough terrain for hours, you realize the necessity of being sure of your shot before you take it.

Hunting should not be treated as "recreation" but as a serious sport with life and death consequences. Would you give the keys to your car to someone who thinks bouncing off curbs and other cars is an acceptable way to drive?

Spraying bullets at an animal is no less irresponsible. Any activity requiring skill and involving life and death consequences should require a proven level of proficiency and/or responsibility.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

What i know about dictionaries is that the most common usage is listed first. You use the fourth definition, which is the least likely of the four, according to that principle.
And "to put in good order" implies a defined version of order, in other words...REGULATION.

And this is why there were laws on the books in 1776 that required gunowners to register thier guns. <flip flip> Well somewhere - wait a minute - no not there. Mmmm <flip flip> OK I give up. Please show me the law from 1776 that requires gunowners to register thier guns.

Many battles were won by armed citizens against the British, and that was the intent of the writters of the U.S.A. Constitution.

After passing a background check, why should a law abiding citizen have to jump through more hoops to maintain his/her/it's right to bear arms? Does registering a gun make it any safer or does it make it easier to locate and confiscate when it is decided that it is now illegal to own because it looks like an "assault" weapon?

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

What i know about dictionaries is that the most common usage is listed first. You use the fourth definition, which is the least likely of the four, according to that principle.
And "to put in good order" implies a defined version of order, in other words...REGULATION.

Now try reading the rest of the article:

Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:
[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

Where i grew up, hunting is a way of life. You don't take a shot unless you are sure you can get a kill. If you wound the animal, you are morally obligated to track it and put it out of its misery. Letting it go to bleed to death is just as cruel as riddling the poor thing with numerous semi-fatal shots. Once you have had to track an animal across rough terrain for hours, you realize the necessity of being sure of your shot before you take it.

Hunting should not be treated as "recreation" but as a serious sport with life and death consequences. Would you give the keys to your car to someone who thinks bouncing off curbs and other cars is an acceptable way to drive?

Spraying bullets at an animal is no less irresponsible. Any activity requiring skill and involving life and death consequences should require a proven level of proficiency and/or responsibility.

Then it should be part of getting a hunting license, to prove your proficency - not in the right to own a gun, single shot, semi automatic or otherwise.

No weapon made for the purpose of killing humans should be legal

Period.

No weapon made for the purpose of killing humans should be legal

Period.

Let's ban hammers, knives... and fire.
Dude, no weapons? The whole of human history rests on being able to defend himself and eat animals. Take away weapons and you become a lemur!

No weapon made for the purpose of killing humans should be legal

Period.

Well, since you put it that way...




Care to give some explanation for your position?

Sorry, I must have been mistaken.
The sites I looked up on the fly all showed a yearly renewal of some sort and one site showed a fee of $2000. My mistake.

No biggie, One. I just wanted to end the speculation. :D

Registration is NOT control! Is the government controlling your right to free speech because you have to register to vote? Or assembly because you need a permit in a public place? I don't think so.


Registration is VERY MUCH a form of control. Assembly in a public place isn't supposed to involve a permit. Some are less likely to get their name on government "lists" that can be (and have been) abused. This can stop a number of people from exercising their freedom already laid out in the constitution.


Also, I've yet to see the government even attempt to issue an order to "the militia", whomever they may be.


That's due to the fact that the federal government doesn't have authority over state militias. Plus, we have that illegal standing army thing that the federal government uses.


My issue comes down to this: it is illegal to drive without a license. Yet with a state license, you can drive anywhere in the USA.
It is legal in some areas to have a gun without a license. Yet with a state license, it is illegal to carry a gun in most other states.

Please go to http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/connecticut (and choose whatever state you live in from the pull down menu) to see my point.


I use packing.org on a regular basis. Control of firearm ownership is defined in the constitution--there's not supposed to be any--and that covers all states. Driver's licenses are a state to state matter, if states decide to recognize driver's licenses from other states, that's their prerogative. Somewhere along the way, they agreed to accept licenses from other states. I don't know if the federal government had anything to do with that. Someone want to check it out?


My original point (waaaaay back) was that EVERY state's permit should be valid in every other state, and that any local laws allowing you to carry/whatever should stand for locals only.

I am NOT against the Second Amendment, I am FOR it.

I realize that you think that--however, you're also for a permit system, which is not what the second amendment stands for. Permits are controls.

erm...then explain to me what "well regulated" means.Apparently a well regulated militia (according to some people here) means every man and his dog with a pile of guns under their bed...

Sounds really "well regulated" doesn't it:

"Hey Zeke, git on out here, and bring that there scattergun of yours, we'll see off these foreign varmints....yeeehaw!" :p

[j/k]

Try and get a General Contractor's license in Florida. The point is, they can put all the red tape on it they need to protect society, but once you comply, they can not deny you a gun, unless you have lost the right to bear arms as part of a felony convition.

Thus a "well regulated militia".

That doesn't apply to "may issue" states. There is a subjective measurement on who "deserves" to carry concealed. Any time you get a situation where a bad mood can affect your constitutional rights, someone (or several someones) need their head examined.

And what about the states that ban carrying?

The federal government was meant to protect from external threats, and the states were meant to protect from internal threats.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

What i know about dictionaries is that the most common usage is listed first. You use the fourth definition, which is the least likely of the four, according to that principle.
And "to put in good order" implies a defined version of order, in other words...REGULATION.

The meanings change over the years--this is what all the constitutional scholars point out. Just because you want to use the modern definition doesn't make them wrong. They've done a wee bit more investigation into the issue. I'll take their word over yours.

Cool didn't mean "nifty" back in 1791 either. Hot didn't mean "gorgeous".

Registration is VERY MUCH a form of control. Assembly in a public place isn't supposed to involve a permit. Some are less likely to get their name on government "lists" that can be (and have been) abused. This can stop a number of people from exercising their freedom already laid out in the constitution.

That's due to the fact that the federal government doesn't have authority over state militias. Plus, we have that illegal standing army thing that the federal government uses.

I use packing.org on a regular basis. Control of firearm ownership is defined in the constitution--there's not supposed to be any--and that covers all states. Driver's licenses are a state to state matter, if states decide to recognize driver's licenses from other states, that's their prerogative. Somewhere along the way, they agreed to accept licenses from other states. I don't know if the federal government had anything to do with that. Someone want to check it out?

I realize that you think that--however, you're also for a permit system, which is not what the second amendment stands for. Permits are controls.

Er... but you admit that you need a permit if it is on public property, right?
You admit you must register to vote, get a license to drive... Face it, a state gun license is NOT an infringment. Having a license to carry a gun is not eggregious. It does NOT limit whom may own a gun, other than convicts and the mentally unstable. If you have a Passport, voter registration card, driver's license or Social Security Card, you don't have a leg to stand on using your arguement.

Yes.. and *where* is there a state militia? There hasn't been a mustering of a state militia in over 100 years! Anywhere!!

Illegal standing army?!? Nope. The US Armed Forces are 100% legal.
"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I agree, there should be no limits on gun ownership, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally unstable. And having a license is NOT controlling ownership! And, as I've said many, many times:
LOCAL LAWS CAN STAND FOR LOCALS. If your state wants to let you walk around with an Uzi, that's fine. Just don't cross the state line with it.
What I'm postulating is that if you *DO* have a state license, it's valid across all 50 states.

NO, I am NOT for a permit system, I am for a license system. You go to a gun range, take a class, shoot a target and (barring having been committed to an insane asylum or being a convicted felon), you get issued a state carry license. It's good in all 50 states. QED. The requirements are no more stringent than getting a driver's license.

Er... but you admit that you need a permit if it is on public property, right?


I admit that the governments are forcing us to have a permit, illegally, yes. Everyone keeps forgetting that if the constitution doesn't say it explicitly, the federal government can't do it.


You admit you must register to vote, get a license to drive... Face it, a state gun license is NOT an infringment. Having a license to carry a gun is not eggregious. It does NOT limit whom may own a gun, other than convicts and the mentally unstable. If you have a Passport, voter registration card, driver's license or Social Security Card, you don't have a leg to stand on using your arguement.


Try to buy a gun in Illinois. It's not always easy or simple. Yes, licenses are infringement.


Yes.. and *where* is there a state militia? There hasn't been a mustering of a state militia in over 100 years! Anywhere!!


Like I said, they have the illegal standing military to fall back on.


Illegal standing army?!? Nope. The US Armed Forces are 100% legal.
"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Right "We the People" provide for the common defense. WE do it. Not a standing military.

Federalist Paper #41 states:
"Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term."

You have money for to support your military for two years, and that's it. Then funding goes away, and you have to start the process of creating the army all over again.

So, yes, having a standing military budget for each year is illegal. If you don't have the budget, you don't have the troops.


I agree, there should be no limits on gun ownership, unless you're a convicted felon or mentally unstable. And having a license is NOT controlling ownership!


Control is when you force me to have to do something to be able to exercise my rights. Rights have no controls on them, like licensing.


And, as I've said many, many times:
LOCAL LAWS CAN STAND FOR LOCALS. If your state wants to let you walk around with an Uzi, that's fine. Just don't cross the state line with it.
What I'm postulating is that if you *DO* have a state license, it's valid across all 50 states.


That's where one of the few instances of federal law actually overrides state law--a federally supported right cannot be regulated by states. So, no, the states don't have the legal authority to control firearm ownership.


NO, I am NOT for a permit system, I am for a license system. You go to a gun range, take a class, shoot a target and (barring having been committed to an insane asylum or being a convicted felon), you get issued a state carry license. It's good in all 50 states. QED. The requirements are no more stringent than getting a driver's license.

That's a permit. You have to get someone's permission to have that license.

Hi all, I'm back. Miss me? :)

Been pulling graveyard shifts in addition to the usual load, and so haven't really felt up to replying in a while. But I've been reading.

An exercise:

Toss out the US constitution. Right out the window. Now, draft a new one.

Forget about practicalities at first (meaning, no arguments about how ____ wouldn't work), just basically give what you think should be in it, and why.

No commenting on the suggestions of others until we've got a few, then we can critique them to pieces. ;)

Remember that I'm not a United Statesian, so "obvious" ones won't be to me. Explain your suggestions.

This way, we can figure out what people want without endlessly arguing about wording.

If this is stupid btw, feel free to tell me. If it's me that's stupid, keep it to yourself. ;)

:sniper:

I admit that the governments are forcing us to have a permit, illegally, yes. Everyone keeps forgetting that if the constitution doesn't say it explicitly, the federal government can't do it.

Try to buy a gun in Illinois. It's not always easy or simple. Yes, licenses are infringement.

Right "We the People" provide for the common defense. WE do it. Not a standing military.

Federalist Paper #41 states:
"Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the Constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the Constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature; whereas the American Constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? Is it a fair comparison? Does the British Constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the Congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British Constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term."

You have money for to support your military for two years, and that's it. Then funding goes away, and you have to start the process of creating the army all over again.

Nice. But pointless. These papers are not law.

So, yes, having a standing military budget for each year is illegal. If you don't have the budget, you don't have the troops.

Control is when you force me to have to do something to be able to exercise my rights. Rights have no controls on them, like licensing.

That's where one of the few instances of federal law actually overrides state law--a federally supported right cannot be regulated by states. So, no, the states don't have the legal authority to control firearm ownership.

That's a permit. You have to get someone's permission to have that license.

If you want to live your life that way, feel free. But the courts have been running for almost 300 years now, and the reasons for permits like this stands to have an orderly society. You can scream your head off that "it's illegal", but to me you sound like a kid saying "its not fair".

Ah, but buying that gun in Illinois *wouldn't be* if you had all the states honoring each other's licenses. No state would be allowed to tack on "blue laws" of any kind. Just like they can't make you take a Class 2 or motorcycle exam with your car driver's test today. Or make you wait until you are over 18. As long as you're of majority age, you have your rights. And before you bring it up, yes, I agree that the drinking age should be 18, the age you're allowed to vote.

Like I said, they are providing for a common defense. Unless you can explicitly document how it's illegal, you're blowing smoke. The people are paying for a common defense. They *are* doing it. Or do you run your own Electoral College and Tax Collection too? :)
For that matter, read Article II, Section 8 again:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy; "
--They're saying they can't pay for a military expenditure more than 2 years in advance! It means that Congress can't tax today to build a huge army over a period of many years.

And are the soldiery are not of the people?

Nice, but pointless. The Federalist Papers papers are not law. I can quote the Bible or John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" at you, but it doesn't have any more or less weight than the Federalist Papers. Personally, I feel that about half of the ideas of the FP are great for wrapping fish.

Rights do NOT have "no contols" on them!
You have the rights enumerated in the Constitution IN AS MUCH as it promotes the general welfare.
If you falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre, it is NOT free speech!
If you print a falsehood against someone, it is NOT freedom of the press!
It follows that a licensing system for possessing firearms similar as used for cars, boats, planes, assembly and so on would not be a "control" on rights. If anything, it would streamline the current polyglot of state controls into a simple workable system. I'd call that a well regulated militia!

Really? Then why can't I carry my pistol in Massachusettes? Or New York? It already *is* regulated by the states. I'm forwarding the idea that it should be less so, NOT more so!

No, you do not. I got my driver's license and my firearms license on my own volition. I had to apply to a state agency to get them, but that is an application for a right, not asking someone for permission to have it. There is a difference. Or would you condone people not needing to get drivers licenses? Or pilot's licenses?

If you want to live your life that way, feel free. But the courts have been running for almost 300 years now, and the reasons for permits like this stands to have an orderly society. You can scream your head off that "it's illegal", but to me you sound like a kid saying "its not fair".


Here's the rub--due to all the legislation in this country, I CAN'T live free--people keep supporting new and different controls on my life.

Just because they got away with all the controlling regulation, doesn't make it any more acceptable or right.

In any case, I'll still take someone who's at least partially for the freedom to bear arms than some of the others on this board.


Ah, but buying that gun in Illinois *wouldn't be* if you had all the states honoring each other's licenses. No state would be allowed to tack on "blue laws" of any kind. Just like they can't make you take a Class 2 or motorcycle exam with your car driver's test today. Or make you wait until you are over 18. As long as you're of majority age, you have your rights. And before you bring it up, yes, I agree that the drinking age should be 18, the age you're allowed to vote.


So, you're saying you'd use a federal statement of rights to enforce all the states to accept more centralized controls? That's what I'm hearing. And that's also fairly unacceptable to me. Rights have no controls on them, how many times do I have to say it?


Like I said, they are providing for a common defense. Unless you can explicitly document how it's illegal, you're blowing smoke. The people are paying for a common defense. They *are* doing it. Or do you run your own Electoral College and Tax Collection too? :)


The people are being forced to pay for the expense.


For that matter, read Article II, Section 8 again:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy; "
--They're saying they can't pay for a military expenditure more than 2 years in advance! It means that Congress can't tax today to build a huge army over a period of many years.


Okay, when the invasion of Iraq hits the two year mark, the president has to stop asking for money to support it. Either way, the military is done.


And are the soldiery are not of the people?


Technically, no. They lose a great many rights in the military, and end up not having citizen status. They have a different legal system, different court system, etc.


Nice, but pointless. The Federalist Papers papers are not law. I can quote the Bible or John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" at you, but it doesn't have any more or less weight than the Federalist Papers. Personally, I feel that about half of the ideas of the FP are great for wrapping fish.


And yet, those papers are the very tools required to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. And the constitution does state that if it's not mentioned in it, the federal government can't do it. Standing military not addressed in the constitution you say (either way)? Well then, guess what? A standing military is illegal then.


Rights do NOT have "no contols" on them!


You're absolutely right. Our communication gap is dealing with the fact that you won't admit that licensing is a control.


You have the rights enumerated in the Constitution IN AS MUCH as it promotes the general welfare.


Actually, no. You have the rights enumerated in the contstitution in as much as it promotes the individual's welfare. The whole point of a federal republic over a democracy is in the protection of individuals over mob-rule.


If you falsely yell fire in a crowded theatre, it is NOT free speech!
If you print a falsehood against someone, it is NOT freedom of the press!
It follows that a licensing system for possessing firearms similar as used for cars, boats, planes, assembly and so on would not be a "control" on rights. If anything, it would streamline the current polyglot of state controls into a simple workable system. I'd call that a well regulated militia!


Except where do you have to have a license to publish a document? Where do you have to have a license to talk? Nowhere. Your analogies aren't accurate.


Really? Then why can't I carry my pistol in Massachusettes? Or New York? It already *is* regulated by the states. I'm forwarding the idea that it should be less so, NOT more so!


I know--but you still want to control others. That's where I have the problem. You still want limits on a supposedly unlimited, uncontrolled right. You're not adding up.


No, you do not. I got my driver's license and my firearms license on my own volition. I had to apply to a state agency to get them, but that is an application for a right, not asking someone for permission to have it. There is a difference. Or would you condone people not needing to get drivers licenses? Or pilot's licenses?

You ARE asking permission (you're filling out a form and asking the state to review it, and if it's to their satisfaction, you can have your permit), and the state is "granting" you a right. That's not how rights work by your own definition.

I condone not controlling people until they actually do something that they have to take responsibility for--THEN someone can intervene. This pre-emptive stuff just doesn't work. It's a lot like invading another country that hasn't actually attacked you yet.

I condone not controlling people until they actually do something that they have to take responsibility for--THEN someone can intervene. This pre-emptive stuff just doesn't work. It's a lot like invading another country that hasn't actually attacked you yet.

And the NRA would never condone that, right?

And the NRA would never condone that, right?

It doesn't matter what the NRA condones or doesn't. The NRA compromises as well, on our rights. Just because I have firearms and support the ownership of firearms doesn't mean I agree with everything a large organization like the NRA says or does. Hell, they want me to vote for Bush--something I'm not going to be doing, come November.

Nice assumption.

Here's the rub--due to all the legislation in this country, I CAN'T live free--people keep supporting new and different controls on my life.

Just because they got away with all the controlling regulation, doesn't make it any more acceptable or right.

In any case, I'll still take someone who's at least partially for the freedom to bear arms than some of the others on this board..

Sure you can. You just can't live to the exclusion and possible harm to others. :)

I disagree here -- when you have more people than you can pack into a town hall, you need laws that provide for accountability.

Thanks, but I'm not partially for the Second Amendment. I'm 100% for it.
What I'm against is local laws forming a hodge-podge of ordanaces. (See story at the bottom of the page, please.) If you truely dislike such legislation, you should be *for* a nationwide state-license honoring system, which grants far more freedom.


So, you're saying you'd use a federal statement of rights to enforce all the states to accept more centralized controls? That's what I'm hearing. And that's also fairly unacceptable to me. Rights have no controls on them, how many times do I have to say it?


Why not? It's already done with countless other laws. And it is *not* more centralized. All that it is that the states honor each other's licenses, and that the licenses must be granted along the same prerequisites as a driver's license. (That, and the no felons/mentally unstable).
And how many times do I have to say that it is NOT a control? It seems we are at an impasse here.


The people are being forced to pay for the expense.


They're being forced to pay for welfare, the space program and everything else, too.


Okay, when the invasion of Iraq hits the two year mark, the president has to stop asking for money to support it. Either way, the military is done.


You're missing my point. The interpretation is that congress may not tax heavily on a set year (say, 2000) and then spend the money more than 2 years out. It keeps overtaxation in check, not the right for the military to exist.


Technically, no. They lose a great many rights in the military, and end up not having citizen status. They have a different legal system, different court system, etc.


Technically doesn't cut it. You must be a citizen to vote, and members for the Armed Forces may. Citizenship is NOT revoked (unlike if you serve in a foreign/hostile military). They may do anything a normal citizen can which does not interfere with their military service.


And yet, those papers are the very tools required to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. And the constitution does state that if it's not mentioned in it, the federal government can't do it. Standing military not addressed in the constitution you say (either way)? Well then, guess what? A standing military is illegal then.


Nope, not in my mind. They're just leftovers from another age to me, just like Magna Carta.
True, it does. And narrow-readers and broad-readers have been disputing the passages since it was written. :)
Please see above for my interpretation. It's not illegal.


You're absolutely right. Our communication gap is dealing with the fact that you won't admit that licensing is a control.


Thanks. And you don't see that by reading the Constitution a little more broadly, you'd gain more than you'd think you'd lose.


Actually, no. You have the rights enumerated in the contstitution in as much as it promotes the individual's welfare. The whole point of a federal republic over a democracy is in the protection of individuals over mob-rule.


I have to disagree again. It's "We The People in order to form a more perfect union", not "We the People, in order to preserve our own liberties above all." I do agree with you about the mob rule, but it is not a free trump card over everything else.


Except where do you have to have a license to publish a document? Where do you have to have a license to talk? Nowhere. Your analogies aren't accurate.

Sure they are. Though you need no license to publish, you do need to be able to uphold it as non-slanderous. Likewise, you're free to speak your mind (as long as you do so in a peacable manner), but NOT to the detriment of others. I note that you're debate is with actual pieces of paper, and not with my actual points. Are you stating that printing slander or being a public nuisance should be legal?


I know--but you still want to control others. That's where I have the problem. You still want limits on a supposedly unlimited, uncontrolled right. You're not adding up.


I do *not* want to control others. You seem to have an issue with this. What I propose is NOT a limitation! It does add up. Or do driver's licenses make no sense to you either?


You ARE asking permission (you're filling out a form and asking the state to review it, and if it's to their satisfaction, you can have your permit), and the state is "granting" you a right. That's not how rights work by your own definition.


It exactly is. The state does not have a right of refusal provided that I fit the minimum requirements for licensing. QED. They are granting a license, but I still have my right to bear arms. What the license allows for is uniform acceptance of licensed individuals across the USA. This is already being done with police officers, as I am sure you are aware.
You're not applying for a right, you're CLAIMING your right, just as you do if you get a permit for a demonstration, rally, gathering, etc. Or publish a (non-slanderous) article in a newspaper. Or register to vote.


I condone not controlling people until they actually do something that they have to take responsibility for--THEN someone can intervene. This pre-emptive stuff just doesn't work. It's a lot like invading another country that hasn't actually attacked you yet.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Everyone whom wishes to be licensed will be provided they fulfill the minimal requirements. If you don't want to be licensed, fine. But then you might not freely pass over state lines with firearms if those states choose to enact legislation stating such.

Pre emptive? There is nothing pre emptive here. It's just a way to make sure the 2nd Amendment is available to ALL.
Until recently, my state (CT) didn't have state firearms licenses. There was one (true) story about a guy that waited *two years* for a local carry permit because a certain Police Chief didn't like him. This would make sure that abuses like this never happen again.

I'm dealing with reality here. While I wouldn't mind if it *was* 1806 and we didn't have a huge population with massively differing opinions and decades of legal decisions. But the fact is that the large a society is, the more complex it becomes.
Ipso facto, I stand for the least intrusion for the maximal benefit for all.

Technically doesn't cut it. You must be a citizen to vote, and members for the Armed Forces may. Citizenship is NOT revoked (unlike if you serve in a foreign/hostile military). They may do anything a normal citizen can which does not interfere with their military service.


Technically does indeed cut it--that's how laws are interpreted. You no longer have all the rights that a US citizen has when you enter military service. Citizenship is not revoked, but their rights are severly limited. You said it yourself--they can do anything a normal citizen can which does not interfere with their military service. That means they are soldier first, and citizen second.


Nope, not in my mind. They're just leftovers from another age to me, just like Magna Carta.
True, it does. And narrow-readers and broad-readers have been disputing the passages since it was written. :)
Please see above for my interpretation. It's not illegal.


You're right, we're at an impasse.


I have to disagree again. It's "We The People in order to form a more perfect union", not "We the People, in order to preserve our own liberties above all." I do agree with you about the mob rule, but it is not a free trump card over everything else.


You still have to use the Federalist Papers to interpret the meaning behind everything in the constitution. You're putting your own interpretation in--that doesn't work.


Sure they are. Though you need no license to publish, you do need to be able to uphold it as non-slanderous. Likewise, you're free to speak your mind (as long as you do so in a peacable manner), but NOT to the detriment of others. I note that you're debate is with actual pieces of paper, and not with my actual points. Are you stating that printing slander or being a public nuisance should be legal?


No, I'm stating that you have to have been found to have done the illegal act AFTER it has been committed, otherwise, you are free to do anything else. Licensing is pre-emptive control. The two methods you're espousing are completely different. I don't have a problem with having muder with a gun be totally illegal. Laws against attacking someone cover attacking with a gun. You don't have to license typewriters or laptops, or for concealablility's sake, a PDA, to write a book, right? But if you have slander or libel in those books that you publish, you can be prosecuted.

We need to go after the action with the tools, not the tools themselves.


I do *not* want to control others. You seem to have an issue with this. What I propose is NOT a limitation! It does add up. Or do driver's licenses make no sense to you either?


Bingo. I'm for punishing the offender after they have committed the act. If someone doesn't want to get training on how to drive (we did have driving before licenses existed), and runs into someone else, they have to be held accountable. But the pre-emptive, subjective review of people is not a logical solution.


It exactly is. The state does not have a right of refusal provided that I fit the minimum requirements for licensing. QED. They are granting a license, but I still have my right to bear arms. What the license allows for is uniform acceptance of licensed individuals across the USA.


Allows for? Rights don't have limitations on them, right? So, if there are no limitations, how can there be allowances, if people can already can exercise their rights, since they have no limited right in the first place?

Seriously, how do you add that logic up? I'm honestly trying to understand--not to disparage.


This is already being done with police officers, as I am sure you are aware.
You're not applying for a right, you're CLAIMING your right, just as you do if you get a permit for a demonstration, rally, gathering, etc. Or publish a (non-slanderous) article in a newspaper. Or register to vote.


So, you're saying that by me being forced to go to a government building, during their listed hours, to claim my right is not a limitation or control. I thought rights were inherent. Inherent, to me, means I don't have to do anything involving the government to exercise the right.


I agree. Everyone whom wishes to be licensed will be provided they fulfill the minimal requirements. If you don't want to be licensed, fine. But then you might not freely pass over state lines with firearms if those states choose to enact legislation stating such.


Once again, breaking the 2nd Amendment.


Pre emptive? There is nothing pre emptive here. It's just a way to make sure the 2nd Amendment is available to ALL.


By your very definition of a right, it already IS available to all. Because rights can't be regulated or infringed in any way.


Until recently, my state (CT) didn't have state firearms licenses. There was one (true) story about a guy that waited *two years* for a local carry permit because a certain Police Chief didn't like him. This would make sure that abuses like this never happen again.


Going to a system like Vermont's (one of the two states that actually follow the 2nd Amendment) would do the trick as well.


I'm dealing with reality here. While I wouldn't mind if it *was* 1806 and we didn't have a huge population with massively differing opinions and decades of legal decisions. But the fact is that the large a society is, the more complex it becomes.
Ipso facto, I stand for the least intrusion for the maximal benefit for all.

See, it's that last principle that you and I share that keeps me in this conversation. There are just a few things that separate our opinions.

I do *not* want to control others. You seem to have an issue with this. What I propose is NOT a limitation! It does add up. Or do driver's licenses make no sense to you either?

Driving (& Marriage) are privileges given to a citizen by the individual state. The right to bear arms is just that, a federal right. The understanding is that no government entity can interfere with a right while privileges may be revokes/changed at any time. This is also why we have hunting licenses: hunting isn't a guaranteed right, but possessing a firearm (for now) is.

On another note, I REALLY like the new forums. Heck, this thread would have crashed the old server from last spring.

Driving (& Marriage) are privileges given to a citizen by the individual state. The right to bear arms is just that, a federal right. The understanding is that no government entity can interfere with a right while privileges may be revokes/changed at any time. This is also why we have hunting licenses: hunting isn't a guaranteed right, but possessing a firearm (for now) is.

On another note, I REALLY like the new forums. Heck, this thread would have crashed the old server from last spring.

you probably haven't read the whole thread:
All I'm arguing for is having all state firearms licenses be valid in all states, just like driver's licenses. That's **all**. I am not arguing that everyone need to be licensed, or anything else.

Zaxon (for his own reasons) takes exception to the very idea of state licenses, even though they exist and are a legal reality.

you probably haven't read the whole thread:
All I'm arguing for is having all state firearms licenses be valid in all states, just like driver's licenses. That's **all**. I am not arguing that everyone need to be licensed, or anything else.

Zaxon (for his own reasons) takes exception to the very idea of state licenses, even though they exist and are a legal reality.
Abortion exists, and is a legal reality.
Capital punishment exists and is a legal reality.
That doesn't mean one can't have an opinion as to whether something is right or wrong.

It is believed by some (myself included) that the right to bear arms is a human right and is supposed to be protected by the government. It is not something that is granted by the government.

Abortion exists, and is a legal reality.
Capital punishment exists and is a legal reality.
That doesn't mean one can't have an opinion as to whether something is right or wrong.

It is believed by some (myself included) that the right to bear arms is a human right and is supposed to be protected by the government. It is not something that is granted by the government.

Should the government also protect the rights of those who wish to bear nail-clippers on airplanes?

Should the government also protect the rights of those who wish to bear nail-clippers on airplanes?
I don't believe that there exists a right to nail-clippers.

I'm from Canada...
:(

I don't believe that there exists a right to nail-clippers.

Look again...It says it shall not be infringed.

Look again...It says it shall not be infringed.
Nail clippers are not arms. They can do damage tho. Box cutters are not arms, they can do damage tho.
If you are asking me whether or not guns should be allowed on planes... I will take the 5th amendment on that one.
If you are asking me whether or not guns should be allowed on school campuses... in the hands of a responsible adult, yes. I think more of those "rampant" school shootings would have been prevented or the damage minimized if responsible teachers had been exorcising their rights and been armed.

Technically does indeed cut it--that's how laws are interpreted. You no longer have all the rights that a US citizen has when you enter military service. Citizenship is not revoked, but their rights are severly limited. You said it yourself--they can do anything a normal citizen can which does not interfere with their military service. That means they are soldier first, and citizen second.

You're right, we're at an impasse.

Yes, I said it -- they are STILL citizens, unlike what you previously posted!
Ayep. :)


You still have to use the Federalist Papers to interpret the meaning behind everything in the constitution. You're putting your own interpretation in--that doesn't work.


No... I don't. If you feel you must, that's your perogative. My own interpretation doesn't work? Are you kidding? *What* do you think every trial lawyer does when he presents a case? There are a myriad of Constitutional interpretations out there by the Supreme Court, Circuits, etc. The Federalist Papers, while a fine pre-Constitutional writing, is not the final arbiter you seem to think it is.


No, I'm stating that you have to have been found to have done the illegal act AFTER it has been committed, otherwise, you are free to do anything else. Licensing is pre-emptive control. The two methods you're espousing are completely different. I don't have a problem with having muder with a gun be totally illegal. Laws against attacking someone cover attacking with a gun. You don't have to license typewriters or laptops, or for concealablility's sake, a PDA, to write a book, right? But if you have slander or libel in those books that you publish, you can be prosecuted.

We need to go after the action with the tools, not the tools themselves.


So I should be able to drive without having any knowledge of the rules of the road? Or fly a jet without any instruction?
Your viewpoint is not workable in that it allows a "right" without any oversight, unlike every other Amendment! Likewise, you'd do away with all licensing. The whole point behind licensing is to show society that you abide by law and show a minimum proficiency in whatever you are doing. In my mind, an 18 year old with a Buick and no instruction and an 18 year old with a .38 and no instruction are equally dangerous. A short class, passing a written test, and getting your picture taken are not eggregious, nor are they detriments to you being able to utilize your rights.

I do see your point, but none of the things you listed can kill someone. You can't kill someone with a PDA. But you can with a car, boat, plane, etc, and you need licenses for all of those.

Further, if you do a crime with technology it can be barred to you. Ever hear of Keven Mitnick? He was barred from using a computer to make a living after his parole! (I forget how many years that's for.) So after the crime, you limit access to the tools, which I think we're both fine with.



Bingo. I'm for punishing the offender after they have committed the act. If someone doesn't want to get training on how to drive (we did have driving before licenses existed), and runs into someone else, they have to be held accountable. But the pre-emptive, subjective review of people is not a logical solution.


So you're for no drivers licenses. Great.
I'd hold that it is logical to keep as many people alive as possible, given a minimum set of requirements.



Allows for? Rights don't have limitations on them, right? So, if there are no limitations, how can there be allowances, if people can already can exercise their rights, since they have no limited right in the first place?


Rights don't have limitations on them provided they do not interfere with the rights of another. That's why you'd go to jail for giving car keys to a drunk person and they hit someone -- reckless or depraved indifference. You're taking away another's rights.


Seriously, how do you add that logic up? I'm honestly trying to understand--not to disparage.


Because getting the license is VOLUNTARY. As I've said nth times before, local laws would still apply to locals, *unless* they had one of these licenses which would allow a "standard" set of restrictions/freedoms from state to state.
Example: You can get a driver's license in NM at 14. It transfers to a license in other states.
Example 2: You have a NYC learner's permit. You can't drive after dark, nor outside of whatever geographic boundries it lists.
Right now, the US's firearms laws are local/state and lean waaaay more towards example 2 than 1. By having a more uniform code, we get more rights.
Should you decide to take that state license, you're not "conceding" your right to be "limited" in your second amendment rights. But you ARE claiming your Second Amendment rights in a legal fashion, just like when you vote, etc.


So, you're saying that by me being forced to go to a government building, during their listed hours, to claim my right is not a limitation or control. I thought rights were inherent. Inherent, to me, means I don't have to do anything involving the government to exercise the right.


Yes. It is not a control, it is a PROCESS. Same as you report for Jury Duty, Vote, file a request to protest, etc. You're CLAIMING and USING your rights, you are not asking for permission.
Rights are inherent, IN AS MUCH as they are not used to the detriment of others/society. Again I use the "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" or the "printing libel" examples. You have your rights, but your rights do have limitations based on your interaction with the public and the possibility that you using your rights may take away the rights of another.


Once again, breaking the 2nd Amendment.


Once again, keeping the 2nd Amendment *according to my reading of it*. You can claim your reading is the only right one. You can claim that Michael Jackson is normal, too. :)
All Amendements are open to interpretation, and the 2nd is no exception.


By your very definition of a right, it already IS available to all. Because rights can't be regulated or infringed in any way.

*Except* that they are when they're used in society. (All the same examples, again).


Going to a system like Vermont's (one of the two states that actually follow the 2nd Amendment) would do the trick as well.


Vermont's system is quite liberal in respect to firearms, yes. But who honors a VT license, if you have one? Alaska.
That's the whole problem: there needs to be a unified system (which, IMHO, should be 18 years of age and not crazy/a felon) that all states will follow.
Odds are it'd be much easier to get a "national average" than to get all states to go to "the VT/Alaska standard". Especially very restrictive states such as MA...
By the same token, I believe that once licensed, a person should be able to have any firearm they want, just like they can have any car they want.


See, it's that last principle that you and I share that keeps me in this conversation. There are just a few things that separate our opinions.

The way I see it, we pretty much agree on the 2nd Amendment totally. What we disagree on is the application of law in general. :)

Nail clippers are not arms. They can do damage tho. Box cutters are not arms, they can do damage tho.
If you are asking me whether or not guns should be allowed on planes... I will take the 5th amendment on that one.
If you are asking me whether or not guns should be allowed on school campuses... in the hands of a responsible adult, yes. I think more of those "rampant" school shootings would have been prevented or the damage minimized if responsible teachers had been exorcising their rights and been armed.

So, AK's are ok? Nail-clippers aren't?

Where I come from, handguns and automatics are illegal, and they are really strict about rifles and shotguns.

No school shootings here, ever...

Abortion exists, and is a legal reality.
Capital punishment exists and is a legal reality.
That doesn't mean one can't have an opinion as to whether something is right or wrong.

It is believed by some (myself included) that the right to bear arms is a human right and is supposed to be protected by the government. It is not something that is granted by the government.

I never said you couldn't. :)

Please see my/Zaxon's rebuttals, I'm not about to repost is all again (no offense intended!)

I will say, however, that it IS granted by the governement, at least in the US, in that the gov't is the people and it is in the Constitutions as Amd.2.

That said, I am not for limiting the 2nd Amd in any way.

Driving (& Marriage) are privileges given to a citizen by the individual state. The right to bear arms is just that, a federal right. The understanding is that no government entity can interfere with a right while privileges may be revokes/changed at any time. This is also why we have hunting licenses: hunting isn't a guaranteed right, but possessing a firearm (for now) is.

See, this is the crappy thing about those three topics in particular. They weren't always regulated. The state "took" them away. Marriage should never have been touched, due to Amendment number one.

you probably haven't read the whole thread:
All I'm arguing for is having all state firearms licenses be valid in all states, just like driver's licenses. That's **all**. I am not arguing that everyone need to be licensed, or anything else.

Zaxon (for his own reasons) takes exception to the very idea of state licenses, even though they exist and are a legal reality.

Yup, that's pretty much it. We nitpick. :D

Should the government also protect the rights of those who wish to bear nail-clippers on airplanes?

Are nailclippers arms? Or are they a tool primarily used for one things and used as a weapon in the oddest of circumstances?

Either way, no, the government shouldn't be monkeying with those, either. I would love to be able to carry a firearm on a plane.

Yes, I said it -- they are STILL citizens, unlike what you previously posted!
Ayep. :)


Actually, I was trying to say that they were treated as less than citizens, due to all the restrictions on them.


No... I don't. If you feel you must, that's your perogative. My own interpretation doesn't work? Are you kidding? *What* do you think every trial lawyer does when he presents a case? There are a myriad of Constitutional interpretations out there by the Supreme Court, Circuits, etc. The Federalist Papers, while a fine pre-Constitutional writing, is not the final arbiter you seem to think it is.


When one is trying to interpret the meaning behind the writings of the constitution, you don't think that the expanded statements of the actual writers of the document matter? The Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution as the original framers meant it to be--not what current vernacular or perceptions determine. You are interpreting the meaning and intent behind the constitution. What the framers meant--not what you or some other lawyer thinks.


So I should be able to drive without having any knowledge of the rules of the road? Or fly a jet without any instruction?
Your viewpoint is not workable in that it allows a "right" without any oversight, unlike every other Amendment! Likewise, you'd do away with all licensing. The whole point behind licensing is to show society that you abide by law and show a minimum proficiency in whatever you are doing. In my mind, an 18 year old with a Buick and no instruction and an 18 year old with a .38 and no instruction are equally dangerous. A short class, passing a written test, and getting your picture taken are not eggregious, nor are they detriments to you being able to utilize your rights.


Not many people attempt to fly a plane without some sort of instruction. I know a lot of parents that instruct their kids on how to shoot. In Wisconsin, you take a test--there is no mandatory "instruction".

That test, that class, and that picture cost me money and time. That sounds like infringement to me. So, it cannot apply to a firearm. Like was stated before, driving isn't in the constitution anywhere, so I can't really say that way.


I do see your point, but none of the things you listed can kill someone. You can't kill someone with a PDA. But you can with a car, boat, plane, etc, and you need licenses for all of those.

Further, if you do a crime with technology it can be barred to you. Ever hear of Keven Mitnick? He was barred from using a computer to make a living after his parole! (I forget how many years that's for.) So after the crime, you limit access to the tools, which I think we're both fine with.


Yup, we're both in agreement for the after the crime bit.


So you're for no drivers licenses. Great.
I'd hold that it is logical to keep as many people alive as possible, given a minimum set of requirements.


And you can have your opinion, certainly.


Rights don't have limitations on them provided they do not interfere with the rights of another. That's why you'd go to jail for giving car keys to a drunk person and they hit someone -- reckless or depraved indifference. You're taking away another's rights.


Yup. That reference happened after they did something. Again, we're in agreement on that.


Because getting the license is VOLUNTARY. As I've said nth times before, local laws would still apply to locals, *unless* they had one of these licenses which would allow a "standard" set of restrictions/freedoms from state to state.
Example: You can get a driver's license in NM at 14. It transfers to a license in other states.
Example 2: You have a NYC learner's permit. You can't drive after dark, nor outside of whatever geographic boundries it lists.
Right now, the US's firearms laws are local/state and lean waaaay more towards example 2 than 1. By having a more uniform code, we get more rights.
Should you decide to take that state license, you're not "conceding" your right to be "limited" in your second amendment rights. But you ARE claiming your Second Amendment rights in a legal fashion, just like when you vote, etc.


Local law still can't override the constitution, so that point is moot (more to the point, those laws are illegal as well). States aren't supposed to be regulating firearms, either.


Yes. It is not a control, it is a PROCESS. Same as you report for Jury Duty, Vote, file a request to protest, etc. You're CLAIMING and USING your rights, you are not asking for permission.


So, when Boston set up the protest zone for the Democratic convention, I'm guessing that the people protesting would rather have been at the steps of the convention itself. Yet they filed the permit, and they STILL couldn't exercise their right. It IS permission. If I have to ask someone, it is an infringement on any right that it applies to.


Rights are inherent, IN AS MUCH as they are not used to the detriment of others/society. Again I use the "yelling fire in the crowded theatre" or the "printing libel" examples. You have your rights, but your rights do have limitations based on your interaction with the public and the possibility that you using your rights may take away the rights of another.


You got it. So, how does me having a firearm without any sort of license infringe upon anyone else, if I'm not using it against them? That's the issue that has to be proven. You have to prove that by mere possession of the item causes an infringement before you can regulate it in any fashion.


Once again, keeping the 2nd Amendment *according to my reading of it*. You can claim your reading is the only right one. You can claim that Michael Jackson is normal, too. :)
All Amendements are open to interpretation, and the 2nd is no exception.


You have to take it in the context that it was written. And the verbiage used doesn't limit ownership of any arm whatsoever.


Vermont's system is quite liberal in respect to firearms, yes. But who honors a VT license, if you have one? Alaska.


There is no license for VT. You don't have to do anything to exercise your right.


The way I see it, we pretty much agree on the 2nd Amendment totally. What we disagree on is the application of law in general. :)

We agree that we should all be able to have firearms, yeah. I would still say we're stuck on a few key words, though. :cool:

Are nailclippers arms? Or are they a tool primarily used for one things and used as a weapon in the oddest of circumstances?

Either way, no, the government shouldn't be monkeying with those, either. I would love to be able to carry a firearm on a plane.

Alot of people would love to be able to carry a firearm on a plane...

Yes, I said it -- they are STILL citizens, unlike what you previously posted!
Ayep. :)

Actually, Zaxon is right. Your country can't ask its citizens to give their lives, but it can ask that of your soldiers.

I suppose it could be argued that they are "citizens with conditions", but since they do lose some of their rights, I'd say being a soldier replaces being a citizen. <shrugs>

Actually, Zaxon is right. Your country can't ask its citizens to give their lives, but it can ask that of your soldiers.

I suppose it could be argued that they are "citizens with conditions", but since they do lose some of their rights, I'd say being a soldier replaces being a citizen. <shrugs>

Yes, but folks in the military have enlisted to be paid (there has been no draft in my lifetime, and I'm over 30). Further, the nation never asks you to give your life, it's an on the job hazard. So that arguement doesn't have much traction with me.
Just like if I should invent that anti-gravity belt, my Fortune 10 employer OWNS it. Terms of employment are just that.
BTW, in this 9/11 age, I would posit that American citizens are just as endangered as soldiers (unless in a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan). Heck, I suspect that a Marine in Japan is *safer* than plain citizens working here in NYC.

If you're a soldier, you're still a citizen. Period. You may have different rules to live by, so that's true if you work for the FBI or even a major corporation. (Ie: I can't carry a gun into my office building and still be in accordance with corporate rules.)

Yes, but folks in the military have enlisted to be paid (there has been no draft in my lifetime, and I'm over 30). Further, the nation never asks you to give your life, it's an on the job hazard. So that arguement doesn't have much traction with me.

It seems to me there was a draft going on for Vietnam, and you're old enough to be been alive during then. :P

Just like if I should invent that anti-gravity belt, my Fortune 10 employer OWNS it. Terms of employment are just that.

That said, your Fortune 10 employer can't ask you to give your life, as that contravenes your constitutional rights of "Life and Liberty". But you can ask such of a soldier.

BTW, in this 9/11 age, I would posit that American citizens are just as endangered as soldiers (unless in a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan). Heck, I suspect that a Marine in Japan is *safer* than plain citizens working here in NYC.

At the risk of pissing off all the United Statesians in this thread, you've had exactly oneterrorist attack from outside on your country. What do you base your posit on that people there are in danger? When you look at the current total of one attack divided by the age of the country, that sounds like a heck of a safe place to be.

If you're a soldier, you're still a citizen. Period. You may have different rules to live by, so that's true if you work for the FBI or even a major corporation. (Ie: I can't carry a gun into my office building and still be in accordance with corporate rules.)

See it your way. I suggest you ask a soldier or two for their opinion, though. Or if they still have such things, your local recruiter. Soldiers are exceptions to the rules.

Zaxon, it sounds very much to me that you wish America was an anarchist nation:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism

"Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained."

"Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. The details of the political, economic, and social organization of an anarchist society vary among different branches of anarchist political thought, as do the proposed means to achieve a society organized along those lines. However, there are certain principles shared by all anarchists, most notably the basic principle of non-hierarchy (in an anarchist society there cannot be any kind of social hierarchy) and its derivatives, such as the principle of equal decision-making power (all people must have equal decision-making power in an anarchist society; if some have more power than others, then a hierarchy is formed)."

Would I be correct to assume this?

Actually, I was trying to say that they were treated as less than citizens, due to all the restrictions on them.

Then say that. But while they have restrictions, they’re still citizens! :)


When one is trying to interpret the meaning behind the writings of the constitution, you don't think that the expanded statements of the actual writers of the document matter? The Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution as the original framers meant it to be--not what current vernacular or perceptions determine. You are interpreting the meaning and intent behind the constitution. What the framers meant--not what you or some other lawyer thinks.


Nope. Because the FP is *not* from the actual writers. It’s from SOME of them, which is good, but I doubt that the reps from Georgia have been consulted. How about George Mason of Virginia, for that matter?
The Supreme Court does *not* do that. They interpret the issues of TODAY based on the their Constitutionality, which is quite a different thing!
And yes, current vernacular and perceptions play a role. They have to: the court is made up of (elderly, but still) human beings, and the lawyers are the same.
Yes, yes I am. That's my right, and it's yours too. In fact, you're doing it right now by having this debate in the first place!! :)
The framers are dead, and left these rules to live by. They could no more see into the future 300 years than you or I . The Constitution is APPLIED, not dogmatically done by rote like some novena... even if we could agree on how to read it. Neither you nor anyone else is in any position to say definitively what they meant. Further, have you ever changed your mind about something? I do, and I know they did!
The Constitution is a living document. It has to be, as it can still be Amended.


Not many people attempt to fly a plane without some sort of instruction. I know a lot of parents that instruct their kids on how to shoot. In Wisconsin, you take a test--there is no mandatory "instruction".


Substitute a gun for a plane. It doesn't matter what the device is. That’s exactly my point. And that’s fine. So if the kid can sit down, take a paper test and shoot (say) 50 rounds and hit the target 50% of the time, he gets a license. (I'm not using real numbers here, I don't know what "passing" should be, obviously.
Don't want a license? Fine, don't get one. But don't break any local laws which apply to you if you're not licensed. For example, a Vermonter in NYC with a handgun goes to jail. Not so if we had a state licensing system that was agreed to by all 50 states.


That test, that class, and that picture cost me money and time. That sounds like infringement to me. So, it cannot apply to a firearm. Like was stated before, driving isn't in the constitution anywhere, so I can't really say that way.


So am I to assume that your driving test and license were just handed to you gratis at birth? Having to spend money is not an infringement on a right. This is why bail can be set on your freedom, though you are still presumed innocent. Heck, the 7th Amendment actually *states* a financial sum!

Obviously, it DOES apply to the firearm. No, cars on not in the Constitution. **Neither are guns.**
The exact phrase is arms. Did the founders mean swords? Pikes? Cannons?
It's unclear (and some have made the arguement) that the founders didn't mean modern firearms.
While I disagree with those people, I think this is our divergence point: You automatically allow "arms" to mean "guns", and that "license" means "infringement". Both are leaps. They're logical and make sense. But they're not necessarily right, or wholy right. Or they might even be wrong. We simply don't know exactly unless we could somehow *ask* the founders.


Local law still can't override the constitution, so that point is moot (more to the point, those laws are illegal as well). States aren't supposed to be regulating firearms, either.


Agreed.
But they’re not illegal, as they’re not overriding the Constitution.
Ditto for the states – they *do* have the right to do so. Specifically, I'd cite the 10th Amendment -- in as much that the states may legislate firearms as long as they do not infringe the right to bear arms.
For example, I agree with my state (CT) that guns should not be allowed to be carried in schools for any reason.
In essence, the 2nd Amendment is as important to all the others. But it does not trump all the others.


So, when Boston set up the protest zone for the Democratic convention, I'm guessing that the people protesting would rather have been at the steps of the convention itself. Yet they filed the permit, and they STILL couldn't exercise their right. It IS permission. If I have to ask someone, it is an infringement on any right that it applies to.


I’m with you on that one. There is no reason that the protesters in both Boston and NYC shouldn’t have been allowed to protest within earshot of the venues (say, within 20 yards of the doors).
It isn’t permission in my mind, but it is claiming your rights.


You got it. So, how does me having a firearm without any sort of license infringe upon anyone else, if I'm not using it against them? That's the issue that has to be proven. You have to prove that by mere possession of the item causes an infringement before you can regulate it in any fashion.


Flat out, it doesn’t. I'm not saying that you need to have the license to have a gun. I'm saying that these licenses should exist so that we can carry our guns all across the nation.
Point: Suppose (for whatever reason) there WAS a need for a militia in (pick a state). Right now, odds are we'd have to break the law to get there to come to that state's aid, unless local and state ordnances were waived.

The point here is that the license system is a way to codify local/state laws into a compressible whole, like the traffic laws. Sure, you can take a left on red in Michigan. Or learn to drive at 14 in NM. But all traffic signs are 8 sided and red. And nowhere in the USA do traffic lights "count down" as they do in some European nations.


You have to take it in the context that it was written. And the verbiage used doesn't limit ownership of any arm whatsoever.


Exactly. High capacity clips and full autos should never have been banned.
Though I am still opposed to the three sided bayonet.


There is no license for VT. You don't have to do anything to exercise your right.


Yes. But the Vermonter can’t do so outside his state. Thus my whole argument for the (optional) licenses.


We agree that we should all be able to have firearms, yeah. I would still say we're stuck on a few key words, though. :cool:

Ayep. It's all in the interpretation.
PS- This is easily one of the best threads I've ever been a part of.

Zaxon, it sounds very much to me that you wish America was an anarchist nation:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism

"Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained."

"Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. The details of the political, economic, and social organization of an anarchist society vary among different branches of anarchist political thought, as do the proposed means to achieve a society organized along those lines. However, there are certain principles shared by all anarchists, most notably the basic principle of non-hierarchy (in an anarchist society there cannot be any kind of social hierarchy) and its derivatives, such as the principle of equal decision-making power (all people must have equal decision-making power in an anarchist society; if some have more power than others, then a hierarchy is formed)."

Would I be correct to assume this?

I don't think he wants Anarchy, but I suspect he'd like to live in 1813. :)

Why shouldn't they? For what purpose other than crime would someone need a semi-automatic?

It seems to me there was a draft going on for Vietnam, and you're old enough to be been alive during then. :P

That said, your Fortune 10 employer can't ask you to give your life, as that contravenes your constitutional rights of "Life and Liberty". But you can ask such of a soldier.

At the risk of pissing off all the United Statesians in this thread, you've had exactly oneterrorist attack from outside on your country. What do you base your posit on that people there are in danger? When you look at the current total of one attack divided by the age of the country, that sounds like a heck of a safe place to be.

See it your way. I suggest you ask a soldier or two for their opinion, though. Or if they still have such things, your local recruiter. Soldiers are exceptions to the rules.

Sorry, but no. I was born after 29 March 1973.

Nor can my nation. No soldier can be ordered onto a suicide mission, etc.

It was 4 attacks in a day (2 in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania too, remember?).
We've been attacked at the WTC in 93. The USS Cole. The Embassy bombings. It's OBVIOUS that Americans are targets. And let's face it, New York is basically the capital of the planet.

I don't have to ask.

Slight change of pace. On the "Kerry owning an assault rifle" thing..

Kerry does not own a Chinese assault rifle . According to a NY Times article, the answers were written for Kerry, in the first person, by campaign aides. So, either the campaign lied to Outdoor Life when it replied to their questionnaire, or it is lying to us now because Kerry didn't realize what an impact a truthful answer would have. Either way, the lies are flying.

Here's the quote from "Outdoor Life":
My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam. I don?t own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle.

Why shouldn't they? For what purpose other than crime would someone need a semi-automatic?

What a semi automatic is? You pull the trigger, a bullet is expended. ONE. That's it.

Sorry, but no. I was born after 29 March 1973.

Nor can my nation. No soldier can be ordered onto a suicide mission, etc.

It was 4 attacks in a day (2 in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania too, remember?).
We've been attacked at the WTC in 93. The USS Cole. The Embassy bombings. It's OBVIOUS that Americans are targets. And let's face it, New York is basically the capital of the planet.

I don't have to ask.

According to the Illinois State Police, Illinois has become a priority target according to "chatter" and other info I'm not privy to. Apparently there are "several" LP trucks as well as Semi's that have gone missing.

Zaxon, it sounds very much to me that you wish America was an anarchist nation:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anarchism

"Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends "anarchy" to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained."

"Anarchist theories have a fundamental critique of government, a vision of a society without government, and a proposed method of reaching such a society. The details of the political, economic, and social organization of an anarchist society vary among different branches of anarchist political thought, as do the proposed means to achieve a society organized along those lines. However, there are certain principles shared by all anarchists, most notably the basic principle of non-hierarchy (in an anarchist society there cannot be any kind of social hierarchy) and its derivatives, such as the principle of equal decision-making power (all people must have equal decision-making power in an anarchist society; if some have more power than others, then a hierarchy is formed)."

Would I be correct to assume this?


Just shy. I'm a Libertarian. I still want a very small government.

<snip>
Ayep. It's all in the interpretation.
PS- This is easily one of the best threads I've ever been a part of.

Ditto. However, since neither of us is gaining any ground on the other (don't know if we're affecting anyone else with our discussion, though), I'm just going to respectfully disagree with ya on our terminology and interpretation and leave it at that.

;)

Sorry, but no. I was born after 29 March 1973.

Okay okay, but you get the idea.

Nor can my nation. No soldier can be ordered onto a suicide mission, etc.

Sure they can. They can refuse, of course, and take it to tribunal.

Sending people overseas into hostile regions with people actively trying to kill you isn't something they could do to their citizens.

It was 4 attacks in a day (2 in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania too, remember?).

How can you call that four separate attacks, but still then refer to "D-Day"? Lots of separate attacks involved in that too. One action.

Yes, I know you didn't say D-Day once, but people refer to it as an overarching label. So I yanked it out of midair. ;)

We've been attacked at the WTC in 93. The USS Cole. The Embassy bombings. It's OBVIOUS that Americans are targets. And let's face it, New York is basically the capital of the planet.

lol @ capital of the planet. That opinion aside, I said how many times AMERICA has been attacked. While you might choose to consider a warship part of America... it wasn't in American territory. It was in someone else's backyard.

And, for that matter, how could you have a "terrorist" attack of a military target? Do you expect people to put on uniforms and openly march in formation with inferior equipment before being cut down?

As for the embassy bombings, those are places in other countries too. Just because here in Canada we protest US actions by hugging the consulate doesn't mean the rest of the world has to as well. I think Zaxon's position of "pull our stuff back and see to our own borders first" isn't the worst thing I've ever heard.

I don't have to ask.

Why not? Are you a soldier?

According to the Illinois State Police, Illinois has become a priority target according to "chatter" and other info I'm not privy to. Apparently there are "several" LP trucks as well as Semi's that have gone missing.

You know, ever since you guys instituted that coloured alert system, it seems that every time I flip on the US news there's something like "officials warn that they have information that ______ is under threat from [nebulous sources]".

But for the past three years, nothing's happened. So where is all of this creditable information coming from? How are all of these things threats?

Personally, I don't think your country is in any more danger than it was ten years ago.

Of course, I don't have an entire intelligence community with proof of Iraqi WMDs. ;)

You know, ever since you guys instituted that coloured alert system, it seems that every time I flip on the US news there's something like "officials warn that they have information that ______ is under threat from [nebulous sources]".

But for the past three years, nothing's happened. So where is all of this creditable information coming from? How are all of these things threats?

Personally, I don't think your country is in any more danger than it was ten years ago.

Of course, I don't have an entire intelligence community with proof of Iraqi WMDs. ;)

The alert system is stupid, I agree.

LP (Liquid Propane) trucks have gone missing over the last few months locally however. I work w/ a local company and have talked to the guys that had theirs stolen. One of the guys at my company was followed for miles. When he (lp driver) stopped and walked towards the car, it turned quickly and took off.

Things like that worry me.

The alert system is stupid, I agree.

LP (Liquid Propane) trucks have gone missing over the last few months locally however. I work w/ a local company and have talked to the guys that had theirs stolen. One of the guys at my company was followed for miles. When he (lp driver) stopped and walked towards the car, it turned quickly and took off.

Things like that worry me.

Fair enough. But... couldn't it just be a case of someone stealing something that can turn them a profit?

Up here, we have thieves that target something for a while too. Last I heard, it was beer trucks. Although after they got an unsellable shipment, I think the stopped. lol

Sorry, but no. I was born after 29 March 1973.

Nor can my nation. No soldier can be ordered onto a suicide mission, etc.

It was 4 attacks in a day (2 in NYC, DC and Pennsylvania too, remember?).
We've been attacked at the WTC in 93. The USS Cole. The Embassy bombings. It's OBVIOUS that Americans are targets. And let's face it, New York is basically the capital of the planet.

I don't have to ask.

Yes, soldiers can be ordered on to a "suicide" mission. Charging into a machine gun nest. Attempting to disarm a land mine or IED. Going behind enemy lines for surveilance or sabotague missions. Onto the beach heads at Normandy.

Fair enough. But... couldn't it just be a case of someone stealing something that can turn them a profit?

Up here, we have thieves that target something for a while too. Last I heard, it was beer trucks. Although after they got an unsellable shipment, I think the stopped. lol

I hope so. The problem is Propane is strictly watched by the authorities after 9/11 and it's only about a buck a gallon. It would be like stealing a chemical truck and trying to sell it. I sincerely hope it's just some REALLY stupid criminals or somebody playing a tasteless prank. Needless to say the cops and IPDA are tweaked over it. Something like that could make a BIG bang.

I hope so. The problem is Propane is strictly watched by the authorities after 9/11 and it's only about a buck a gallon. It would be like stealing a chemical truck and trying to sell it. I sincerely hope it's just some REALLY stupid criminals or somebody playing a tasteless prank. Needless to say the cops and IPDA are tweaked over it. Something like that could make a BIG bang.

You could fill up people's home tanks for cheap too. Happens all the time.

I don't mean to negate it if you're worried, but I'm not. Driving a propane truck around is pretty obvious.

Okay okay, but you get the idea.

Sure they can. They can refuse, of course, and take it to tribunal.

Sending people overseas into hostile regions with people actively trying to kill you isn't something they could do to their citizens.

How can you call that four separate attacks, but still then refer to "D-Day"? Lots of separate attacks involved in that too. One action.

Yes, I know you didn't say D-Day once, but people refer to it as an overarching label. So I yanked it out of midair. ;)

We've been attacked at the WTC in 93. The USS Cole. The Embassy bombings. It's OBVIOUS that Americans are targets. And let's face it, New York is basically the capital of the planet.

lol @ capital of the planet. That opinion aside, I said how many times AMERICA has been attacked. While you might choose to consider a warship part of America... it wasn't in American territory. It was in someone else's backyard.

And, for that matter, how could you have a "terrorist" attack of a military target? Do you expect people to put on uniforms and openly march in formation with inferior equipment before being cut down?

As for the embassy bombings, those are places in other countries too. Just because here in Canada we protest US actions by hugging the consulate doesn't mean the rest of the world has to as well. I think Zaxon's position of "pull our stuff back and see to our own borders first" isn't the worst thing I've ever heard.

Why not? Are you a soldier?

Point still is that there hasn't been a draft in my lifetime and Judge Rhenquist has always been on the Supreme Court.

Yep. But they can refuse the order.

But they *are*, as soldiers are citizens. (We've done this dance before).

D-Day? Exactly... The four 9/11 attacks hit 3 seperate targets. D-Day was a massive (many pronged) attack on one target, namely Normandy. On 9/11, the Pentagon target was seperate though coordinated. It was almost certainly aimed at a target on the Mall but had misadventure, either by "bad" navigation or a fight in the cockpit. We all know what happend in PA.

Hey, can you name any other city that eclipses NYC? By anyone's standards, New York is the pre-eminent city on Earth right now in the way London was in the 1800s, Paris was in the early 1900s, Rome was back in the day...

Any US Embassy is American soil. Any American warship is a piece of America, as is any commerical ship flying US colors. Cf, the law of the sea. Any attack on an American vessel is an attack on America.

Works for me! :)
Seriously though, by definition, that's what it is -- we are not fighting another nation's army here.

Isolationism never works. Didn't work for the Ancient Chinese, didn't work for the Romans, didn't work for the British, and didn't work for the US before WW1 or WW2.

I cannot confirm nor deny that.

Yes, soldiers can be ordered on to a "suicide" mission. Charging into a machine gun nest. Attempting to disarm a land mine or IED. Going behind enemy lines for surveilance or sabotague missions. Onto the beach heads at Normandy.

None of those examples are suicide missions. They all may succeed given a soldier's training and equipment. This is not to say that any of those would be easy.

Ditto. However, since neither of us is gaining any ground on the other (don't know if we're affecting anyone else with our discussion, though), I'm just going to respectfully disagree with ya on our terminology and interpretation and leave it at that.

;)

Thanks for a great debate.

Point still is that there hasn't been a draft in my lifetime and Judge Rhenquist has always been on the Supreme Court.

Yep. But they can refuse the order.

But they *are*, as soldiers are citizens. (We've done this dance before).

Have it your way. Soldiers have certain of their rights suspended while they're in service. Nobody else can have that done to them. In court cases down there (your country, I mean), it seems to me that you can't even choose to waive an inherent right.

D-Day? Exactly... The four 9/11 attacks hit 3 seperate targets. D-Day was a massive (many pronged) attack on one target, namely Normandy. On 9/11, the Pentagon target was seperate though coordinated. It was almost certainly aimed at a target on the Mall but had misadventure, either by "bad" navigation or a fight in the cockpit. We all know what happend in PA.

First of all, all of the evidence points to something much smaller hitting the Pentagon than a commercial airliner.

Second of all, although there's lots of speculation about the destination of the flight that went down in PA, nobody knows where it was going.

And... D-Day attacked German installations at various points, in the area of Normandy. Separate coordinated attacks in Operation Overlord. But that's just semantics.

Hey, can you name any other city that eclipses NYC? By anyone's standards, New York is the pre-eminent city on Earth right now in the way London was in the 1800s, Paris was in the early 1900s, Rome was back in the day...

Sure, what criteria would you like it eclipsed by? Population? Personal wealth of inhabitants? Physical area? Pollution index? What?

Paris was a center for learning, culture, and above all - diplomacy in its time. So it's remembered for that.

Rome was the capital of the emperors of the empire. Where an emperor is, the wealth and power flows to. If one had picked up and moved to another place, the wealth and power would have followed him.

There is no such person in New York.

Any US Embassy is American soil. Any American warship is a piece of America, as is any commerical ship flying US colors. Cf, the law of the sea. Any attack on an American vessel is an attack on America.

That's America asserting dominance in places it doesn't belong again. Consider that a US carrier battlegroup effectively controls the area around it for a couple of thousand kilometers. If the edge of that sphere of control overlaps into someone's country, aren't you by definition invading it?

Seriously though, by definition, that's what it is -- we are not fighting another nation's army here.

Now listen to me, and listen to me good.

I'm a Canadian. We have a military of about 55000 people. Not all of those are combat soldiers. If the US decided to invade us, we'd be crushed if we tried to meet you straight on. You have greater numbers, better equipment, and tend to flatten things from a distance.

That means that those of us who survive that onslaught would be the ones that have to convince you that it's not worth you being here. Since attacking military targets would be suicide with small numbers or improvised equipment, other ways have to be used.

All of those soldiers you've got sitting in Canada aren't sitting around our shared border, so I slip across to one of your many defenseless elementary schools.

"Hey guys! Why don't you go home and leave us alone? In return, this school full of kids won't be touched."

Pretty despicable, eh? But with an inferior force, what do you expect? Honorable duels?

Call it terrorism if you want, although I think the word is much abused. Call it guerrila tactics.

Isolationism never works. Didn't work for the Ancient Chinese, didn't work for the Romans, didn't work for the British, and didn't work for the US before WW1 or WW2.

I wasn't talking about isolationism. I was talking about seeing to your own borders and problems before going out and causing worse ones by forcing your (American foreign policy) on others. I notice that you don't typically have Japanese soldiers stationed in the US to guard their Toyota plants, for instance.

And while we're talking about things to try, try not meddling in the politics of other countries. You wouldn't stand for it happening to you, so leave Central and South America alone. You've had your fun. Other countries too. Let them go communist, let them practice customs you personally find abhorrent. Leave your borders open and provide free transportation to those people in other places that genuinely want to leave their societies, if it bothers you so much.

Show people a better way by example, not by blasting them into ash then then saying "Now they can have democracy!".

You (again, collectively America) haven't convinced me that Canada should go your way, so what hope do you have to convince people from more distant cultures? And if you have to kill so many people (and those aren't all soldiers, pal) to have things your way, do you think that maybe it's time to find a better way?

I don't remember you being around earlier in this thread when I was posting rampantly, but don't take any of this as an attack. I don't dislike you, or your country. Well, maybe the foreign policy part of it... :P

Just my uncouth posting style. :)

That will make everything better. Everything will be okay again. Headphones.

According to the Illinois State Police, Illinois has become a priority target according to "chatter" and other info I'm not privy to. Apparently there are "several" LP trucks as well as Semi's that have gone missing.

Great. And with the nice job Chicago and the State Police are doing with disarming the public any way they can....I really hope the intelligence work is getting a LOT better than it was three years ago.

Thanks for a great debate.

Thank you as well!

I just don't have the energy I used to (not a twenty-something anymore!)--so I'm going to save it for someone who wants the same or more controls as we have today. I'm not going to continue to blow any more energy on those that want fewer controls, regardless of semantics or scope.

Have it your way. Soldiers have certain of their rights suspended while they're in service. Nobody else can have that done to them. In court cases down there (your country, I mean), it seems to me that you can't even choose to waive an inherent right.

First of all, all of the evidence points to something much smaller hitting the Pentagon than a commercial airliner.

Second of all, although there's lots of speculation about the destination of the flight that went down in PA, nobody knows where it was going.

And... D-Day attacked German installations at various points, in the area of Normandy. Separate coordinated attacks in Operation Overlord. But that's just semantics.

Sure, what criteria would you like it eclipsed by? Population? Personal wealth of inhabitants? Physical area? Pollution index? What?

Paris was a center for learning, culture, and above all - diplomacy in its time. So it's remembered for that.

Rome was the capital of the emperors of the empire. Where an emperor is, the wealth and power flows to. If one had picked up and moved to another place, the wealth and power would have followed him.

There is no such person in New York.

That's America asserting dominance in places it doesn't belong again. Consider that a US carrier battlegroup effectively controls the area around it for a couple of thousand kilometers. If the edge of that sphere of control overlaps into someone's country, aren't you by definition invading it?

Now listen to me, and listen to me good.

I'm a Canadian. We have a military of about 55000 people. Not all of those are combat soldiers. If the US decided to invade us, we'd be crushed if we tried to meet you straight on. You have greater numbers, better equipment, and tend to flatten things from a distance.

That means that those of us who survive that onslaught would be the ones that have to convince you that it's not worth you being here. Since attacking military targets would be suicide with small numbers or improvised equipment, other ways have to be used.

All of those soldiers you've got sitting in Canada aren't sitting around our shared border, so I slip across to one of your many defenseless elementary schools.

"Hey guys! Why don't you go home and leave us alone? In return, this school full of kids won't be touched."

Pretty despicable, eh? But with an inferior force, what do you expect? Honorable duels?

Call it terrorism if you want, although I think the word is much abused. Call it guerrila tactics.

I wasn't talking about isolationism. I was talking about seeing to your own borders and problems before going out and causing worse ones by forcing your (American foreign policy) on others. I notice that you don't typically have Japanese soldiers stationed in the US to guard their Toyota plants, for instance.

And while we're talking about things to try, try not meddling in the politics of other countries. You wouldn't stand for it happening to you, so leave Central and South America alone. You've had your fun. Other countries too. Let them go communist, let them practice customs you personally find abhorrent. Leave your borders open and provide free transportation to those people in other places that genuinely want to leave their societies, if it bothers you so much.

Show people a better way by example, not by blasting them into ash then then saying "Now they can have democracy!".

You (again, collectively America) haven't convinced me that Canada should go your way, so what hope do you have to convince people from more distant cultures? And if you have to kill so many people (and those aren't all soldiers, pal) to have things your way, do you think that maybe it's time to find a better way?

I don't remember you being around earlier in this thread when I was posting rampantly, but don't take any of this as an attack. I don't dislike you, or your country. Well, maybe the foreign policy part of it... :P

Just my uncouth posting style. :)

Sure, others can and do lose their rights. Felons and traitors for example.

Are you SHITTING me?!? Dude, it was an *airliner*. Next you'll be telling me that Hitler didn't have death camps! Or that the whole thing was orchastrated by Zionists and that all Jews were warned not be be in the WTC on 11 September. Gimme a break. We *know* all four hijacked flight numbers and recoved the black boxes from all of them.

False. The plane's black box has yielded that the plane was going to go for DC.

Which is why I wondered why you made the comparison in the first place.
A better example for your point of view would have been a bombing raid (multiple planes, multiple targets, one attack). D-Day was multiple armies, but really only one target: Normandy.)
And as an American, I thank your grandfather's generation of Canadian soldiers for being in the fight to preserve democracy and Western Civilization.

Exactly. I think NYC would win a plurality against any other city in all of those facets. (combined) :)
There may be larger (Mexico City), there may be (variable, whatever), but no city on Earth has as much of everything as NYC. (Note that in some cases, this is not always a good thing.)

Yes... REMEMBERED. Paris hasn't led the world in anything since the fall of the 3rd French Republic. NYC is presently the city the whole world looks to.

Exactly. Which is why Constantinople was what it was for a thousand years. I'm glad we agree.

There are dozens if not hundreds of such people in NYC.

Um, no. Be definition, if the ship *enters* another nation's territorial waters without permission, that'd be invasion.
As for where America belongs, why is it that when we do nothing, people suffer and we're criticized (Sarajevo (before we got involved), Rwanda, East Timor) and when we do something we're criticized (Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti)? I'm sick of this "two-way bash America" street. If the UN would get off it's ass, we wouldn't HAVE to be the world's policeman. Further, it's not a role we really want.

That's because no one is trying to blow up those Toyota plants.
Suppose you're an Iraqi and want to go to work. How can you do so if you can't leave the house because you *will* be shot?

>>"Now listen to me, and listen to me good."
I'll listen to you, but I wish you had something to say.
Fine, kill the kids. But don't get indignant when we turn Ottowa into a resemblance to the face of the moon with a few 15,000 lb bombs.
No army expects an inferior force to fight and die stupidly like in some bad movie. But to target children will win you no friends.

Guerrila tactics do *not* target innocents. Guerrilas strive to keep the good will of the people in order to keep the popular revolt moving along. Terrorism is a different animal, and one which fits here and this example.
So if (by your example) that Russian school was a valid target, I find that this mode of thinking is unacceptable and must be destroyed, just as the militant Muslims want to destroy our ways of thought.

No, violence isn't an answer. However, when attacked we will defend ourselves. Further, if you really believe that Iraq would be "fine" had the US left it alone, I'd implore you to read the UN reports on Iraq from 1991-present.
Inaction is no answer either. Or do you like what's happening in Sudan? (Please pick up this week's issue of TIME magazine to see what I mean.)

You're certainly allowed to have your opinions about what US foreign policy should be. However, you have gone *far* off the topic of Gun Control.

I don't take any of this personally, that'd be foolish. :)

Are you SHITTING me?!? Dude, it was an *airliner*. Next you'll be telling me that Hitler didn't have death camps! Or that the whole thing was orchastrated by Zionists and that all Jews were warned not be be in the WTC on 11 September. Gimme a break. We *know* all four hijacked flight numbers and recoved the black boxes from all of them.

You look at the photos, and the damage is wrong compared to what a fuel-laden airliner ought to have done. You look at the cameras from the car dealership, the gas station, and the gates to the pentagon along what the flight plan would have to be, and you see no plane. I've seen a fairly creditable argument that it was something smaller and faster that hit the pentagon.

False. The plane's black box has yielded that the plane was going to go for DC.

Er, but it never made it to DC. There's nothing saying that those in charge couldn't have changed course off of whatever the last heading was before they arrived at whatever their target was.

Yes... REMEMBERED. Paris hasn't led the world in anything since the fall of the 3rd French Republic. NYC is presently the city the whole world looks to.

Looks to for what? I'm not sure what you're ra-ra about New York for, exactly.

Um, no. Be definition, if the ship *enters* another nation's territorial waters without permission, that'd be invasion.

By definition. How about by practicality? When you come into the area surrounding a carrier (and lots of other warships of course) you get warned off. If the area that a carrier claims around itself is bigger than the entrance to a harbour, despite it being in international waters, what then? Again, to use a local example, steam a carrier up the west coast towards Vancouver. Park it in international waters but such that the area of influence/effect stretches from the mainland across to Vancouver Island. Now how does shipping proceed as usual?

Fortunately, our countries have a fairly good relationship, but now change the location to the Red Sea, or some such.

As for where America belongs, why is it that when we do nothing, people suffer and we're criticized (Sarajevo (before we got involved), Rwanda, East Timor) and when we do something we're criticized (Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti)? I'm sick of this "two-way bash America" street. If the UN would get off it's ass, we wouldn't HAVE to be the world's policeman. Further, it's not a role we really want.

Do you want me to answer? The world doesn't appreciate being bombed. It also doesn't like unilateral action. We sent troops to Sarajevo too - no fallout. Same with Rwanda, but of course we had fallout because one of our airborne groups behaved horribly. So we permanently disbanded it.

That's the other thing, we punish our troops when they act like assholes in other people's backyards. You guys don't seem to. And in fact refused to sign on to the idea that you or your soldiers could be tried internationally for war crimes. Most of the rest of us (countries that tend to do policing/relief actions) did. Why didn't you?

Afghanistan probably wasn't handled as well as it should have, but we contributed because of the horrible thing that happened to you, and that it looked like it came from Afghanistan. However, bombing tents and villages, dropping bomblets, shooting up weddings and the Red Cross (I actually have a friend who was working in one of the Red Cross stations when you guys bombed it), and even having Canadian troops bombed doesn't exactly paint the picture of a country/military that knows what the hell it's doing.

Iraq... the way I remember what they were saying in the news at first was that Saddam was building up WMD, and there was incontrivertable proof. Despite all the inspectors (including the US ones that were there at the time) saying there was nothing. Despite the UN ones that said there was nothing.

But, for some reason, the US ignored the rest of the world and tossed thousands of cruise missiles at the capital citiy for a couple of days, then started bombing. All the time, swearing that this was because of the "clear and present" danger of Saddam's WMD. I don't remember hearing anything about "relieving the people of Iraq from Saddam's rule" until well after your troops were already there and no traces of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons were found. Except for that small cache of chemical-tipped artillery shells they eventually found, but they dated back to the 80's and looked like they hadn't been touched since then.

And while I know that there are people in Iraq that will be happy to not have Saddam and his regime in charge, there doesn't seem to be a lot of faith that whatever replaces it will be better. And with so many critical aspects of infrastructure that were destroyed when you invaded, life for the average person there is harder rather than better. This based on the local Iraqis I know here who have family still back there.

This went long, but you did why you get criticised regardless of what you do. It's the manner in which you do them, and the resultant life for the people there afterwards that gets you all the bad press.

That's because no one is trying to blow up those Toyota plants.
Suppose you're an Iraqi and want to go to work. How can you do so if you can't leave the house because you *will* be shot?

That didn't seem to be what was happening before you invaded, from what I understand. Note that currently if you're going to work and don't submit to the invading soldiers, you do get shot. How do you suppose THAT looks to people?

I'll listen to you, but I wish you had something to say.

No need to be nasty.

Fine, kill the kids. But don't get indignant when we turn Ottowa into a resemblance to the face of the moon with a few 15,000 lb bombs.
No army expects an inferior force to fight and die stupidly like in some bad movie. But to target children will win you no friends.

The idea isn't to win friends, dude. The idea was to make Canada an unpalatable place for you to occupy, in that example. Showing that you had more to lose by staying than by leaving.

Guerrila tactics do *not* target innocents. Guerrilas strive to keep the good will of the people in order to keep the popular revolt moving along. Terrorism is a different animal, and one which fits here and this example.
So if (by your example) that Russian school was a valid target, I find that this mode of thinking is unacceptable and must be destroyed, just as the militant Muslims want to destroy our ways of thought.

I don't believe there's anything in the definition of guerrilla that says they don't attack innocents, just that they fight a stronger force by sabotage and harassment.

Note also that to people from non-democratic cultures, it could be argued that anybody able to vote isn't an innocent, since they had a say in who is in charge. That would make any American a viable target, from that point of view.

No, violence isn't an answer. However, when attacked we will defend ourselves. Further, if you really believe that Iraq would be "fine" had the US left it alone, I'd implore you to read the UN reports on Iraq from 1991-present.

Er, did Iraq attack you? I wasn't aware of that. Could you provide some links or something?

As for Iraq being fine with the US leaving it alone, I'm not sure what you're refering to either. You'd already established the no-fly zones (those weren't UN-sanctioned, iirc), and that ridiculous "oil for food" program was in effect. So which aspect(s) of Iraq are you talking about specifically?

And what was forecasted if/when you went in: New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28intel.html?ex=1097035200&amp;en=ee40d8d9c4429e9c&amp;ei=5053&amp;partner=NYTHEADLINES_INTL) and CNN article of the same thing (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/cia.bush/index.html).

Inaction is no answer either. Or do you like what's happening in Sudan? (Please pick up this week's issue of TIME magazine to see what I mean.)

No need to be smarmy, I read too. No, I don't like it. We're already building up our groups to send there. I haven't heard of anything similar from your country. What's being sent?

You're certainly allowed to have your opinions about what US foreign policy should be. However, you have gone *far* off the topic of Gun Control.

Actually, I was just continuing along with the discussion you and Zaxon were having about soldiers being/not being citizens. All of the rest of this came from replying to other examples introduced. Most of my responses came from pages 20-100 or so in the thread. :P

I don't take any of this personally, that'd be foolish. :)

Atta boy. :)

Funny question about the carriers.

Have YOU ever been warned off by a carrier.

and since when does a carrier battlegroup ever try to enter a harbour at once. Jesus christ man. They might all get in. but a battlegroup is spread out over miles. But they would condence go in one at a time, and in a foreign harbor follow orders from that Harbor's Harbor control. A carrier battlegroup doesn't interdict shipping unless, its there to blockade something.

My source, One of my cousins served on a Supply ship that resupplied at sea Carriers and another Cousin is currently serving on the U.S.S. Enterprise.


where are your sources?

Have YOU ever been warned off by a carrier.

No, I live on land. :)

and since when does a carrier battlegroup ever try to enter a harbour at once. Jesus christ man. They might all get in. but a battlegroup is spread out over miles. But they would condence go in one at a time, and in a foreign harbor follow orders from that Harbor's Harbor control. A carrier battlegroup doesn't interdict shipping unless, its there to blockade something.

I wasn't talking about entering a harbour. When I invented (and that's what they were, not actual events that have happened) the examples you're quoting, I was refering to the huge area-of-dominance that carrier battle groups have. And it was the edge of that that I suggested cutting off a harbour or a straight or whatever. You know, the imaginary circle 500 or so kilometers away from the carrier itself.

My source, One of my cousins served on a Supply ship that resupplied at sea Carriers and another Cousin is currently serving on the U.S.S. Enterprise.

where are your sources?

The only fact I gave was that such groups control an area around them. To the point that they warn other traffic away from them. I'm not sure of the actual distance. I don't have an actual source for it, since I'm sure the distance is variable based on the conditions of the area / threat assessment at the time.

And based on that, I was suggesting that having such an area overlap into another's country could be arguable considered an invasion, especially if the demands to identify or exit the controlled space are enforced. That was all.

No, I live on land. :)



I wasn't talking about entering a harbour. When I invented (and that's what they were, not actual events that have happened) the examples you're quoting, I was refering to the huge area-of-dominance that carrier battle groups have. And it was the edge of that that I suggested cutting off a harbour or a straight or whatever. You know, the imaginary circle 500 or so kilometers away from the carrier itself.



The only fact I gave was that such groups control an area around them. To the point that they warn other traffic away from them. I'm not sure of the actual distance. I don't have an actual source for it, since I'm sure the distance is variable based on the conditions of the area / threat assessment at the time.

And based on that, I was suggesting that having such an area overlap into another's country could be arguable considered an invasion, especially if the demands to identify or exit the controlled space are enforced. That was all.
You're both right. A carrier battle group has a sphere of influence of several hundred miles in diameter. That being said however, a carrier needs substantial room to maneuver just to be able to launch and recover planes.
Plus, the US Navy, makes a point of keeping sea lanes open, not closing them (embargos not withstanding).
My source is 6 years aboard the USS Enterprise and 5 years aboard the USS Carl Vinson and 20 years total in the Navy.

But, what really does this have to do with whether or not government has the right to ban semi-automatic shotguns?

You're both right. A carrier battle group has a sphere of influence of several hundred miles in diameter. That being said however, a carrier needs substantial room to maneuver just to be able to launch and recover planes.

Yeah, but I'm more right. :P Nice to see you again, TheOneRule. :)

Plus, the US Navy, makes a point of keeping sea lanes open, not closing them (embargos not withstanding).

Keeps them open except when they don't? lol

You have to admit, such a thing is pretty menacing. Who else even has aircraft carriers anymore?

My source is 6 years aboard the USS Enterprise and 5 years aboard the USS Carl Vinson and 20 years total in the Navy.

Fair enough. I don't think we were really arguing about carrier groups anyway. I was just inventing something, and he was responding to something else. Probably my fault.

Did you get a lot of jokes about "the nucwear wessel" when you told people you were aboard the Enterprise? :)

But, what really does this have to do with whether or not government has the right to ban semi-automatic shotguns?

Not a thing - it was an unusually far flung tangent launched via steam catapult. :P

So, in an effort to return to the topic at hand, no I don't think they should ban them. Regulate the hell out of who has access to them, sure. And encourage people not to shoot each other with them, absolutely.

Yeah, but I'm more right. :P Nice to see you again, TheOneRule. :)



Keeps them open except when they don't? lol

You have to admit, such a thing is pretty menacing. Who else even has aircraft carriers anymore?



.
off the top of my head
Britain
France
Thailand
India
Russia
Spain
I think Italy as well

off the top of my head
Britain
France
Thailand
India
Russia
Spain
I think Italy as well

I looked it up. You're totally right, except you forgot Brasil.

Also, China has a Soviet-era one, but they don't seem to operate it. Speculation seems to indicate that they're just using it to learn about carrier operations for a possible future Chinese carrier.

I should add that when I originally said "who even has carriers anymore?", I was thinking of fleet and super carriers. That'll teach me to speak before considering. :P

[QUOTE=Zaxon]
So, when Boston set up the protest zone for the Democratic convention, I'm guessing that the people protesting would rather have been at the steps of the convention itself. Yet they filed the permit, and they STILL couldn't exercise their right. It IS permission. If I have to ask someone, it is an infringement on any right that it applies to.[QUOTE]

Their RIGHT to "free speech" were not violated. They were not asking permission to speak, they are getting a permit to speak in a public place. You have the right to "free speech" but you do not have the right to infringe on someone else's right (ie. libel, bring false witness). You are not allowed to trespass to deliver your speech. Violate someone else's right and you may be punished. Responsiblity comes with freedom - unless you are a Liberal then of course it is never your fault.

Are we required to get a license to speak? NO, but some people want everyone to have a license to have a gun. Why the double standard when they are both our right.

Are we required to get a license to speak? NO, but some people want everyone to have a license to have a gun. Why the double standard when they are both our right.

Because of the difference in consequences of misuse.

Regardless of the severity of someone's breath, they can't kill you with their words or contrary opinion. And the right to free speech was really about being able to voice something against the government and its' practices, at least initially. So you can be a jerk and mouth off all you like. No harm, no foul. Libel/slander somebody, and there are consequences and compensation given to the victim.

However, when some yahoo with a grudge and limited reasoning capacity cuts someone down with the gun that he was apparently entitled to, all the compensation in the world doesn't do anything for the dead victim. Irreversable consequences.

All rights are not created equal, after all. And they are created. No reason to think they're inherent or immutable.

Besides, I'd rather have someone shoot their mouth off at me than than shooting their gun off at me. Wouldn't you? :-P

Yeah, but I'm more right. :P Nice to see you again, TheOneRule. :)

Keeps them open except when they don't? lol

You have to admit, such a thing is pretty menacing. Who else even has aircraft carriers anymore?

Fair enough. I don't think we were really arguing about carrier groups anyway. I was just inventing something, and he was responding to something else. Probably my fault.

Did you get a lot of jokes about "the nucwear wessel" when you told people you were aboard the Enterprise? :)

Not a thing - it was an unusually far flung tangent launched via steam catapult. :P

So, in an effort to return to the topic at hand, no I don't think they should ban them. Regulate the hell out of who has access to them, sure. And encourage people not to shoot each other with them, absolutely.
You have no idea how many jokes of that type I heard.....
And the darn thing was they didnt even film the movie on it.... they filmed it on the Connie down in San Diego, not the Enterprise in Alameda.

Oh, on another side note.. I do miss our (somewhat ;) ) reasonable discussion we had what seems 50 or so pages ago. :D

You have no idea how many jokes of that type I heard.....
And the darn thing was they didnt even film the movie on it.... they filmed it on the Connie down in San Diego, not the Enterprise in Alameda.

Just as well - if the locals had noticed Spock and the rest hanging around the area, you never would have had any peace ashore. :P

Oh, on another side note.. I do miss our (somewhat ;) ) reasonable discussion we had what seems 50 or so pages ago. :D

lol

I shifted to graveyard work last week, and I was too tired to formulate reasonable replies as I adjusted my sleep. :P I did manage to read though, and it looks like the thread kept blessedly free of trolling flamers. :)

Today I got the following issue for the first time:

The Issue

This weekend, a citizen's group calling itself Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff has petitioned Congress with a controversial bill making gun ownership compulsory.

The Debate

1. "This is a very important step to securing the rights and lives of our families and controlling the government," urges noted gun ownership proponent Fleur Rifkin. "Not only would it significantly decrease crime, but it would also effectively stop government tyranny in its tracks. Of course, this also means that every wacko and their cousin will have a gun, but don't worry, you'll have a gun to defend yourself from them, so it will all work out."
[Accept]


2. "While the Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff have the safety and security of our people in mind, it would simply be impractical to enforce," comments Police Chief Hack Gutenberg. "A better option would be to legalize, and encourage use of, concealed carry laws, which would allow responsible citizens to keep firearms with them at all times, on their person, to kill any wacko or their cousin who they think is threatening them."
[Accept]


3. "Compulsory gun ownership?! Concealed carry?! Are these fools nuts?!" rants an enraged Million Mummy March activist. "We don't need any of these things! What we need is complete gun registration, so that the government can track down dangerous people, like those people who possess unregistered weapons."
[Accept]

Issue by The Federalist Great Proprietors of Tristam

Any thoughts?

None of those examples are suicide missions. They all may succeed given a soldier's training and equipment. This is not to say that any of those would be easy.

Question: If a commander sends men on a mission he knows will probably result in all of them being killed, even if they successfully complete the mission, is that a "suicide mission?"

Today I got the following issue for the first time:

The Issue

This weekend, a citizen's group calling itself Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff has petitioned Congress with a controversial bill making gun ownership compulsory.

The Debate

1. "This is a very important step to securing the rights and lives of our families and controlling the government," urges noted gun ownership proponent Fleur Rifkin. "Not only would it significantly decrease crime, but it would also effectively stop government tyranny in its tracks. Of course, this also means that every wacko and their cousin will have a gun, but don't worry, you'll have a gun to defend yourself from them, so it will all work out."
[Accept]


2. "While the Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff have the safety and security of our people in mind, it would simply be impractical to enforce," comments Police Chief Hack Gutenberg. "A better option would be to legalize, and encourage use of, concealed carry laws, which would allow responsible citizens to keep firearms with them at all times, on their person, to kill any wacko or their cousin who they think is threatening them."
[Accept]


3. "Compulsory gun ownership?! Concealed carry?! Are these fools nuts?!" rants an enraged Million Mummy March activist. "We don't need any of these things! What we need is complete gun registration, so that the government can track down dangerous people, like those people who possess unregistered weapons."
[Accept]

Issue by The Federalist Great Proprietors of Tristam

Any thoughts?

You might want to make the third option an outright ban on private ownership of guns. Just a thought.

You have no idea how many jokes of that type I heard.....
And the darn thing was they didnt even film the movie on it.... they filmed it on the Connie down in San Diego, not the Enterprise in Alameda.

Oh, on another side note.. I do miss our (somewhat ;) ) reasonable discussion we had what seems 50 or so pages ago. :D

Half right, it was the USS Ranger. Check the credits. I was on the Kitty Hawk for 4 yrs.

I thought I'd add this little thing I found in today's paper. Just because.

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/3768987/detail.html

I don't plan to post much here and I thought it was " :rolleyes: " worthy. Just my own little personal 'drive-by'.

Good day to you all.

Half right, it was the USS Ranger. Check the credits. I was on the Kitty Hawk for 4 yrs.
heh cool.. thanks for the correction.

I know we just spent our time grumbling that they said it was us, yet we could recognize Coronado when we saw it.

You have points. I would use something like that more for defending against the government type of thing, not your typical mugging or something like that.

You really won't find all that many using a fully-automatic rifle to defend their houses.

But that doesn't mean you can just will the rights away, nor are you justified in attempting to do so.

Ah, lets be honest, I really want to have such a nice little Assault rifle, but if I can just buy such a thing in a normal supermarket, other people can do that, too.

So its only a question of time until some idiots think, "If I can't buy booze, I'll buy myself a H&K G36 and rob the booze shop next to the supermarket". Of course thats dangerous and all, and eventually they will get caught and all that, but lets be honest: there ARE enough people who already did things like that, and they are still alive.

The shopkeeper of course will buy himself a a gun too, for self defense, but he can't be always fast or perceptive enough to get everyone of that nutty bastards. In consequence he will hire Armed security forces, the "other guys" will then get more dangerous weapons, thats like an arms race. After a while customers will get shot because they made to hasty movements...

and and.... Ah well, I guess you know what I want to say,

Ah, lets be honest, I really want to have such a nice little Assault rifle, but if I can just buy such a thing in a normal supermarket, other people can do that, too.

So its only a question of time until some idiots think, "If I can't buy booze, I'll buy myself a H&K G36 and rob the booze shop next to the supermarket". Of course thats dangerous and all, and eventually they will get caught and all that, but lets be honest: there ARE enough people who already did things like that, and they are still alive.

The shopkeeper of course will buy himself a a gun too, for self defense, but he can't be always fast or perceptive enough to get everyone of that nutty bastards. In consequence he will hire Armed security forces, the "other guys" will then get more dangerous weapons, thats like an arms race. After a while customers will get shot because they made to hasty movements...

and and.... Ah well, I guess you know what I want to say,

You want to say that it's a vicious cycle that spirals into a self-fulfilling prophecy? :)

There's a great scene near the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It helps if you've read the book and know what they're doing, since the whole scene is about three seconds long.

It's right after the protohumans have finished fighting and the camera focuses on the bone that has been used as a club. The scene then shifts to the future where you see earth from orbit and it pans past something vaguely bone-shaped. It's an orbital weapons platform pointing down at earth, showing that some things seem to be constant. I found it very poignant

I say to hell with that.

Even though we're still prisoners to our basic biology, we're not unthinking animals. We're able to exert control (to an extent) over our reproduction (and is there anything more fundemental to life than that?). Our feelings of territoriality too, since humans outside of our basic group are technically competitors. We've managed to make anonymity a default for a substantial bulk of the population, contrary to the usual.

So why can't we control the urge to kill each other? Whether it's in war, or because someone is in our house? Even more so, why would there be people who don't want to control this?

I respect some of the people that have taken the time and effort to try to explain the American way of looking at things, but it's still very hard follow sometimes.

Not that I'm saying you United Statesians are the only ones who kill each other, but it's mostly on the US we've focused. ;)

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange/3768987/detail.html

I don't plan to post much here and I thought it was " :rolleyes: " worthy. Just my own little personal 'drive-by'.


Colonel Sanders probably started with a big family too. ;)

You might want to make the third option an outright ban on private ownership of guns. Just a thought.

A good thought, but it wasn't my issue. It was just one of the ones that popped up when I signed into my country today.

I only posted it because it related to the thread. :)

Question: If a commander sends men on a mission he knows will probably result in all of them being killed, even if they successfully complete the mission, is that a "suicide mission?"

Of course.

You can't plan for luck or random chance. If it looks like there's going to be a high loss percentage and you send them anyway, the end result doesn't change that you sent them into a turkey shoot.

Their RIGHT to "free speech" were not violated. They were not asking permission to speak, they are getting a permit to speak in a public place. You have the right to "free speech" but you do not have the right to infringe on someone else's right (ie. libel, bring false witness). You are not allowed to trespass to deliver your speech. Violate someone else's right and you may be punished. Responsiblity comes with freedom - unless you are a Liberal then of course it is never your fault.

Are we required to get a license to speak? NO, but some people want everyone to have a license to have a gun. Why the double standard when they are both our right.

Okay, so their right to speak wasn't violated, but their right to assemble in a public place was very much regulated--that's covered in the first amendment, too, if I recall correctly.

I'm not for regulating much of anything--as past posts have supported. I don't want licenses for speaking, assembling, or firearms ownership and/or carrying.

Today I got the following issue for the first time:

The Issue

This weekend, a citizen's group calling itself Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff has petitioned Congress with a controversial bill making gun ownership compulsory.

The Debate

1. "This is a very important step to securing the rights and lives of our families and controlling the government," urges noted gun ownership proponent Fleur Rifkin. "Not only would it significantly decrease crime, but it would also effectively stop government tyranny in its tracks. Of course, this also means that every wacko and their cousin will have a gun, but don't worry, you'll have a gun to defend yourself from them, so it will all work out."
[Accept]


2. "While the Gun Owners of Really Wild Stuff have the safety and security of our people in mind, it would simply be impractical to enforce," comments Police Chief Hack Gutenberg. "A better option would be to legalize, and encourage use of, concealed carry laws, which would allow responsible citizens to keep firearms with them at all times, on their person, to kill any wacko or their cousin who they think is threatening them."
[Accept]


3. "Compulsory gun ownership?! Concealed carry?! Are these fools nuts?!" rants an enraged Million Mummy March activist. "We don't need any of these things! What we need is complete gun registration, so that the government can track down dangerous people, like those people who possess unregistered weapons."
[Accept]

Issue by The Federalist Great Proprietors of Tristam

Any thoughts?


I've had that one several times, and always went with choice number 2. Unfortunately, what I want to see is one between 1 and 2, where they can have the gun if they want, without the restrictive laws. :)

Ah, lets be honest, I really want to have such a nice little Assault rifle, but if I can just buy such a thing in a normal supermarket, other people can do that, too.

So its only a question of time until some idiots think, "If I can't buy booze, I'll buy myself a H&K G36 and rob the booze shop next to the supermarket". Of course thats dangerous and all, and eventually they will get caught and all that, but lets be honest: there ARE enough people who already did things like that, and they are still alive.

The shopkeeper of course will buy himself a a gun too, for self defense, but he can't be always fast or perceptive enough to get everyone of that nutty bastards. In consequence he will hire Armed security forces, the "other guys" will then get more dangerous weapons, thats like an arms race. After a while customers will get shot because they made to hasty movements...

and and.... Ah well, I guess you know what I want to say,


Except they're not sold at grocery stores. There are laws on the books regarding assault with a deadly weapon. Those laws still apply for firearms. Why the extra verbiage, if they're already covered in previous laws?

The US citizenry weren't like how you're describing before all these gun laws went into place. Not everyone just goes out and shoots someone else just because they have a firearm.

There are 60 million firearm owners in the US, and the US is not awash in blood. The type of tool doesn't matter--it's the mind-set of the user of that tool.

I've had that one several times, and always went with choice number 2. Unfortunately, what I want to see is one between 1 and 2, where they can have the gun if they want, without the restrictive laws. :)

Yeah, I had you pegged for choice number 2. :)

I, of course, had to take #3 out of the available ones. Not the ideal one, but better than the rest. :-P

Yeah, I had you pegged for choice number 2. :)

I, of course, had to take #3 out of the available ones. Not the ideal one, but better than the rest. :-P

Yah, I guessed that, as well. :) We do pretty well know what the other thinks on the topic, don't we? :D

Question: If a commander sends men on a mission he knows will probably result in all of them being killed, even if they successfully complete the mission, is that a "suicide mission?"

No, it isn't. A Suicide Mission calls for the members of the mission to die, regardless of the outcome.

Mission Example: "You men have to clear that minefield". -- While absurdly dangerous (even with the right training and gear), it's not a suicide mission.
Suicide Mission Example: "You men have to go through that minefield. Everytime you find a mine, you're to just up and down on it until it detonates". -- Suicide Mission.

Most orders are perilous. But there is a dividing line.

I looked it up. You're totally right, except you forgot Brasil.

Also, China has a Soviet-era one, but they don't seem to operate it. Speculation seems to indicate that they're just using it to learn about carrier operations for a possible future Chinese carrier.

I should add that when I originally said "who even has carriers anymore?", I was thinking of fleet and super carriers. That'll teach me to speak before considering. :P

Though there are some others which are "in mothballs". One presumes that Argentina would launch theirs again if they ever restore their economy...

Damn, I'm sorry to have found this debate so late in the discussion. The votes are almost split down the center.

My opinion about the government banning semi-automatic weapons is illegal.

Nazi Germany incorporated this same strategy before they began rounding up Jewish members for detention.

Most of you think of a semi-automatic weapon and think of an AK47, which yeah is a little too much for a private citizen to use as what they say is protection. But the semi-auto definition is connected with more than half of the guns made in the United States.

I own a semi-automatic weapon. I bought one because my home & car have been vandalized while I've been sleeping in the house. A semi-automatic weapon carries more bullets - and someone who cannot hit the broadside of a barn needs ever shot.

My best friend's father was a policeman, eventually he grew up and became a police detective. The reason behind this banning of weapons was put into place in order to protect the police and not the citizen.

At least half of you believe that iof noone had a weapon, noone would be shot.

The reality behind that statement is that it is utterly impossible to keep guns out of the hands of a every single person that wants one.

So, my way of looking at things is that if everyone had a weapon, there would be less victims.

You look at the photos, and the damage is wrong compared to what a fuel-laden airliner ought to have done. You look at the cameras from the car dealership, the gas station, and the gates to the pentagon along what the flight plan would have to be, and you see no plane. I've seen a fairly creditable argument that it was something smaller and faster that hit the pentagon.


Um... no. There *are* photos, from the Pentagon camera. Also, the angle of attack was pretty steep – there may not have been anything on those other cameras. Have you ever driven by the Pentagon? I did so last about four weeks ago. You can easily see which portion was repaired. You can also see that the car dealership and gas station have, at best, an obstructed view. That, and those cameras are not exactly aimed at the sky, either.
We have the wreckage. We have the personal effects of the people on the plane. Then, of course, there are the eye witnesses.
Beyond that, the Pentagon was BUILT to withstand blasts. It is also not a very tall structure, which is why why the hit wasn’t as “spectacular” as at the WTC.

Er, but it never made it to DC. There's nothing saying that those in charge couldn't have changed course off of whatever the last heading was before they arrived at whatever their target was.


But that *was* where they were aiming for. Why would they say one thing then change it? What is it with you? Actual recorded evidence in their own voices isn't enough?
They DID change course, because the people on the plane fought them and made them crash. Could they have been targeting, say, Bangor Maine? Maybe, but given everything that's grasping at straws.


Looks to for what? I'm not sure what you're ra-ra about New York for, exactly.


You're the one questioning my statement about NYC being the capital of the planet. Which it is.

By definition. How about by practicality? When you come into the area surrounding a carrier (and lots of other warships of course) you get warned off. If the area that a carrier claims around itself is bigger than the entrance to a harbour, despite it being in international waters, what then? Again, to use a local example, steam a carrier up the west coast towards Vancouver. Park it in international waters but such that the area of influence/effect stretches from the mainland across to Vancouver Island. Now how does shipping proceed as usual?


You're the one who said by definition, my friend.
As for practicality, *so* *what*? If someone has a gun and you’re standing in range, you could practically be dead. But you’re not until the trigger is pulled.
Easily. The ships steam through. The carrier isn't actively targeting neutral shipping! Now, in a wartime scenario, fine. But that's what they're built for!


Fortunately, our countries have a fairly good relationship, but now change the location to the Red Sea, or some such.


Right. That's still what naval warships they're built for.

Do you want me to answer? The world doesn't appreciate being bombed. It also doesn't like unilateral action. We sent troops to Sarajevo too - no fallout. Same with Rwanda, but of course we had fallout because one of our airborne groups behaved horribly. So we permanently disbanded it.


Sure, that’s what we’re talking for.
No kidding. If the UN wasn't lining it's pockets and would actually DO something, there wouldn't be unilateral action. To date, the UN has NEVER taken any action of its own without the leadership of the USA. QED. I applaud your nation’s handling of a problematic military unit.


That's the other thing, we punish our troops when they act like assholes in other people's backyards. You guys don't seem to. And in fact refused to sign on to the idea that you or your soldiers could be tried internationally for war crimes. Most of the rest of us (countries that tend to do policing/relief actions) did. Why didn't you?


They are punished to the fullest extent of our laws. The Iraq prison scandal, for example.
Because since the UN hasn't proved itself able to police the world, the world has no right to police us. Sound paternal? Good, because it is. They’ve had Slobodan Milosovich for nearly half a decade now, and he STILL hasn’t been found guilty! Until the rest of the world starts pulling it’s own weight in keeping the piece, there’s no way we’d allow jurisdiction.
That, and when the UN removed the US from the Human Rights Commission and appointed Sudan, it was just proof for the pudding.

Afghanistan probably wasn't handled as well as it should have, but we contributed because of the horrible thing that happened to you, and that it looked like it came from Afghanistan. However, bombing tents and villages, dropping bomblets, shooting up weddings and the Red Cross (I actually have a friend who was working in one of the Red Cross stations when you guys bombed it), and even having Canadian troops bombed doesn't exactly paint the picture of a country/military that knows what the hell it's doing.


Yes, all those events happened, and we are sorry for that. War is not easy, nor free of accidents. As I recall, the pilots that fired on the Canadians were severely punished. I don't recall about the others, though at least one wedding party *was* a terrorist convoy breaking for the night – not many weddings occur in the desert, four hours from any provisioner.

Iraq... the way I remember what they were saying in the news at first was that Saddam was building up WMD, and there was incontrovertible proof. Despite all the inspectors (including the US ones that were there at the time) saying there was nothing. Despite the UN ones that said there was nothing.


I'd prefer to not turn this into an Iraq debate, but I'll say this: the UN said they were in violation, and had been for years. The UN inspectors said they hadn't FOUND any, but not that there WEREN'T any. See the difference? They never said that there was nothing.

But, for some reason, the US ignored the rest of the world and tossed thousands of cruise missiles at the capital city for a couple of days, then started bombing. All the time, swearing that this was because of the "clear and present" danger of Saddam's WMD. I don't remember hearing anything about "relieving the people of Iraq from Saddam's rule" until well after your troops were already there and no traces of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons were found. Except for that small cache of chemical-tipped artillery shells they eventually found, but they dated back to the 80's and looked like they hadn't been touched since then.


The US enforced the UN's own resolution that was a PART OF THE 1991 CEASE FIRE. Because the UN does not do this, North Korean and Iran thumb their noses at it.
Further, you might be interested to know that it looks like Saddam didn’t know he didn’t have WMD!
BTW, the 91’ war is still going on, just like the Korean War. Any side can start shooting again at any time. There was no peace treaty.
Why do you assume that the nations that are not US, UK, Poland, Australia (and the about 30 others) are right?

And while I know that there are people in Iraq that will be happy to not have Saddam and his regime in charge, there doesn't seem to be a lot of faith that whatever replaces it will be better. And with so many critical aspects of infrastructure that were destroyed when you invaded, life for the average person there is harder rather than better. This based on the local Iraqis I know here who have family still back there.


Nothing's guaranteed, granted.
A lot of it was destroyed before then. Ever hear of the Marsh people? Saddam dammed off their water for 10 YEARS. Never mind the monsters his sons were, etc. But these are secondary issues. Saddam refusing free and open inspections (thus breaking the peace treaty) is the final reason.
I’m not saying it’s all good that we’re there. But we’ve barely been there for a year. Europe took the better part of a decade to fix itself up after WW2…
ALSO the US and allied forces have been very careful to limit fighting damage when possible. We don’t target random houses, and avoid densely populated areas and (especially) Mosques. Our enemy (the terrorists) do the opposite.

This went long, but you did why you get criticized regardless of what you do. It's the manner in which you do them, and the resultant life for the people there afterwards that gets you all the bad press.


Being the Hyperpower, everyone want to pull you down. Natch.



That didn't seem to be what was happening before you invaded, from what I understand. Note that currently if you're going to work and don't submit to the invading soldiers, you do get shot. How do you suppose THAT looks to people?


You’re absolutely right. No one was blowing up factories in Iraq before the invasion.
Let's see. The soldiers check your papers, and if you're not wanted, you can go. If the terrorist thugs see that you work for something they don't approve of (liquor store, western job, you're a woman), they shoot you. I'll take the former, thanks.

No need to be nasty.


I'm not. Just a measured reaction to "you listen good". Civility goes both ways.


The idea isn't to win friends, dude. The idea was to make Canada an unpalatable place for you to occupy, in that example. Showing that you had more to lose by staying than by leaving.


It most certainly is. Before, the West felt sympathy for the Chechnyiks. Now, most of that is gone and Russia has a lot more good will. That is *not* going to help the Chechnyian cause.

I don't believe there's anything in the definition of guerrilla that says they don't attack innocents, just that they fight a stronger force by sabotage and harassment.


It's a philosophical question. Have you read Che?
Sabotage and harassment does not equal slaughtering children.

Note also that to people from non-democratic cultures, it could be argued that anybody able to vote isn't an innocent, since they had a say in who is in charge. That would make any American a viable target, from that point of view.


It could also be argued that they hate the color blue. You're deep in hypotheticals here.


Er, did Iraq attack you? I wasn't aware of that. Could you provide some links or something?

They attacked Kuwait in 1991 and then broke the cease fire.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Section B, Point 8 is of note, as is H, 32.

As for Iraq being fine with the US leaving it alone, I'm not sure what you're referring to either. You'd already established the no-fly zones (those weren't UN-sanctioned, iirc), and that ridiculous "oil for food" program was in effect. So which aspect(s) of Iraq are you talking about specifically?

The "no-fly zone" was imposed over south Iraq as a means of halting air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels, and in the north for the Kurds. Or would you prefer Saddam strafe these people at will as he’d been doing?
Oh, WAIT! It’s one of those no-wins where we get berated if we let the Kurds and Shites get straffed, but we get berated for subjugating another nation that was soundly beaten in warfare and signed a cease fire.
I'm assuming that your point was that Iraq would have been better off if the US hadn't invaded. My point was that the society would have broken down sooner or later, at Haiti did.

And what was forecasted if/when you went in: New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28intel.html?ex=1097035200&amp;en=ee40d8d9c4429e9c&amp;ei=5053&amp;partner=NYTHEADLINES_INTL) and CNN article of the same thing (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/cia.bush/index.html).
… Yep. NYT and CNN. Yep. Couldn’t you find the CBS link, too? (Yes, I’m being sarcastic).


No need to be smarmy, I read too. No, I don't like it. We're already building up our groups to send there. I haven't heard of anything similar from your country. What's being sent?

Right now, a very, very little. Some African states have pledged a total of 100-300 observers. The UN actually took a vote to take ANOTHER vote if Sudan doesn’t straighten up in 30-60 days. They’d need an army the size of the US force in Iraq to police it. (The Darfur area is about the size of Texas.)Think the UN will send troops? Yeah, right…

Actually, I was just continuing along with the discussion you and Zaxon were having about soldiers being/not being citizens. All of the rest of this came from replying to other examples introduced. Most of my responses came from pages 20-100 or so in the thread. :P
Atta boy. :)

Right. And you haven’t posted anything about gun control since. ;)

Damn, I'm sorry to have found this debate so late in the discussion. The votes are almost split down the center.

My opinion about the government banning semi-automatic weapons is illegal.

Nazi Germany incorporated this same strategy before they began rounding up Jewish members for detention.

Most of you think of a semi-automatic weapon and think of an AK47, which yeah is a little too much for a private citizen to use as what they say is protection. But the semi-auto definition is connected with more than half of the guns made in the United States.

I own a semi-automatic weapon. I bought one because my home & car have been vandalized while I've been sleeping in the house. A semi-automatic weapon carries more bullets - and someone who cannot hit the broadside of a barn needs ever shot.

My best friend's father was a policeman, eventually he grew up and became a police detective. The reason behind this banning of weapons was put into place in order to protect the police and not the citizen.

At least half of you believe that iof noone had a weapon, noone would be shot.

The reality behind that statement is that it is utterly impossible to keep guns out of the hands of a every single person that wants one.

So, my way of looking at things is that if everyone had a weapon, there would be less victims.

You've got quite a few inaccuracies, here:

* The Ak-47 is an AUTOMATIC weapon. http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47info.htm
Sure, you can fire it semi-auto, but that's not the point. :)

* Semi-auto: 1 trigger pull = 1 round fired.

* Being semi-auto does not effect how many rounds a gun can carry. You can load a 5 round magazine or 30 round, it doesn't matter.

* There is no such thing as enough. Americans, by nature, hate limitations. Why on Earth should you be limited by what weapon you can own? As long as you buy it legally and are licensed, you should be able to buy it. Otherwise, it's time to ban Hummers (the car), and Dodge Vipers. I mean, why do you need a car like that? (This carries for any good).

I do agree with many of your other statements, tho. :)

Woooooooooooooooooooow!

I'm heading off to work now, so I'll have to reply to the other messages later, but I just wanted to say that if voting was done based on the debates, and I was a citizen of the US, Kerry wins hands down. Regardless of how badly Bush seemed to do, Kerry nailed that debate good!

For you Americans in this thread, has there historically been much shift in voting patterns after the presidential debates?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independant Turkeys
Are we required to get a license to speak? NO, but some people want everyone to have a license to have a gun. Why the double standard when they are both our right.


Because of the difference in consequences of misuse.

Regardless of the severity of someone's breath, they can't kill you with their words or contrary opinion. And the right to free speech was really about being able to voice something against the government and its' practices, at least initially. So you can be a jerk and mouth off all you like. No harm, no foul. Libel/slander somebody, and there are consequences and compensation given to the victim.

However, when some yahoo with a grudge and limited reasoning capacity cuts someone down with the gun that he was apparently entitled to, all the compensation in the world doesn't do anything for the dead victim. Irreversable consequences.

All rights are not created equal, after all. And they are created. No reason to think they're inherent or immutable.

Besides, I'd rather have someone shoot their mouth off at me than than shooting their gun off at me. Wouldn't you? :-P

Millions of people have died over words. Crowds have been incited to riot, mame, and kill, and it wasn't done by waving a gun around - it was done with words. How many people were blacklisted or put in jail over words? How many people commited suicide over words?

Rights are not equal? They can be changed? I didn't see that part in our Constitution that stated that freedom of speech is a greater right. We as a people can give up a right but our government is instructed not to take away our rights. How many times must infringed be defined for you anti-rights people?

"Congress shall make no law ...; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...". Key word is CONGRESS and it was defined in the Constitution to consist of the Senate and House of Representatives. I did not see the word STATE in that definition. Worry more about a far away central government than about a State government that is in your back yard.

ARTICLE THE SECOND states ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means local, county, state, and federal governments are to keep thier hands off <period>. If nothing else the right to bear arms is a greater right because it is controlled by the people, where freedom of speech cannot be limited by the Congress, per the Constitution.

Okay, so their right to speak wasn't violated, but their right to assemble in a public place was very much regulated--that's covered in the first amendment, too, if I recall correctly.

I'm not for regulating much of anything--as past posts have supported. I don't want licenses for speaking, assembling, or firearms ownership and/or carrying.

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.... Article the First, limits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from restricting your right. It is up to you to get your State Government to keep its hand off of your right to peacefully assemble. Your State Legislator could even be your neighbor. Better odds at that than a Federal Legislator.

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.... Article the First, limits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from restricting your right. It is up to you to get your State Government to keep its hand off of your right to peacefully assemble. Your State Legislator could even be your neighbor. Better odds at that than a Federal Legislator.
Under the 14th amendement the right to assembly has been incorporated to apply to state governments as well, you know. So yeah, I so haven't read any of this thread, but um I'm sure I have a point with this post.

Woooooooooooooooooooow!

I'm heading off to work now, so I'll have to reply to the other messages later, but I just wanted to say that if voting was done based on the debates, and I was a citizen of the US, Kerry wins hands down. Regardless of how badly Bush seemed to do, Kerry nailed that debate good!

For you Americans in this thread, has there historically been much shift in voting patterns after the presidential debates?

That neither said much of anything. It wasn't a debate, it was a 90 minute diatribe done in 2 minute sound bites.

Kerry did appear to be more eloquent, but I had one big problem with him:
He wanted Bush to involve "more nations" in Iraq, but favors bilateral talks with North Korea! It makes no sense!

Yah, I guessed that, as well. :) We do pretty well know what the other thinks on the topic, don't we? :D

A hundred pages of posts have to count for something. lol

Though there are some others which are "in mothballs". One presumes that Argentina would launch theirs again if they ever restore their economy...

I thought anything of theirs was scuttled.

Ah well, they've got more important things to worry about than a big-ass ship.

My opinion about the government banning semi-automatic weapons is illegal.

Can't be illegal if there are laws doing it. Perhaps you mean unconstitutional?

Hmmmm, another dumb question from a non-American: do the amendments actually count as part of the constitution from a legal point of view?

Nazi Germany incorporated this same strategy before they began rounding up Jewish members for detention.

You'll remember that the vast majority of Germans were in favour of the Nazis and what they were doing at that point. And since a substantial bulk of the population was pressed into the military at that point, everybody had guns anyway.

The Nazis weren't some evil boogymen that you have to avoid all comparison with lest you receive some sort of taint. Yes, what happened there was horrible. I had family there. They remember how much hope the Nazis seemed to offer at first. I have an uncle (well, a great-uncle I suppose) who was in Hitler's Youth that remembers having a fine time in there and being given a purpose. As a man after the fact, of course he doesn't like what the Nazis were, but at the time? Got other relatives who were drafted and had to do some things they didn't particularly like. It kind of bugs me when "Nazi" is used as something to villify a position.

That said, nobody in this thread is talking about rounding up the guns and taking them away from people. This is about certain kinds of weapons, and the kind of people that should have the option to even have a gun.

I own a semi-automatic weapon. I bought one because my home & car have been vandalized while I've been sleeping in the house. A semi-automatic weapon carries more bullets - and someone who cannot hit the broadside of a barn needs ever shot.

Er, you'd kill someone because they vandalized some property? That kind of devaluation of human life is going to bite you in the ass someday when someone shoots you not in self-defense.

At least half of you believe that iof noone had a weapon, noone would be shot.

Actually, I think everybody would agree if nobody had a gun, nobody would get shot. How can you get shot with something that nobody has? ;)

The reality behind that statement is that it is utterly impossible to keep guns out of the hands of a every single person that wants one.

Same with nuclear weapons. No point in putting pressure on people to not pursue the technology, eh? Or is there a difference? Weapon made to kill = weapon made to kill. Speaking personally, I'm more concerned about the responsibility of the person in possession of a weapon, and the conditions under which they'd use them.

I'd be worried about you having one, since it seems that someone smashing your windshield is in danger of being killed.

So, my way of looking at things is that if everyone had a weapon, there would be less victims.

The old "an armed society is a polite society" argument. What about if everybody had a crossbow instead of a gun? Zaxon mentioned crossbows several pages back. I'd go for this. Would you turn your gun in for a crossbow? ;)

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

I think you are confusing semi-automatic with automatic.

Semi-automatic: A Single round fired with a single trigger pull. The "Semi" comes from the gun automatically ejecting the spent shell and reloading a new one. The new shell would then be fired when the trigger is released and pulled again.

Automatic: Multiple rounds fired with a single trigger pull. The gun automatically ejects the spent shell and reloads with a new one which is then fired without the trigger needing to be pulled again.

Hope this helps your understanding of guns.

Um... no. There *are* photos, from the Pentagon camera. Also, the angle of attack was pretty steep – there may not have been anything on those other cameras. Have you ever driven by the Pentagon? I did so last about four weeks ago. You can easily see which portion was repaired. You can also see that the car dealership and gas station have, at best, an obstructed view. That, and those cameras are not exactly aimed at the sky, either.

Got a link to a photo of the plane coming in to the Pentagon I can look at?

No, those other cameras aren't aimed at the sky. They aren't pointed at the dirt either, and it's not like the plane could have been put into a sixty degree dive. It would have to come in low and fast.

We have the wreckage. We have the personal effects of the people on the plane. Then, of course, there are the eye witnesses.
Beyond that, the Pentagon was BUILT to withstand blasts. It is also not a very tall structure, which is why why the hit wasn’t as “spectacular” as at the WTC.

The WTC towers were built to withstand blasts too. It's a principle of archetecture that if you build something that sticks up really high that you have to consider planes may crash into it. The Empire State Building has been smacked a few times with small planes, for instance.

I'm not saying that the Pentagon needed to be obliterated, I'm just saying that the damage seems inconsistant with a fully fueled passenger jet smashing into it.

But that *was* where they were aiming for. Why would they say one thing then change it? What is it with you? Actual recorded evidence in their own voices isn't enough?

I've never heard the voices. Do you have a link?

Of course, the voices would be in Arabic which I suspect neither of us speaks, so we're depending on someone with a massive interest in you perceiving things a particular way (your government) telling you to take their word for it. I thought you guys in the US didn't trust your government as far as you can throw it?

They DID change course, because the people on the plane fought them and made them crash. Could they have been targeting, say, Bangor Maine? Maybe, but given everything that's grasping at straws.

I know that's an important part of the story to many, but I'm just not sure how a bunch of people could rush through a narrow cockpit door and fight (four?) armed people willing to die to achieve their goals.

You're the one questioning my statement about NYC being the capital of the planet. Which it is.

<sighs>

cap·i·tal1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl)
n.

1.
a. A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.
b.A city that is the center of a specific activity or industry: the financial capital of the world.

2.
a. Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, or corporation.
b. Material wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.
c. Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy: “ [The] swift unveiling of his... plans provoked a flight of human capital” (George F. Will).

3. Accounting. The remaining assets of a business after all liabilities have been deducted; net worth.
4. Capital stock.

5. Capitalists considered as a group or class.

6. An asset or advantage: “profited from political capital accumulated by others” (Michael Mandelbaum).

7. A capital letter.

Choose which you mean.

Easily. The ships steam through. The carrier isn't actively targeting neutral shipping! Now, in a wartime scenario, fine. But that's what they're built for!

Ah, I see. So you wouldn't mind if China fired up that carrier it has, surrounded it with a battle group, steamed it over to sit in international waters just off your coast near a major shipping port? They aren't attacking, so you guys would just continue business as usual without any difference?

No kidding. If the UN wasn't lining it's pockets and would actually DO something, there wouldn't be unilateral action. To date, the UN has NEVER taken any action of its own without the leadership of the USA. QED. I applaud your nation’s handling of a problematic military unit.

I'm glad you approve, but it's hardly necessary. Saving face is all well and good, but we were appalled at what happened so we shut down this unit. To us, it was vaguely as though you'd shut down your 101st Airborne division.

I'm not sure why you say the UN is lining its pockets, since it levies no taxes and is not in fact a government. The US is an important member of the UN, one with substantial resources to offer. The UN is made up of countries that contribute, it doesn't have a standing army or a country. It's an organization where countries can come together as (theoretical) equals and try to work together on things.

Because the UN didn't say "Let's get Saddam!" doesn't mean they didn't do anything. I think the US rushed to war on its own awfully quickly. And what if you guys did wait, and after careful consideration the members of the UN decided to not assault Saddam? Would you still call that "doing nothing" because it wasn't what you wanted to do?

They are punished to the fullest extent of our laws. The Iraq prison scandal, for example.

Nobody's been punished in that yet, last I heard. You've got a handful of people in the past fifty years that were done up in media-friendly trials, but I certainly haven't heard of any brutal consequences for those guys that were drunk and squashed the schoolgirls under their tracked vehicle. Or for the US soldiers that commited the rapes in Okinawa. Or the ones in various African nations that beat the hell out of locals, and took degrading trophy pictures just as bad as the ones in the Iraqi prisons. Why not? And why not sign on to the International War Crimes organization? Are you or are you not going to say you're a member of the world?

Because since the UN hasn't proved itself able to police the world, the world has no right to police us. Sound paternal? Good, because it is. They’ve had Slobodan Milosovich for nearly half a decade now, and he STILL hasn’t been found guilty! Until the rest of the world starts pulling it’s own weight in keeping the piece, there’s no way we’d allow jurisdiction.

The US isn't there to police the world. Do you see the force in that statement? NOBODY wants policing, they want peacekeeping if anything. I'd like you to consider the way you said that, and how it's that sort of attitude that turns a lot of the world off the idea of the US being anything but a problem when they go to a country.

Molosovich is still undergoing trial. Got a problem with that? He's not currently in a position to be doing anything to anybody. There are procedures to go through, and that's as it should be.

You'll remember that OJ didn't get found guilty in criminal court either. Procedures are important so that the law isn't run by passions running high, and so that the opinions of the day don't have more than their due weight.

That, and when the UN removed the US from the Human Rights Commission and appointed Sudan, it was just proof for the pudding.

You know that people are rotated on and off that list, right? China's been on there too. If you want to make value judgements about who's on it, some of us in other countries might want to add that any country with capital punishment doesn't know enough about human rights to have any place on a commission that judges the ethics of others, for example.

Yes, all those events happened, and we are sorry for that. War is not easy, nor free of accidents. As I recall, the pilots that fired on the Canadians were severely punished. I don't recall about the others, though at least one wedding party *was* a terrorist convoy breaking for the night – not many weddings occur in the desert, four hours from any provisioner.

They were given a "severe letter of reprimand". And taken off active flight status.

Those were the first Canadians killed in combat since the Korean war, and we've been in engagements almost constantly in all that time.

Wow, a letter of reprimand. And we tend to think of you guys as particularly close allies. Not militarily, because we don't boast sizeable armed forces, but we consider you guys to be fairly similar to us.

So... some pilots that didn't follow their target lists, that radioed in before they dropped ordanance and were told not to engage, engaged anyway and killed four Canadian soldiers and wounded eight more get a letter.

Do you see how faith in you guys "doing the right thing" gets eroded a bit internationally?

I'm not trying to dis, because like I've said before I like pretty much anybody. Including the US. ;) But in this conversation (and others in other threads) I want you to see that it's not jealousy or fanatical beliefs that make people unhappy with the US. I hope you take that in the spirit in which it's meant, and don't feel like I'm attacking you.

I'd prefer to not turn this into an Iraq debate, but I'll say this: the UN said they were in violation, and had been for years. The UN inspectors said they hadn't FOUND any, but not that there WEREN'T any. See the difference? They never said that there was nothing.

I do see the difference. You guys invaded not because there was anything, but because nobody had found anything proving that there wasn't anything to be found.

Pardon me while I scratch my head and say "Huh?". :P

The US enforced the UN's own resolution that was a PART OF THE 1991 CEASE FIRE. Because the UN does not do this, North Korean and Iran thumb their noses at it.

Heh. It's not for you to unilaterally enforce things that involve more than just you. If Japan doesn't it keep its end of the Kyoto Accords, will you zoom in there and start targeting smokestacks?

If it's a UN resolution, then you let it be decided by the UN. Seems pretty simple.

Further, you might be interested to know that it looks like Saddam didn’t know he didn’t have WMD!

I would be interested to know that. What in the world are you talking about?

BTW, the 91’ war is still going on, just like the Korean War. Any side can start shooting again at any time. There was no peace treaty.
Why do you assume that the nations that are not US, UK, Poland, Australia (and the about 30 others) are right?

Ah, the "Coalition of the Willing". That would be these guys: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Hmmmm, you seem to be missing a lot of the usual countries. No France? No Germany? No Canada? No Israel? No Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

"State department spokesman Richard Boucher explained that the list included some countries, like Japan, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq. "

It's not really a very good list.

"Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic is sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit."

"It was not clear what support countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria were providing to the US coalition, but many are seeking US financial or military support through Nato. "

Italy and Spain didn't send any troops either.

So yes, I'd say that the action was wrong, despite the "support" of the thirty nations.

A lot of it was destroyed before then. Ever hear of the Marsh people? Saddam dammed off their water for 10 YEARS. Never mind the monsters his

Actually, he was draining the water, not damning it. But yes, I've heard of them. Want to compare? Ever been to a reservation for the aboriginal people in the US? ;)

sons were, etc. But these are secondary issues. Saddam refusing free and open inspections (thus breaking the peace treaty) is the final reason.
I’m not saying it’s all good that we’re there. But we’ve barely been there for a year. Europe took the better part of a decade to fix itself up after WW2…
ALSO the US and allied forces have been very careful to limit fighting damage when possible. We don’t target random houses, and avoid densely populated areas and (especially) Mosques. Our enemy (the terrorists) do the opposite.

It's hard to imagine a more densely populated area than Baghdad, where all of those high-yield missiles were raining down. Ditto the bombs.

I've seen many a picture of shattered mosques. Also of women and children dug out from the rubble specifically caused by US munitions. I don't know if your government lets you guys see images that are non supportive of your invasion, so if you don't know what I'm talking about that's okay.

I happen to be of the opinion that such "collateral damage" is unacceptable. You don't level an area including non-combatants and say it was to keep your soldiers safe. A soldier's job includes doing things that aren't safe. Rather than kill the kids, send in your troops if it's something you need to secure. If you're unwilling to do that, then pick a different target.

Being the Hyperpower, everyone want to pull you down. Natch.

Peter Parker's uncle had it right when he said (over and over and over and ...) "With great power comes great responsibility". While I think that those with greater power should held to a higher standard than others, I'd settle for you being held to the same standard that you hold other people to. How do you think you'd do if that was the case?

You’re absolutely right. No one was blowing up factories in Iraq before the invasion.
Let's see. The soldiers check your papers, and if you're not wanted, you can go. If the terrorist thugs see that you work for something they don't approve of (liquor store, western job, you're a woman), they shoot you. I'll take the former, thanks.

How strange that you could still buy alcohol openly there. And that women worked.

Sure there are people who feel it's a sin (which carries much greater weight than merely being against the law) for women to be anything other than chattel, or for people to imbibe alcohol. So? You don't invade a sovreign nation for that either.

I'm not. Just a measured reaction to "you listen good". Civility goes both ways.

The "you listen good" was to show you that what I wrote after that (responses to the US invading Canada) was serious in nature, and that attacked people aren't going to roll over and kiss your boots. I wanted to impress on you that when you decide to do things that are horrible, you invite horrible consequences. That wasn't to be uncivil.

It most certainly is. Before, the West felt sympathy for the Chechnyiks. Now, most of that is gone and Russia has a lot more good will. That is *not* going to help the Chechnyian cause.

No, it certainly seems that it's not going to. What with Putin consolidating his power so that HE calls the shots. Too much power for one person.

I'd be interested to know if any Russians watched what happened at that school and said to themselves "Look at what they're doing to us! Why don't we cut our losses and our pride and get the hell out of Chechniya?!". I think what happened at that school was (like when I gave a similar example of Canada versus the US invading) to show Russia that while they may have a superior military force, they're still vulnerable in important places.

I also think it's pretty clear that if Russia wasn't oppressing Chechniya, there wouldn't be bombs going off in cars and subways.

It's a philosophical question. Have you read Che?
Sabotage and harassment does not equal slaughtering children.

One man's specific views of tactics that he used aside, Che doesn't matter. And I never said to slaughter children. I suggested threatening the safety of your children, saying "Look - I've got your children. Get the hell out of my country and don't come back".

Lots of children were slaughtered by you guys with your bombs and landmines too. Does it make a difference that you were in uniform at the time?

It could also be argued that they hate the color blue. You're deep in hypotheticals here.

Not really. You guys could talk about getting rid of the Taliban because they are a bunch that seized power (with your help, if I remember right).

But in the US, isn't it a cherished belief that yours is a "governement of the people, by the people"? If you vote to put your leaders in power, and your leaders do something, doesn't that make everybody in your country responsible for it?

Especially since if you don't like it, you can put pressure on to yank him/her out of office.

So if you don't do that, it follows that you must be supporting the actions, and since your government is chosen and representative of your population, that makes everybody responsible.

I'd take some issue with what I just said, but I can certainly see the logic in it. Especially if you're already suffering at the hands of the US.

The "no-fly zone" was imposed over south Iraq as a means of halting air attacks on Shiite Muslim rebels, and in the north for the Kurds. Or would you prefer Saddam strafe these people at will as he’d been doing?

No, I'd prefer that nobody got strafed at all. Including by US pilots in a non-UN action. Since the no-fly zones aren't/weren't a UN thing unless I'm misremembering.

Oh, WAIT! It’s one of those no-wins where we get berated if we let the Kurds and Shites get straffed, but we get berated for subjugating another nation that was soundly beaten in warfare and signed a cease fire.

?

Yeah... it's the Kurds and Shiites and Iraqis that are the winners/non-winners. The US had no personal stake in any of it. So no need to take the posture that everything was hanging on you.

Here's an idea to consider - rather than spend all of those resources on the no-fly zones blowing up anything that moves, why didn't you guys make it worth Saddam's while to not be wiping those people out? If he was in fact strafing those people, why was he doing it, and what incentive could you offer him to stop? At that point, you already had a fairly good bargaining position. So why the need for the chest-thumping flying penises?

I'm assuming that your point was that Iraq would have been better off if the US hadn't invaded. My point was that the society would have broken down sooner or later, at Haiti did.

I'm saying it was a hasty action, and not done in the best possible way for anybody.

… Yep. NYT and CNN. Yep. Couldn’t you find the CBS link, too? (Yes, I’m being sarcastic).

Just a link so I didn't have to paraphrase. And a second one with somewhat different wording to show the first wasn't an anomally. And I picked those two because they were American. I tend not to pick American sources first when I'm looking for information on such things, because (no offense) your media seems to be pretty in bed with the government.

Right now, a very, very little. Some African states have pledged a total of 100-300 observers. The UN actually took a vote to take ANOTHER vote if Sudan doesn’t straighten up in 30-60 days. They’d need an army the size of the US force in Iraq to police it. (The Darfur area is about the size of Texas.)Think the UN will send troops? Yeah, right…

Once again, "police it"? You don't need to police anything. You provide a place of refuge (or protect the existing places of refuge) for the people being oppressed until the instability in the country (and the reasons for it) pass. You feed and take care of the displaced people. You cajole the people in charge to do something.

I'd like to say that you take the people being oppressed back to your (whoever's, your doesn't equal YOUR) country where they're safer, but of course they have a way of life and identity where they already are. So... you keep the peace. You don't police.

Right. And you haven’t posted anything about gun control since. ;)

It's the people that need control, self-control. If they stopped shooting each other, they could have bazookas for all I care.

Quote:

Millions of people have died over words. Crowds have been incited to riot, mame, and kill, and it wasn't done by waving a gun around - it was done with words. How many people were blacklisted or put in jail over words? How many people commited suicide over words?

Words can be considered. Words can be taken back. Fired bullets can't. I know you well enough by now to know that you can't be saying that words are the same as bullets.

For instance, they stink less when they're used, even if you've been eating garlic. ;)

Rights are not equal? They can be changed? I didn't see that part in our Constitution that stated that freedom of speech is a greater right. We as a people can give up a right but our government is instructed not to take away our rights. How many times must infringed be defined for you anti-rights people?

I didn't say which was the greater right. My personal preference is freedom of speech of course.

When you say that you as a people can give up a right, but your government can't take them away, then by what instrument do you propose that you give up a right? If not through the government, then how? Use freedom of speech as an example if you want.

"Congress shall make no law ...; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...". Key word is CONGRESS and it was defined in the Constitution to consist of the Senate and House of Representatives. I did not see the word STATE in that definition. Worry more about a far away central government than about a State government that is in your back yard.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, sorry. I mean, I really don't understand. Provinces in Canada aren't like States in the US but with a different name. So please elaborate. :)

I'm not worried about my government (local, provincial, or federal) at all. We have the usual inefficient buffoons of course, but when someone severely abuses the power we've given them, we take it away. Sometimes we even punish them. Who cares whether they're federal or not?

ARTICLE THE SECOND states ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means local, county, state, and federal governments are to keep thier hands off <period>. If nothing else the right to bear arms is a greater right because it is controlled by the people, where freedom of speech cannot be limited by the Congress, per the Constitution.

A question for you - if the right to bear arms is so important, why wasn't it included in the constitution in the first place? Why was it later amended on to the end?

That neither said much of anything. It wasn't a debate, it was a 90 minute diatribe done in 2 minute sound bites.

That's the form your debates take. :P

Kerry did appear to be more eloquent, but I had one big problem with him:
He wanted Bush to involve "more nations" in Iraq, but favors bilateral talks with North Korea! It makes no sense!

Makes sense to me. More nations in Iraq because it's a world concern, not a solely American concern.

But before anybody "goes in" to Korea, just the US at the table with them so that the issues and concerns don't get dilluted as a group of varying nations jockey for personal benefits at the negotiating table, the way that in your senate people will tag on a rider clause to a bill that is totally different.

I'm sure Kerry would say that if a force has to go into Korea, then he'd want other nations involved as well.

Makes sense to me.

Words can be considered. Words can be taken back. Fired bullets can't. I know you well enough by now to know that you can't be saying that words are the same as bullets.

For instance, they stink less when they're used, even if you've been eating garlic. ;)



I didn't say which was the greater right. My personal preference is freedom of speech of course.

When you say that you as a people can give up a right, but your government can't take them away, then by what instrument do you propose that you give up a right? If not through the government, then how? Use freedom of speech as an example if you want.



I'm not sure where you're going with this, sorry. I mean, I really don't understand. Provinces in Canada aren't like States in the US but with a different name. So please elaborate. :)

I'm not worried about my government (local, provincial, or federal) at all. We have the usual inefficient buffoons of course, but when someone severely abuses the power we've given them, we take it away. Sometimes we even punish them. Who cares whether they're federal or not?



A question for you - if the right to bear arms is so important, why wasn't it included in the constitution in the first place? Why was it later amended on to the end?

You stated that people do not get killed by the use of words. Dead is dead, even if you take your words back. By greater rights, I mean that in your opinion is it ok to restrict our gun right but not our freedom of speech right.

I stated that government is instructed not to take away a right. Politicians are polititions and people with good intentions (or bad) can really screw things up. People allow or instruct politicians to make up laws that take away their rights.

I do not know how Canada politics works Provinces wise. The U.S.A. is made up of 50 countries/states with a Federal government to oversee some domestic issues and deal with external countries/states. Somewhat like the new EU, though the EU is much less intrusive in each countries affairs and deals more with trade. The people of the U.S.A. of the near past, have let the Federal government get too big and it is intruding big time into what were suppose to be State responsibilities and rights.

Well there was a big debate back when our Constitution was being drawn up about putting Rights in the original document, it was decided not to put them in. When the new Congress meet the first 10 amendments were drawn up and passed per our Constitution.

I think I'll look into how the Canadian government works.

That's the form your debates take. :P



Makes sense to me. More nations in Iraq because it's a world concern, not a solely American concern.

But before anybody "goes in" to Korea, just the US at the table with them so that the issues and concerns don't get dilluted as a group of varying nations jockey for personal benefits at the negotiating table, the way that in your senate people will tag on a rider clause to a bill that is totally different.

I'm sure Kerry would say that if a force has to go into Korea, then he'd want other nations involved as well.

Makes sense to me.

Whatever.

Are you insinuating the NK is NOT a world concearn? I'm sure that the Japanese, Russians, South Koreans and Chinese are glad to hear it!

So, you really don't see the dichotomy of saying that one needs to be multinational, one needs to be bi-lateral, and that they just happen to be the opposite of the incumbent?


And I'm sure that just because it's Kerry, that they'd go? PUHLEEZE.

Whatever.

Are you insinuating the NK is NOT a world concearn? I'm sure that the Japanese, Russians, South Koreans and Chinese are glad to hear it!

Not at all. I said I understand Kerry's reasoning.

So, you really don't see the dichotomy of saying that one needs to be multinational, one needs to be bi-lateral, and that they just happen to be the opposite of the incumbent?

No no no no. Before anybody goes in, THAT can be bilateral. But if someone's going to go in, that needs to be multinational.

And I'm sure that just because it's Kerry, that they'd go? PUHLEEZE.

Not unless he's got some ace I haven't heard about.

Under the 14th amendement the right to assembly has been incorporated to apply to state governments as well, you know. So yeah, I so haven't read any of this thread, but um I'm sure I have a point with this post.


Oh yah, the technically invalid amendment, but noone has gotten around to fixing. The "passing" of #14 was indeed a dark day in the life of the U.S.A..

#14 though reinforces #2 in that any gun law that infringes on the people's right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Oh yah, the technically invalid amendment, but noone has gotten around to fixing. The "passing" of #14 was indeed a dark day in the life of the U.S.A..

#14 though reinforces #2 in that any gun law that infringes on the people's right to bear arms is unconstitutional.
Well the second amendment has never been incorporated to the states, so 14 doesn't really affect 2.

And 14 had a lot more to do than incorporation, like, you know, enfranchisement, equal protection, due process, etc? (There's more to it that's not really relevant...)

i'm not so sure such concepts as govenments and soverignty even have a right to exist, but just out of curiousity, what
the blessed heck is jhas 'hunting' with those damd things?

a little 'long pig' for the dinner table maybe???

=^^=
.../\...

i'm not so sure such concepts as govenments and soverignty even have a right to exist, but just out of curiousity, what
the blessed heck is jhas 'hunting' with those damd things?

a little 'long pig' for the dinner table maybe???

=^^=
.../\...
Ok, I know you are refering to cannibilism, but what did you mean by "blessed heck is jhas 'hunting' with those damd things?"?

Well the second amendment has never been incorporated to the states, so 14 doesn't really affect 2.

And 14 had a lot more to do than incorporation, like, you know, enfranchisement, equal protection, due process, etc? (There's more to it that's not really relevant...)

Are you stating that part of the first amendment (right to assemble) is incorporated to the states by 14 but the second amendment is not?

Oh yah, the technically invalid amendment, but noone has gotten around to fixing. The "passing" of #14 was indeed a dark day in the life of the U.S.A..

#14 though reinforces #2 in that any gun law that infringes on the people's right to bear arms is unconstitutional.

Well, yah. That's because it is. :D

You stated that people do not get killed by the use of words. Dead is dead, even if you take your words back. By greater rights, I mean that in your opinion is it ok to restrict our gun right but not our freedom of speech right.

People don't get killed by the use of words. Words can sway opinion of course, and urge people on to certain courses of actions, but they're not a point->click->dead sort of thing.

Yes, in my opinion it's okay and even sensible to restrict your constitutionally amended right to bear arms (you don't want criminals or people with histories of violence to have them, for instance) but not your constitutional right to freedom of speech. Mostly because freedom of speech (the form in your constitution) is in my opinion an effort to prevent your government of the day from stamping out anybody who speaks against it. I think that's valuable. Much more valuable than something with a walnut stock. ;)

I stated that government is instructed not to take away a right. Politicians are polititions and people with good intentions (or bad) can really screw things up. People allow or instruct politicians to make up laws that take away their rights.

If the people as a whole (not 100% of course, that's pushing beyond feasable human nature imho) decided to add, modify, or get rid of one of their constitutional rights, the government would have to be the instrument of that change. I don't think it would be up to the government to just do it, however. I'm thinking of something along the lines of a referendum and a vote or series of votes, but something much more in depth than the votes you pick your president with.

I do not know how Canada politics works Provinces wise. The U.S.A. is made up of 50 countries/states with a Federal government to oversee some domestic issues and deal with external countries/states. Somewhat like the new EU, though the EU is much less intrusive in each countries affairs and deals more with trade. The people of the U.S.A. of the near past, have let the Federal government get too big and it is intruding big time into what were suppose to be State responsibilities and rights.

Same basic thing, but the federal level sets up the basics (health care, economic, police, etc) and the provinces (within the limits of what the federal level has established) do their thing.

My impression (wrong as it may be) of the US is that the states operate very independantly of each other and of the federal government. At least, more so than our provinces do. Do you find that to be true?

Well there was a big debate back when our Constitution was being drawn up about putting Rights in the original document, it was decided not to put them in. When the new Congress meet the first 10 amendments were drawn up and passed per our Constitution.

Could it be because "rights" are often transitory? :)

I think I'll look into how the Canadian government works.

Suit yourself, but it's dreadfully boring. Most Canadians don't even know we have a senate, and since we don't vote to put any of those guys in there and since they tend not to EVER make the news, we just ignore them while they draw their salaries. Fun, eh? :)

Not at all. I said I understand Kerry's reasoning.

No no no no. Before anybody goes in, THAT can be bilateral. But if someone's going to go in, that needs to be multinational.

Not unless he's got some ace I haven't heard about.

I understand it too. I'm just saying I think he's wrong on that one point.

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying your position. I just wish it was HIS position as well. If it is, I haven't heard him category state it.

Exactly. That's what bugs me. He's banking on that just because he's not Bush that the other nations (France/Germany esp) will love him. That may be wishful thinking.

I understand it too. I'm just saying I think he's wrong on that one point.

Oh, I don't know. If you have a bunch of disparate countries who all want one common thing (no nukes for North Korea, for example), that's fine. But when negotiations are done with a group, the various sides often try to get some additional advantage for themselves, so you end up with needless additions that could affect the basic negotiations.

Like when a perfectly sensible bill is introduced to your House, but then some special interest senator tag a rider onto it and changes everything.

Heh. Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when a meteor was going to hit Springfield. They were waiting for the government to help them out, but as it came up for a vote in the House, some senator added a rider for funding for the perverted arts on to the end of it. Guess how the vote for the "Save Springfield and Funding For Pornography" bill went? ;)

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying your position. I just wish it was HIS position as well. If it is, I haven't heard him category state it.

I can't actually see any other way to interpret what he said, but I didn't need to think about it much. I admit that I may be missing out on nuances. :P

But frankly, anything that binds your country more to the rest of the world is a good move in my opinion. I'm still worried you're going to invade Canada because of how we oppress our indigenous squirrel population. lol

Exactly. That's what bugs me. He's banking on that just because he's not Bush that the other nations (France/Germany esp) will love him. That may be wishful thinking.

Could be, although Bush has alienated a lot of countries and their populations by running roughshod over their concerns and interests. And he's done it needlessly.

If Kerry is going to set himself up as a consensus builder, I think he's going to find that a lot of countries will appreciate that. There's some mistrust to overcome that won't immediately vanish if/when Kerry gets elected, but hopefully that won't hold things up too much.

And although nobody on this thread has said it, I sense that there are those who think that the US being one voice among equals somehow weakens America. I'd say the opposite, and that holding yourselves aloof is what weakens. I'll be interested in seeing the other two debates. :)

I was surfing around a bit and saw this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=9&u=/latimests/20041003/ts_latimes/uspoliciesstirmorefearthanconfidence) article. It's a little bit of fluff, but I'm always interested in seeing what non-venom-spewing people have to say about stuff. :)

Lock now.

Lock now.

What, the thread? Why? Plenty of new posts are added daily, even if they've drifted from the OP. No need to be a forum nazi.

your on page 113 its not allowed.

your on page 113 its not allowed.

Damn! I forgot to factor in Zoroastrian numerology! When...will...I...learn...?

Oh, I don't know. If you have a bunch of disparate countries who all want one common thing (no nukes for North Korea, for example), that's fine. But when negotiations are done with a group, the various sides often try to get some additional advantage for themselves, so you end up with needless additions that could affect the basic negotiations.

Right. No one really wants a nuclear armed NK. But by the same token, China would not want a democratic NK and/or reunited Korea whereas South Korea would. This is why I believe you can’t have multi-party and single party talks at the same time. One by nature undermines the other…


Like when a perfectly sensible bill is introduced to your House, but then some special interest senator tag a rider onto it and changes everything.

Remember, all Senators are special interest Senators. :)


Heh. Reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when a meteor was going to hit Springfield. They were waiting for the government to help them out, but as it came up for a vote in the House, some senator added a rider for funding for the perverted arts on to the end of it. Guess how the vote for the "Save Springfield and Funding For Pornography" bill went? ;)

Ayep.


I can't actually see any other way to interpret what he said, but I didn't need to think about it much. I admit that I may be missing out on nuances. :P

As the Mission UK once said, “There are so many shades of green”.


But frankly, anything that binds your country more to the rest of the world is a good move in my opinion. I'm still worried you're going to invade Canada because of how we oppress our indigenous squirrel population. lol

Not always. There have been times where the rest of the world was wrong. The more glaring examples are the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Conference.
Nah. Here in CT we have an “unlimited limit” on squirrels – you can shoot all you want. :>


Could be, although Bush has alienated a lot of countries and their populations by running roughshod over their concerns and interests. And he's done it needlessly.

I agree that Bush has alienated some other nations, but I’m not sure it was needlessly. I fully believe that the French, Germans and Russians would no more come to our aid/an agreement on Iraq than they’d agree to end hunger in Africa.


If Kerry is going to set himself up as a consensus builder, I think he's going to find that a lot of countries will appreciate that. There's some mistrust to overcome that won't immediately vanish if/when Kerry gets elected, but hopefully that won't hold things up too much.

They will, until they discover that he won’t (at least, I HOPE he wont) put their interests ahead of ours. If you recall, US/French relations weren’t great during the Reagan years, either.


And although nobody on this thread has said it, I sense that there are those who think that the US being one voice among equals somehow weakens America. I'd say the opposite, and that holding yourselves aloof is what weakens. I'll be interested in seeing the other two debates. :)

I don’t see us as being aloof, but I do see us swimming against the tide.


I was surfing around a bit and saw this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=9&u=/latimests/20041003/ts_latimes/uspoliciesstirmorefearthanconfidence) article. It's a little bit of fluff, but I'm always interested in seeing what non-venom-spewing people have to say about stuff. :)
It’s just that – fluff. I put as little weight in these pieces as I do ones stating that “the white race will be extinct in 50 years!” or “I saw an image of the Virgin Mary my Ovaltine!”.

Lock now.Lock and load? Lock, stock and barrell?

People don't get killed by the use of words. Words can sway opinion of course, and urge people on to certain courses of actions, but they're not a point->click->dead sort of thing.

Yes, in my opinion it's okay and even sensible to restrict your constitutionally amended right to bear arms (you don't want criminals or people with histories of violence to have them, for instance) but not your constitutional right to freedom of speech. Mostly because freedom of speech (the form in your constitution) is in my opinion an effort to prevent your government of the day from stamping out anybody who speaks against it. I think that's valuable. Much more valuable than something with a walnut stock. ;)

I guess we will just have to to agree to disagree.


If the people as a whole (not 100% of course, that's pushing beyond feasable human nature imho) decided to add, modify, or get rid of one of their constitutional rights, the government would have to be the instrument of that change. I don't think it would be up to the government to just do it, however. I'm thinking of something along the lines of a referendum and a vote or series of votes, but something much more in depth than the votes you pick your president with.

Actually there is Marshall Law. Most people do not think through the issues and just go for "that sounds good" crap. We technically do not directly vote for our president - we do vote directly for Representatives and Senators.

This why I am opposed to any form of gun control/licensing. It is just a slow chipping away of your rights till one day you wake up and your right is gone.



Same basic thing, but the federal level sets up the basics (health care, economic, police, etc) and the provinces (within the limits of what the federal level has established) do their thing.

My impression (wrong as it may be) of the US is that the states operate very independantly of each other and of the federal government. At least, more so than our provinces do. Do you find that to be true?

Well originally States were more independant but now the mighty Federal dollar has caused States to give up a lot of State Right.



Could it be because "rights" are often transitory? :)

Only if we fall asleep at the wheel. Past citizens have nodded off several times.


Suit yourself, but it's dreadfully boring. Most Canadians don't even know we have a senate, and since we don't vote to put any of those guys in there and since they tend not to EVER make the news, we just ignore them while they draw their salaries. Fun, eh? :)

Where do I sign up?;)

Well I can see only two options:

1.) Every family gets their own bunker, complete with AA emplacements, razorwire, AT mines and all the rest. Each family member is issued with kevlar body armor and the assault weapon of their choice, along with a free lifetime supply of ammo. The government is disbanded, and the USA is ruled by militias, each state can have its very own feudal warlord! How roads, hospitals, emergency services, gas and electricity are maintained remains a baffling mystery.

2.) Every gun in America is sought out and destroyed. Every citizen is bar-coded and sold into bonded servitude by the corrupt dictatorship in the Whitehouse. El Presidente sits back and reaps the benefit of his dictatorship, while everyone, except, mysteriously, the military, loses all human rights. A huge wall gets erected around the USA, at least 60 feet high, and made of concrete, to keep all the foreign devils out.

THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

I refuse to debate this point further, as I am 103% sure I am right, and any data to the contrary is falsified. ;)

Well I can see only two options:

1.) Every family gets their own bunker, complete with AA emplacements, razorwire, AT mines and all the rest. Each family member is issued with kevlar body armor and the assault weapon of their choice, along with a free lifetime supply of ammo. The government is disbanded, and the USA is ruled by militias, each state can have its very own feudal warlord! How roads, hospitals, emergency services, gas and electricity are maintained remains a baffling mystery.

2.) Every gun in America is sought out and destroyed. Every citizen is bar-coded and sold into bonded servitude by the corrupt dictatorship in the Whitehouse. El Presidente sits back and reaps the benefit of his dictatorship, while everyone, except, mysteriously, the military, loses all human rights. A huge wall gets erected around the USA, at least 60 feet high, and made of concrete, to keep all the foreign devils out.

THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

I refuse to debate this point further, as I am 103% sure I am right, and any data to the contrary is falsified. ;)
I know it's satire, but................
I still feel there is a 3rd option. Everybody get's to choose what's best for their situation. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one.

Just a short thingy:

If we outlaw Semi-automatic guns and rifles, then only outlaws will have them, and the average man will have no way to defend against them. Is that what you want? If so, then go ahead, renew the ban!

Yes, I did not read the entire topic, but who can be expected to read 114 pages? I have to get up in the morning, you know!

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Better go bowling for Columbine then.

Well I can see only two options:

1.) Every family gets their own bunker, complete with AA emplacements, razorwire, AT mines and all the rest. Each family member is issued with kevlar body armor and the assault weapon of their choice, along with a free lifetime supply of ammo. The government is disbanded, and the USA is ruled by militias, each state can have its very own feudal warlord! How roads, hospitals, emergency services, gas and electricity are maintained remains a baffling mystery.

2.) Every gun in America is sought out and destroyed. Every citizen is bar-coded and sold into bonded servitude by the corrupt dictatorship in the Whitehouse. El Presidente sits back and reaps the benefit of his dictatorship, while everyone, except, mysteriously, the military, loses all human rights. A huge wall gets erected around the USA, at least 60 feet high, and made of concrete, to keep all the foreign devils out.

THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

I refuse to debate this point further, as I am 103% sure I am right, and any data to the contrary is falsified. ;)


Okay, now I get it....thanks for the heads up. :D <reaches for razorwire>

Right. No one really wants a nuclear armed NK. But by the same token, China would not want a democratic NK and/or reunited Korea whereas South Korea would. This is why I believe you can’t have multi-party and single party talks at the same time. One by nature undermines the other…

You can. The US (for instance) negotiates with Korea without help from anybody else. China does the same thing at the same time, and so do whatever countries/organizations that have an interest in this. You don't need to work together in this matter. It would be nice if people did, but it's hardly necessary in my opinion.

Remember, all Senators are special interest Senators. :)

Yeah, about that... :P

Not always. There have been times where the rest of the world was wrong. The more glaring examples are the Treaty of Versailles and the Munich Conference.

Live and learn. Hopefully the world as a whole is a little more far sighted and mature now. :)

Nah. Here in CT we have an “unlimited limit” on squirrels – you can shoot all you want. :>

Shoot them? No no no, we enslave them and make them work in our maple syrup fields deep drilling. :)

I agree that Bush has alienated some other nations, but I’m not sure it was needlessly. I fully believe that the French, Germans and Russians would no more come to our aid/an agreement on Iraq than they’d agree to end hunger in Africa.

France and Germany together probably come awfully close to the economic clout of the US. Russia has half of the world's trained engineers. Not the best choices to alienate. You're supposed to alienate places like Samoa and TinyineffectualcountrythatI'mjustinventingnow. lol

They will, until they discover that he won’t (at least, I HOPE he wont) put their interests ahead of ours. If you recall, US/French relations weren’t great during the Reagan years, either.

See, I don't see how it has to be an either-or situation. Working with the world (or most of it) towards something that everybody wants doesn't sacrifice any of your own interests, unless they're crappy interests.

When are you buggers going to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Grrrrr

I don’t see us as being aloof, but I do see us swimming against the tide.

Just to be contrary buggers I'm sure. ;)

It’s just that – fluff. I put as little weight in these pieces as I do ones stating that “the white race will be extinct in 50 years!” or “I saw an image of the Virgin Mary my Ovaltine!”.

Nothing wrong with fluff. I sometimes use fabric softener, after all.

Mmmm, Ovaltine. lol @ "white race". The whole concept of "race" is an invention from the eighteenth century and was just as dumb then as now. If you can breed with something and produce viable offspring, you're the same species. If there are variations in your species, we don't call those "races". We inherit such dreck from our ancestors sometimes.

I guess we will just have to to agree to disagree.

Nah, let's agree that some sort of synthesis is in order.

Actually there is Marshall Law. Most people do not think through the issues and just go for "that sounds good" crap. We technically do not directly vote for our president - we do vote directly for Representatives and Senators.

Do you mean martial law, where the government takes direct control of things using military force? I don't know what "Marshall Law" is otherwise.

As for the "go for the sounds good crap", that's why I said it would have to be a long involved process. You do notwant people voting from the hip, so to speak.

This why I am opposed to any form of gun control/licensing. It is just a slow chipping away of your rights till one day you wake up and your right is gone.

Not everything has to be an erosion or a slippery slope. But speaking of chipping away at rights... why is it that in the US you can enlist (or be drafted, if they bring that back) at an age where you don't get to vote? Lame. :P

Well originally States were more independant but now the mighty Federal dollar has caused States to give up a lot of State Right.

Is that a bad thing? You are a country after all. :)

Only if we fall asleep at the wheel. Past citizens have nodded off several times.

You know, I think that rights that involve anything beyond the needs of the metaphorical stomach aren't inherent. And if that's the case, they're malleable.

And like I said before, I think some rights are more important than others. That's situational of course, but I honestly (despite you and some of your fellows very patient explanations to dumb me) can't fathom why some regulation of who has a gun is such a problem in a real sense, rather than in an abstract sense.

Where do I sign up?;)

Everybody in the senate is appointed, if I remember right, by the Prime Minister. And only if there's an opening. So cozy up to Paul Martin. He's a bit more of a Conservative than Cretien was. :)

Well I can see only two options:

1.) Every family gets their own bunker, complete with AA emplacements, razorwire, AT mines and all the rest. Each family member is issued with kevlar body armor and the assault weapon of their choice, along with a free lifetime supply of ammo. The government is disbanded, and the USA is ruled by militias, each state can have its very own feudal warlord! How roads, hospitals, emergency services, gas and electricity are maintained remains a baffling mystery.

2.) Every gun in America is sought out and destroyed. Every citizen is bar-coded and sold into bonded servitude by the corrupt dictatorship in the Whitehouse. El Presidente sits back and reaps the benefit of his dictatorship, while everyone, except, mysteriously, the military, loses all human rights. A huge wall gets erected around the USA, at least 60 feet high, and made of concrete, to keep all the foreign devils out.

THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

I refuse to debate this point further, as I am 103% sure I am right, and any data to the contrary is falsified. ;)

I was crying at this, it summed up the bulk of this thread so well. Well done!

Note also that if you buggers are dumb enough to erect that wall, I'll push to have Canada expend its considerable water resources through a hosepipe to flood you dumbasses. ;)

Just a short thingy:

If we outlaw Semi-automatic guns and rifles, then only outlaws will have them, and the average man will have no way to defend against them. Is that what you want? If so, then go ahead, renew the ban!

Yes, I did not read the entire topic, but who can be expected to read 114 pages? I have to get up in the morning, you know!

Unless you've got a semi-automatic weapon that projects a kinetic shield around you, you can't defend yourself from someone else with a gun anyway. Either you shoot them before they shoot you, or you get something between you and them. Either mass or distance. Preferably both.

Go for semi-automatic shoes instead, so when you're running away you step faster. ;)

Okay, now I get it....thanks for the heads up. :D <reaches for razorwire>

Ah, my Waco-loving friend. Have I taught you nothing? :P

Nah, let's agree that some sort of synthesis is in order.



Do you mean martial law, where the government takes direct control of things using military force? I don't know what "Marshall Law" is otherwise.

As for the "go for the sounds good crap", that's why I said it would have to be a long involved process. You do notwant people voting from the hip, so to speak.



Not everything has to be an erosion or a slippery slope. But speaking of chipping away at rights... why is it that in the US you can enlist (or be drafted, if they bring that back) at an age where you don't get to vote? Lame. :P



Is that a bad thing? You are a country after all. :)



You know, I think that rights that involve anything beyond the needs of the metaphorical stomach aren't inherent. And if that's the case, they're malleable.

And like I said before, I think some rights are more important than others. That's situational of course, but I honestly (despite you and some of your fellows very patient explanations to dumb me) can't fathom why some regulation of who has a gun is such a problem in a real sense, rather than in an abstract sense.



Everybody in the senate is appointed, if I remember right, by the Prime Minister. And only if there's an opening. So cozy up to Paul Martin. He's a bit more of a Conservative than Cretien was. :)



age to vote in US 18
Age to Join the Military and or be drafted 18/ 17 if you just graduated and have parental permission.

you can go to basic training if your 17 but cannot go to AIT until you graduate high school and become 18

age to vote in US 18
Age to Join the Military and or be drafted 18/ 17 if you just graduated and have parental permission.

you can go to basic training if your 17 but cannot go to AIT until you graduate high school and become 18

Ah, thank you. :)

For some reason, I thought you had to be 21 or so to vote.

You can. The US (for instance) negotiates with Korea without help from anybody else. China does the same thing at the same time, and so do whatever countries/organizations that have an interest in this. You don't need to work together in this matter. It would be nice if people did, but it's hardly necessary in my opinion.

Then you're not having simultaneous bilateral and multilateral talks. QED.


Live and learn. Hopefully the world as a whole is a little more far sighted and mature now. :)

I doubt it. Two words: "Reality TV". :(
(Which I see has been infecting other nations, too. Canadian Idol?!? What were you lot thinking?!? It's bad enough in it's original form!!)


Shoot them? No no no, we enslave them and make them work in our maple syrup fields deep drilling. :)

Then at least you're putting them to work for a noble enterprise.


France and Germany together probably come awfully close to the economic clout of the US. Russia has half of the world's trained engineers. Not the best choices to alienate. You're supposed to alienate places like Samoa and TinyineffectualcountrythatI'mjustinventingnow. lol

Nope. Barely a third. And probably sinking, given that their welfare states will implode as they both will have (within the next 15 years) the largest elderly demographic they've ever had.
Germany purchasing power parity - $2.271 trillion (2003 est.)
France purchasing power parity - $1.661 trillion (2003 est.)
USA purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion (2003 est.)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Yes. And they've given us... Chernobyl. And the Aswan Dam. And the Buran. (I don't see too many victories, here... BTW, before you point out Sputnik, read "Red Star in Orbit".)
But we LIKE Samoa! We OWN THEM! ;)


See, I don't see how it has to be an either-or situation. Working with the world (or most of it) towards something that everybody wants doesn't sacrifice any of your own interests, unless they're crappy interests.

We're working with as much of it as will see reason. :)
That's my whole arguement: they (FRA/GER/RUS) had crappy (read: $$) interests.


When are you buggers going to sign on to the Kyoto Accords? Grrrrr

Never. Back in 1997. the Senate (remember those special interest Senators?) killed it 96-0!


Nothing wrong with fluff. I sometimes use fabric softener, after all.

True. But that was my $0.02 (0.02546 Canadian).


Mmmm, Ovaltine. lol @ "white race". The whole concept of "race" is an invention from the eighteenth century and was just as dumb then as now. If you can breed with something and produce viable offspring, you're the same species. If there are variations in your species, we don't call those "races". We inherit such dreck from our ancestors sometimes.

Yea, Ovaltine is good stuff. Esp. with a little schnapps.
You'd be amazed how often that topic comes up in some bars.
True. But they also gave us Mozart, machine guns and Monet. No generation is perfect, and I almost shudder to think about what the future will get from us.

Ah, thank you. :)

For some reason, I thought you had to be 21 or so to vote.

21 is to drink in the US, which was instituted in the late 70s and early 80s to cut down on drunk driving. (Now our drunk drivers have more experience, I guess). I still think it should go back down to 18, since that's when you are no longer a minor in the eyes of the law and are a full-fledged citizen.

But then you have to be 35 to be President...

Ah, my Waco-loving friend. Have I taught you nothing? :P

Waco was proof that Janet Reno had no business being in the Cabinet.
Ruby Ridge compounded it.
Elian Gonzalez was the magnum opus.

Man, those were some dark times. :(

Here is why this :mp5: and this :sniper: should not be allowed in America:
lack of self-control. Somehow, Canada has less gun murders but lots of guns. Why? Because the people there are more mature/capable of not shooting others with no reason. America should not be able to have guns roaming freely because Americans are not ready for them. You do not give AK-47s and C4 to gangsters for the same reason- they will kill people with them.

For the "so what just cause blackmarket" folks, that's sort of like saying weapons of mass destruction or dangerous drugs shouldn't be banned from public production because they will just appear on the black market.

Here is why this :mp5: and this :sniper: should not be allowed in America:
lack of self-control. Somehow, Canada has less gun murders but lots of guns. Why? Because the people there are more mature/capable of not shooting others with no reason. America should not be able to have guns roaming freely because Americans are not ready for them. You do not give AK-47s and C4 to gangsters for the same reason- they will kill people with them.

For the "so what just cause blackmarket" folks, that's sort of like saying weapons of mass destruction or dangerous drugs shouldn't be banned from public production because they will just appear on the black market.I've made pretty much the same point about 7 times now (in this thread and the other one) - I'm afraid the "other side" just don't get it. Oh, they will say they get it, and that we're wrong because of "rights", but I honestly don't think they really understand.

...and then they say we don't understand "their" side and we don't understand "rights". It an infinity loop. :p

Ah, my Waco-loving friend. Have I taught you nothing? :P

You taught me that anyone has the capability to be reasonable in an argument. :D

Happy???

I've made pretty much the same point about 7 times now (in this thread and the other one) - I'm afraid the "other side" just don't get it. Oh, they will say they get it, and that we're wrong because of "rights", but I honestly don't think they really understand.

...and then they say we don't understand "their" side and we don't understand "rights". It an infinity loop. :p

It's not that we don't get it, Fu, it's just that we don't think you're the one qualified to tell us what we can and cannot do.

No slam, just reality.

If you've got five minutes to burn, give this (http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/universalmotown/motown/lazyboy/video/00_underweargoesinsideyourpants.asx) a watch.

Some guys with a sense of humour talking about problems in the US. I offer this purely for amusement, I'm not holding it up as an example and saying "See? SEE?!?!" or anything. :)

Then you're not having simultaneous bilateral and multilateral talks. QED.

If you stretch the definition, you are. America talking to North Korea, Germany talking to North Korea, China talking to North Korea, etc all looking for common things (lose the nukes, guys) is similar to multilateral talks. If you want a textbook definition, then no, they're not and you're right. :P

I doubt it. Two words: "Reality TV". :(
(Which I see has been infecting other nations, too. Canadian Idol?!? What were you lot thinking?!? It's bad enough in it's original form!!)

lol

I agree. :) We have Canadian Idol because there's always been a strong current of describing ourselves as "not American". Hence our own Idol show. Hence lots of dumb things. I'm going to go rinse this bad taste out of my mouth now. :P

Then at least you're putting them to work for a noble enterprise.

Yeah, the giant ones in Stanley Park regularly rob tourists. I think they're in cahoots with the geese.

Nope. Barely a third. And probably sinking, given that their welfare states will implode as they both will have (within the next 15 years) the largest elderly demographic they've ever had.
Germany purchasing power parity - $2.271 trillion (2003 est.)
France purchasing power parity - $1.661 trillion (2003 est.)
USA purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion (2003 est.)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Now instead look at the very tight tendrils of control snaking out of both countries. And if you're going to point at countries with substantial older populations, look to your own. They're the ones that control the bulk of your money too, and turn out to vote more often. Be afraid! "Night of the living Old People"! Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! lol

Yes. And they've given us... Chernobyl. And the Aswan Dam. And the Buran. (I don't see too many victories, here... BTW, before you point out Sputnik, read "Red Star in Orbit".)

I don't know dude, seems like an awful lot of European, Asian, and African countries use a lot of Russian tech and have lots of their things manufactured or constructed by Russian firms.

And the containment structure over Chernobyl IS a pretty fantastic little piece of engineering. Needs to be replaced though. Hopefully it'll cost them fewer lives this time.

But we LIKE Samoa! We OWN THEM! ;)

I'm sure that's wonderful. I own several samosas. Mmmmm, potato. :D

We're working with as much of it as will see reason. :)

<slaps your American arrogance> lol

That's my whole arguement: they (FRA/GER/RUS) had crappy (read: $$) interests.

Yeah, nothing as noble as oil rights. ;)

Never. Back in 1997. the Senate (remember those special interest Senators?) killed it 96-0!

I say, grind 'em up and use them as cattle feed.

True. But that was my $0.02 (0.02546 Canadian).

We've been gaining on your dollar - we've even stopped using our own as toilet paper! (Mostly because we use coins for our dollar, and it just doesn't absorb)

True. But they also gave us Mozart, machine guns and Monet. No generation is perfect, and I almost shudder to think about what the future will get from us.

Online multiplayer gaming. I'm satisfied. ;)

21 is to drink in the US, which was instituted in the late 70s and early 80s to cut down on drunk driving. (Now our drunk drivers have more experience, I guess). I still think it should go back down to 18, since that's when you are no longer a minor in the eyes of the law and are a full-fledged citizen.

But then you have to be 35 to be President...

You guys aren't allowed to drink alcohol down there until you're 21?!

So... you're responsible enough to vote, responsible enough to go to war and die, but not responsible enough to drink a beer with your dinner?!

About your country... :P

Waco was proof that Janet Reno had no business being in the Cabinet.
Ruby Ridge compounded it.
Elian Gonzalez was the magnum opus.

Man, those were some dark times. :(

I sometimes wonder if those few examples that get such media attention aren't even the worst ones, and don't highlight the frequency of such things. :(

Here is why this :mp5: and this :sniper: should not be allowed in America:
lack of self-control. Somehow, Canada has less gun murders but lots of guns. Why? Because the people there are more mature/capable of not shooting others with no reason. America should not be able to have guns roaming freely because Americans are not ready for them. You do not give AK-47s and C4 to gangsters for the same reason- they will kill people with them.

For the "so what just cause blackmarket" folks, that's sort of like saying weapons of mass destruction or dangerous drugs shouldn't be banned from public production because they will just appear on the black market.

Speaking as a Canadian, I don't know that we're any more mature here than anywhere else. In fact, I'd say that's a facile argument.

I think that it comes down to a different way of looking at things, and that's come out during the course of this thread with some Americans taking the time to think about themselves and share their motivations with me, as I struggled to comprehend why some (to pick a random example) would shoot someone they found breaking into their car.

There are lots of different ways to live, and unless you're going to run for office (assuming you're in a democratic country), about the best way you can influence people is by example.

So if you're an American, Gnomish Republics, and you like an aspect of the way we do things in Canada, study it, figure out how it works, and apply it to yourself in your day-to-day life and dealings with those around you. Feel free to explain to people what you're doing and why you're doing it, but don't preach about how those that don't do it that way are immature or less responsible. I tend to turn my back on people that harrangue the way I live, and there's certainly room for criticism and change in my life. :P

Generally, and I want to stress the generally part, we don't shoot each other up here with the frequency that it happens in the US because life, any life is important to us. Even when we don't like the person, reject their lifestyles, and grumble about it ("all those useless junkies should be killed so we stop wasting our tax dollars on clean needle programs"), we'd still rather people didn't die.

That attitude stretches out into all sorts of unlikely places. Is it more mature? Beats me. Is it the way I want to live? Yes. Is it the way YOU want to do things? Choose for yourself. Want others to do it? Show them by example how it's better.

When we're done with not living up to our end of the thousands of treaties with our aboriginal population, when we've eliminated poverty from our people, when we've brought education standards up to the point where our young people are educated, when we undertake large engineering projects with an eye for long term (i.e. centuries, not something that will dissolve in a mere fifty years), when we stop polluting our own nests, and lots of other things, then call us "more mature". But we'd be far too humble to accept it, so don't say it then either. :P

You taught me that anyone has the capability to be reasonable in an argument. :D

lmao

Even a hippy from America Jr. eh? :)

Happy???

I'd be happier if I knew I could steal your car without being shot. :D

lmao
Even a hippy from America Jr. eh? :)


It doesn't matter how you or I classify you. You were on the opposing side to some of my points, and you never lost your cool nor did the insulting thing. That's much appreciated.


I'd be happier if I knew I could steal your car without being shot. :D

Well, as the defensive laws are written in Wisconsin, if you're not directly threatening me or another person, I can't legally shoot you. And I'm big on liability awareness--doesn't mean I agree with laws as written--the reality of the situation is that there will be money-hungry lawyers and families of "victims" seeking cash (even if they have no right to it).

So, for all my blatherings of what I'd like to do to someone that would try to take from me, the simple fact is, I will try to protect myself and those I love first (meaning if it came down to shooting someone stealing a DVD player--I'd let them go due to the fact that I'd lose more money shooting the asshole than what I'd save on not having to buy another DVD player).

You'l find that many of those who have licenses to carry concealed think more about liability and the days ahead than those that don't carry--kinda like how motorcycle riders tend to look further ahead and behind than an average car driver does because if something happens, the motorcycle driver isn't as protected as the car driver is. Same thing with a person that chooses to use a firearm for self-defense. If we shoot someone--we're going to jail for at least a night, regardless. Even if a defensive use of a pistol is exonerated in court, the civil case will likely cripple the defendant financially (since our stupid juries keep awarding money to relatives of criminals).

It doesn't matter how you or I classify you. You were on the opposing side to some of my points, and you never lost your cool nor did the insulting thing. That's much appreciated.

Thanks, but that's just me being me. I'll instead save all my ire and venom for highly obscure points in stupidly speculative discussions, like hours-long arguments about the sort of rotation that's best for long-term crop growth on a hollowed-out farming asteroid. lol

Well, as the defensive laws are written in Wisconsin, if you're not directly threatening me or another person, I can't legally shoot you. And I'm big on liability awareness--doesn't mean I agree with laws as written--the reality of the situation is that there will be money-hungry lawyers and families of "victims" seeking cash (even if they have no right to it).

While we have some of this same thing that happens here, I have to admit that I just shake my head at the scope and scale of it in the US. I wonder if there's going to be a Night of the Long Knives style uprising one night and the following morning there won't be a shyster with a shingle to be found. ;)

So, for all my blatherings of what I'd like to do to someone that would try to take from me, the simple fact is, I will try to protect myself and those I love first (meaning if it came down to shooting someone stealing a DVD player--I'd let them go due to the fact that I'd lose more money shooting the asshole than what I'd save on not having to buy another DVD player).

lol

[tongue-in-cheek] What a perfect American-style solution for something that's been vexing me! I was trying for so many posts to find a way to reduce the number of people being shot unnecessarily (in my opinion), and here you laid it out so simply and clearly - monetary penalties! lol

I love you man. :) [/tongue-in-cheek]

;)

You'l find that many of those who have licenses to carry concealed think more about liability and the days ahead than those that don't carry--kinda like how motorcycle riders tend to look further ahead and behind than an average car driver does because if something happens, the motorcycle driver isn't as protected as the car driver is. Same thing with a person that chooses to use a firearm for self-defense. If we shoot someone--we're going to jail for at least a night, regardless. Even if a defensive use of a pistol is exonerated in court, the civil case will likely cripple the defendant financially (since our stupid juries keep awarding money to relatives of criminals).

Yes, it seems a bit silly to have juries decide on how much to award somebody. I thought the point of a jury was to have them apply the letter of the law through the contemporary views of a group of registered voters. Cash awards and the like ought to be (again, in my opinion) be done by the judge, if it gets to court in the first place.

About those with licenses to carry concealed considering liability and the days ahead of them - it's fantastic if it's true. Now how to get everybody to be so forward thinking?

I think the government has a right to take your guns away but whether they should is a different matter. I think they should just make gun laws tighter.
I voted no.

I dont feel the Governemnt has the right to ban any type of small arm from law abiding citizens(and yes I know exactly what falls under the term small arms, and I still mean it).


Well let columbine rest on your shoulders. But you don't care, none of you repbulicans do. Your willing to let people die, for your freedom. Funny thing is, that's not what freedom was intended for. To allow you assholes to kill?

Whatever you'll be rotting in Hell, not me.

Well let columbine rest on your shoulders. But you don't care, none of you repbulicans do. Your willing to let people die, for your freedom. Funny thing is, that's not what freedom was intended for. To allow you assholes to kill?

Whatever you'll be rotting in Hell, not me.
Amazing, the tolerance just ooozes from this mans pores.

I voted that the government does not have the right to keep me from owning any gun I want to own, but anyone who pulls the 2nd amendment into this argument, as if assault rifles were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said "right to bear arms", is hopelessly detached from reality.

I voted that the government does not have the right to keep me from owning any gun I want to own, but anyone who pulls the 2nd amendment into this argument, as if assault rifles were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said "right to bear arms", is hopelessly detached from reality.
No, actually the 2nd amendment is the very heart of the matter. That plus the right to own guns is not granted by the government, but rather one that they are supposed to protect for us. A basic human right.

I think the government has a right to take your guns away but whether they should is a different matter. I think they should just make gun laws tighter.
I voted no.

Just a quick note - I'm not sure governments can have rights. That's like you just spontaneously granting powers or authority to yourself.

Now, whether the population that a government adminsters should give that jurisdiction to the government... ;)

Well let columbine rest on your shoulders. But you don't care, none of you repbulicans do. Your willing to let people die, for your freedom. Funny thing is, that's not what freedom was intended for. To allow you assholes to kill?

Whatever you'll be rotting in Hell, not me.

Hell has a special area set up for those who feel they know the One True Way. Go early and get a good chair.

And to lump people into republicans and democrats... very narrow thinking. While I'm all for you guys having good regulations on gun ownership and use, I don't think that this sort of "you're going to hell" crap is anything better than those that want to use their automatic weapons to build themselves a throne of skulls.

No, actually the 2nd amendment is the very heart of the matter. That plus the right to own guns is not granted by the government, but rather one that they are supposed to protect for us. A basic human right.

Oh, I'm not sure that gun ownership is a basic human right.

But let's pretend that I think it is. I think it would rank somewhere well below "right to live", since gun ownership "to protect one's self" carries the subtext of "by ending another's life".

I think it would rank somewhere well below "right to live", since gun ownership "to protect one's self" carries the subtext of "by ending another's life".

Not neccasarily.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses in the states are brandishings (i.e. criminal sees gun, criminal decides to stop attack).

In only a small percentage of defesive gun uses is the gun fired, and the number of injuries and fatalities smaller still.

Craig

Oh, I'm not sure that gun ownership is a basic human right.

But let's pretend that I think it is. I think it would rank somewhere well below "right to live", since gun ownership "to protect one's self" carries the subtext of "by ending another's life".
Now don't go get this thread started again. I've agreed to disagree ;)
In my own rather humble opinion, right to life includes right to defense. I'll let that one just sit there.

Defense does not always mean ending anothers life. It can, but the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not end up with the gun even being fired.

I voted that the government does not have the right to keep me from owning any gun I want to own, but anyone who pulls the 2nd amendment into this argument, as if assault rifles were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said "right to bear arms", is hopelessly detached from reality.

Weapons technology hasn't quite advanced as much as communications, yet we don't often hear this argument about the first Ammendment. I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about the interenet when that was written, but somehow it still applies. The bill of rights means what it says. Speech is speech, and arms are arms. Advancements in technology have not changed the meaning of any laws. Only an ammendment can legally do that to the Constitution.

Yes off course!

I love you man. :) [/tongue-in-cheek]

;)


You're still not getting my Bud Lite....waitaminute. Of course you can have the Bud Lite, I hate that shit. Got any decent beer to spare??? :D

I voted that the government does not have the right to keep me from owning any gun I want to own, but anyone who pulls the 2nd amendment into this argument, as if assault rifles were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they said "right to bear arms", is hopelessly detached from reality.

No, they're really not. The Founding Fathers meant for us to keep up with the government, so they wouldn't oppress us.

Not neccasarily.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses in the states are brandishings (i.e. criminal sees gun, criminal decides to stop attack).

In only a small percentage of defesive gun uses is the gun fired, and the number of injuries and fatalities smaller still.

Craig

Since there's no possible way we could know what the actual stats are for brandishing versus use, let me simply say that reading what you said put me in mind of something someone once told me about Christianity:

He said that morality that derives from religion (although he was specifically talking about Christianity, and specifically about people in North America) is no kind of morality. Rather than doing "the right thing" because it's the right thing to do, people do it either to tally points to get the reward (paradise), or to not accrue demerits ending in punishment (hell). Having been raised a Christian myself (long LONG since lapsed), I saw a certain amount of truth in that.

So when you (generic you) talk about ensuring life/safety through use of weapons (brandishing is using too, for this example) it puts me in mind of the ass-backwards example of morality that guy told me.

Wouldn't it be better if everybody, yourself included, placed such a high value on life itself that such attacks didn't happen in the first place? At least to the extent that you normally wouldn't have to even consider personal defense as something you have to see to?

That's not Pollyannaism, and I'm going to run the risk of sounding paternal in a second.

Many times in this thread I (and others) have pointed out that countries comparable in geography, individual wealth, more/less gun ownership, cultural demographics, et cetera seem to have a far lower rate of people being killed. I'm from Canada (if you haven't seen me apologising for it in nearly every post ;)), and I happen to think that our two countries are pretty damn alike in most ways. But we don't kill each other the way you guys do. Nor do we find that criminals and the like attack us more because we don't carry guns on us (you won't find people packing guns in their jackets/bags up here, nor in their vehicles).

Different attitudes about people and life is all I can come up with for a reason.

That said, do you want people to be protected because they're all carrying instruments of violence (weapons, but I'm pushing my view a tad), or because of a mutual respect for the individual's right to live unmolested?

You always hear people say "as long as the end result is the same, who cares how you get there?". Call me idealistic, but I think the means justifies the end you get.

Now don't go get this thread started again. I've agreed to disagree ;)
In my own rather humble opinion, right to life includes right to defense. I'll let that one just sit there.

Defense does not always mean ending anothers life. It can, but the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not end up with the gun even being fired.

Again, hard to quote reliable stats. While I don't like the idea of people armed-and-willing-to-use-them-on-people, that doesn't mean that I roll over and submit when being oppressed. I don't normally get into fights (note my posting style, even :P), but that doesn't mean that I won't defend myself (non-lethally) if necessary.

However, instead of an axe kick at the juncture of your neck and shoulder, I'm more likely to throw you down with your arm bent behind you in an uncomfortable manner. Both ways end up with you on the ground, but my way doesn't send you to the hospital or morgue. That's kind of like the ends/means thing I was babbling about in my previous post.

You always hear people say "as long as the end result is the same, who cares how you get there?". Call me idealistic, but I think the means justifies the end you get.

Well you are right, and then you are wrong. Yes, it would be much better if everyone, myself included, placed such a high value on life itself that such attacks didn't happen in the first place.

However, I do live in a world where others do not place any value on life, of others or of their own.

You are an idealist... which is cool. Im a realist. You come up with a means (that works) to cause the criminal element to give up crime, and I will give up my guns (well.. store them at the range so I can still use them when I want to, at the range). Of course, I include the government when I talk about the criminal element.

Weapons technology hasn't quite advanced as much as communications, yet we don't often hear this argument about the first Ammendment. I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about the interenet when that was written, but somehow it still applies. The bill of rights means what it says. Speech is speech, and arms are arms. Advancements in technology have not changed the meaning of any laws. Only an ammendment can legally do that to the Constitution.

The problem between ideology and practicality comes in though.

Remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean being able to spout off anything you want anytime you want, at least not the definition of "freedom of speech" that's usually attributed to what's in your constitution.

That "freedom of speech" specifically means that the governing body shouldn't and can't suppress unpopular opinions or people, even (especially) if they run contrary to the party line or government's position on something.

In plainer terms, it means the feds aren't allowed to stem criticism of them.

The internet doesn't really change the nature of freedom of speech, even if you prefer to define that freedom as being able to say anything to anyone about anything.

However, the types of weapons available now that weren't available when that second amendment was penned do change the nature of some things.

You had rifles and cannons (I'm leaving off things like swords and catapults because I don't think they happen to apply to what we're talking about right now. Include them if you like). Rifles had limitations to what they could do. One person armed with a rifle (or cannon for that matter) couldn't wipe out a town square full of people before being stopped. Range and accuracy were considerations, and so was the rate of fire. So was the yield on the weapons. But now?

If you keep pace with what the government has, that means grenades. Timed explosives. Flamethrowers. A chaingun mounted on your pickup firing 60+ rounds per second. Mortars. Computer-guided munitions. Thermobarics. White phosphor rounds. Nuclear weapons. See the difference?

The harm of what you can do with all of these things far outstrips the benefits to society/sane individuals/protection of rights. This is why I find the reasoning that "one right is the same as any other" to be a bit on the weak side.

Even if we're just talking about automatic weapons, the harm:benefit ratio (as I calculate it, anyway) doesn't come close to being balanced with the one from the "right to bear arms" days.

You're still not getting my Bud Lite....waitaminute. Of course you can have the Bud Lite, I hate that shit. Got any decent beer to spare??? :D

Most likely, since our beer up here isn't like making love in a canoe. ;)

No, they're really not. The Founding Fathers meant for us to keep up with the government, so they wouldn't oppress us.

Use the devastating weapon of accountability to keep up with your government, and they'll never oppress you.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

However, I do live in a world where others do not place any value on life, of others or of their own.

Forgive me for saying so, but you live in a country that does that, not a world.

You are an idealist... which is cool. Im a realist. You come up with a means (that works) to cause the criminal element to give up crime, and I will give up my guns (well.. store them at the range so I can still use them when I want to, at the range). Of course, I include the government when I talk about the criminal element.

While there's lots of room to disagree, I'd say I'm a pragmatist. What I've been saying works fairly well for us here in Canada. Note that we've got guns up the wazoo here as well. So I'm saying if you change your attitudes, the change will (ultimately) affect even the people in your country that are criminals.

Heh. Nobody wants to budge. This reminds me of a description of a philosophical argument (I'm not casting you as the dumb one, just the other one):

I say to you, "Put away your lamp, the day has come!" but you say "I need my lamp to find the day!". ;)

Use the devastating weapon of accountability to keep up with your government, and they'll never oppress you.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Yeah, I know you'd like to see another way--and frankly, I wouldn't mind it either. :D But the criminals have to give up the crime before I give up the guns.

I was just pointing out what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding the second amendment (documented in the Federalist Papers), as opposed to what Sdaeriji assumed they were thinking, without doing the research.

Forgive me for saying so, but you live in a country that does that, not a world.
I said world, and I meant it. Show me a place in the world where every single person respects life to the point where crime is non-existant.
While there's lots of room to disagree, I'd say I'm a pragmatist. What I've been saying works fairly well for us here in Canada. Note that we've got guns up the wazoo here as well. So I'm saying if you change your attitudes, the change will (ultimately) affect even the people in your country that are criminals.
I called you an idealist, because you called yourself an idealist. But whatever. My attitude does not need to change. I do not commit crimes (except for the occasional speed limit infraction).
Heh. Nobody wants to budge. This reminds me of a description of a philosophical argument (I'm not casting you as the dumb one, just the other one):

I say to you, "Put away your lamp, the day has come!" but you say "I need my lamp to find the day!". ;)
I already said I would budge. If you find that way to eliminate crime, I would change my views about my possessing a gun. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath tho.

oh christ is this topic still going on?

zzzZzzZzzz

oh christ is this topic still going on?

zzzZzzZzzz
yeah
the gun nuts are all like

i need my guns to protect myself from other people with guns

and the anti gun peoples are like

if you take gunsaway from everyone you wont need guns to protect yourself


and the gun nutes are like

but criminals will have guns


and the others are like

but if no one has guns how will criminals get guns


and the guns nuts are like

blah blah blah

and blah blah blah

and then blah blah blah

oh christ is this topic still going on?

zzzZzzZzzz
Only because people like you are so kind to bump it :D

oh christ is this topic still going on?

zzzZzzZzzz

You can always unsubscribe from the thread....no one's keeping ya here.