medicineman
New Member
You know my stance on the 2nd. Obama is playing to the liberal base on that, you know, those uppity New Yorkers That wouldn't know a .44 colt from a shotgun. He'll Mellow on that after the NRA gets up his ass.
Iraq's security 'remarkably better'
- Thread starter pandabear
- Start date
GoodbyeFreedom
Well-Known Member
Whats up with the O'bama thing? I seriously dont get it...
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't really give a crap about guns. The stats for the last few years show that of all the gun deaths in the US, more than half of them were from someone committing suicide. So, the single biggest use for guns in this country is to make it easy for people to kill themselves. And houses that don't have guns? Much, much lower chance that someone in that house will commit suicide by *any* means. It's as if guns have an aura of death around them that infects those nearby, causing them to kill themselves when otherwise they would not.
The stats for guns being used for defense aren't all that great either. Many times the guns are used against the owners, or simply stolen while the owner is gone and used against someone else. And within 10 feet, knives are better than guns in terms of effectiveness. So, self-defense? Meh, not so much.
If you're going to go to the park with a sniper rifle and start blowing away college students or something, okay, guns *are* good for that. If you want to kill yourself, guns are good for that too (90+ percent suicide success rate with a gun).
So, really, that leaves hunting. If you really do go hunting to supply your family with meat, more power to you. But guns could be rented for that, no great need to *own* one. Rent your gun, kill your deer, turn in gun, go home and skin and eat it. Not rocket science.
Let's theorize a bit. The goal of guns is to kill people (or animals, in rare cases). Let us theorize that we create the ultimate gun. You look at your target and you think 'Die!" and the target falls over dead, simple as that. No second shots, no chasing the prey, you just look at the target and think them dead and boom, they're dead. Now, let's give everyone one of these superguns. Would civilization survive the ultimate gun? No way in hell. So, by constantly working to perfect guns, we're actually working toward a goal that, if ever realized, would end our civilization. That's how bad guns are, so bad that if we ever perfect them, we doom ourselves in the process.
Now don't get me wrong. I like guns. I like the math involved in distance shooting (500 yards and longer, and it doesn't really get interesting until you're at 1000+ yards). I was an expert marksman in the Army. I've had lots of training with guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, pistols, knives, bayonets. I familiarized myself with AK-47s and Makarov submachine guns during the invasion of Grenada. I used M-14s while a member of the Arizona Honor Guard. I have used lots of guns, and lots of different *kinds* of guns, and they're fun enough.
I do not own one though. Why? Because I don't want to become one of those death-aura suicide statistics, for one reason. I also don't really feel much need for one. For a home intruder, I know where the knives are (and the baseball bat, and the nail gun, and the hammer, and the icepicks), and I don't think there's any way an intruder would get the drop on me in my own home, especially in the dark. I can kill someone more quietly and quickly and surely without a gun, at least in the close quarters that is my home, and with less damage to my home, than I could with a gun.
If Obama puts a couple of people on the Supreme Court that override that latest 2nd amendment decision, I'll shed no tears. I don't believe they made a valid decision. If the 'well-regulated militia' phrase is meaningless, why did our founding fathers put it there? The decision rendered by the court makes it as if our founding fathers never added that phrase at all, which was simply avoiding the problem of interpreting it. They didn't interpret the 2nd amendment, they ignored part of it. That was wrong. I believe the founding fathers wanted people to be able to have guns *only* if they are part of a well-regulated militia. I know lots of people who own guns, and *none* of them are part of a well-regulated militia, except for those in the National Guard or the Reserves.
In any case, McCain has no hope of winning this election. He's an old, stodgy conservative white guy, which is what the conservatives have been throwing out there for more than two hundred years. He's boring, totally unexciting, with old ideas that won't work in a new world. Whether you like Obama or not, you better get used to the idea that he is going to be our president.
The stats for guns being used for defense aren't all that great either. Many times the guns are used against the owners, or simply stolen while the owner is gone and used against someone else. And within 10 feet, knives are better than guns in terms of effectiveness. So, self-defense? Meh, not so much.
If you're going to go to the park with a sniper rifle and start blowing away college students or something, okay, guns *are* good for that. If you want to kill yourself, guns are good for that too (90+ percent suicide success rate with a gun).
So, really, that leaves hunting. If you really do go hunting to supply your family with meat, more power to you. But guns could be rented for that, no great need to *own* one. Rent your gun, kill your deer, turn in gun, go home and skin and eat it. Not rocket science.
Let's theorize a bit. The goal of guns is to kill people (or animals, in rare cases). Let us theorize that we create the ultimate gun. You look at your target and you think 'Die!" and the target falls over dead, simple as that. No second shots, no chasing the prey, you just look at the target and think them dead and boom, they're dead. Now, let's give everyone one of these superguns. Would civilization survive the ultimate gun? No way in hell. So, by constantly working to perfect guns, we're actually working toward a goal that, if ever realized, would end our civilization. That's how bad guns are, so bad that if we ever perfect them, we doom ourselves in the process.
Now don't get me wrong. I like guns. I like the math involved in distance shooting (500 yards and longer, and it doesn't really get interesting until you're at 1000+ yards). I was an expert marksman in the Army. I've had lots of training with guns, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, pistols, knives, bayonets. I familiarized myself with AK-47s and Makarov submachine guns during the invasion of Grenada. I used M-14s while a member of the Arizona Honor Guard. I have used lots of guns, and lots of different *kinds* of guns, and they're fun enough.
I do not own one though. Why? Because I don't want to become one of those death-aura suicide statistics, for one reason. I also don't really feel much need for one. For a home intruder, I know where the knives are (and the baseball bat, and the nail gun, and the hammer, and the icepicks), and I don't think there's any way an intruder would get the drop on me in my own home, especially in the dark. I can kill someone more quietly and quickly and surely without a gun, at least in the close quarters that is my home, and with less damage to my home, than I could with a gun.
If Obama puts a couple of people on the Supreme Court that override that latest 2nd amendment decision, I'll shed no tears. I don't believe they made a valid decision. If the 'well-regulated militia' phrase is meaningless, why did our founding fathers put it there? The decision rendered by the court makes it as if our founding fathers never added that phrase at all, which was simply avoiding the problem of interpreting it. They didn't interpret the 2nd amendment, they ignored part of it. That was wrong. I believe the founding fathers wanted people to be able to have guns *only* if they are part of a well-regulated militia. I know lots of people who own guns, and *none* of them are part of a well-regulated militia, except for those in the National Guard or the Reserves.
In any case, McCain has no hope of winning this election. He's an old, stodgy conservative white guy, which is what the conservatives have been throwing out there for more than two hundred years. He's boring, totally unexciting, with old ideas that won't work in a new world. Whether you like Obama or not, you better get used to the idea that he is going to be our president.
Last edited:
ViRedd
New Member
Irish. You know, like O'Reilly, O'Malley and O'Brian?
Childish, I know ... but that's just me.
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
Bongulator sez ...
"If Obama puts a couple of people on the Supreme Court that override that latest 2nd amendment decision, I'll shed no tears. I don't believe they made a valid decision. If the 'well-regulated militia' phrase is meaningless, why did our founding fathers put it there? The decision rendered by the court makes it as if our founding fathers never added that phrase at all, which was simply avoiding the problem of interpreting it. They didn't interpret the 2nd amendment, they ignored part of it. That was wrong. I believe the founding fathers wanted people to be able to have guns *only* if they are part of a well-regulated militia. I know lots of people who own guns, and *none* of them are part of a well-regulated militia, except for those in the National Guard or the Reserves."
So then, where the First Amendment says "The right of THE PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," they really didn't mean the "people?"
Like the First Amendment, the Second clearly says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III says: "no soldier shall be quartered in any home without the concent of THE OWNER." Again, the rights of the people are to be left alone.
Amendment IV says: "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure ..."
Amendment V says: No PERSON shall be held to answer ..."
I'm sure you get the idea. So, unless you can come up with a more cogent argument, other than the militia argument, We The People will continue to bear arms.
For a good primer on what the thinking of the Founders was pertaining to the Constitution, read The Federalist Papers.
Vi
"If Obama puts a couple of people on the Supreme Court that override that latest 2nd amendment decision, I'll shed no tears. I don't believe they made a valid decision. If the 'well-regulated militia' phrase is meaningless, why did our founding fathers put it there? The decision rendered by the court makes it as if our founding fathers never added that phrase at all, which was simply avoiding the problem of interpreting it. They didn't interpret the 2nd amendment, they ignored part of it. That was wrong. I believe the founding fathers wanted people to be able to have guns *only* if they are part of a well-regulated militia. I know lots of people who own guns, and *none* of them are part of a well-regulated militia, except for those in the National Guard or the Reserves."
So then, where the First Amendment says "The right of THE PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," they really didn't mean the "people?"
Like the First Amendment, the Second clearly says "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III says: "no soldier shall be quartered in any home without the concent of THE OWNER." Again, the rights of the people are to be left alone.
Amendment IV says: "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure ..."
Amendment V says: No PERSON shall be held to answer ..."
I'm sure you get the idea. So, unless you can come up with a more cogent argument, other than the militia argument, We The People will continue to bear arms.
For a good primer on what the thinking of the Founders was pertaining to the Constitution, read The Federalist Papers.
Vi
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Like I said, I don't really care about guns, one way or the other. It's a minor issue to me, at best. Although it's worth pointing out that six times more people killed themselves with guns last year than the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq in the entire time we have been there. In other words, guns are killing about 40 times more US citizens, by suicide alone, than all the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan put together. So, what's the real enemy, the one that kills on average 600/year, or the one that kills on average 50,000/year? Math alone should make that obvious.
But we have far more important problems to deal with than guns. Like the Republicans wanting to strip the rights from women in particular, and from society in general. The rich have gotten too rich, the poor have gotten too poor, the middle class is all beat to hell, our infrastructure is crumbling, our status in the world is diminished, and so on and so on. Eight years of Bush is going to take a long time to recover from, probably at least one generation, assuming we don't elect any more big business ass-kissing buttheads.
Also, that old cliche from the NRA, that if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns, that's a bunch of hooey. It's easy to change the balance of that equation, by upping the punishment. Commit a crime with a gun, life in prison, no parole. Or death. That'd cut down on gun use. They once said that a beautiful princess carrying a bag of gold could walk unmolested from one end of the Mongol empire to the other. Why? Because the punishment for crimes was so severe that few would risk committing crime, and those that did died. If we had the collective will to eradicate gun deaths, we could do it. We just don't have the will. We're already losing as many people each year to guns as we lost in the entire Vietnam War. If that doesn't provide the will to make a change, then I don't think anything will. And I'm okay with that.
But we have far more important problems to deal with than guns. Like the Republicans wanting to strip the rights from women in particular, and from society in general. The rich have gotten too rich, the poor have gotten too poor, the middle class is all beat to hell, our infrastructure is crumbling, our status in the world is diminished, and so on and so on. Eight years of Bush is going to take a long time to recover from, probably at least one generation, assuming we don't elect any more big business ass-kissing buttheads.
Also, that old cliche from the NRA, that if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns, that's a bunch of hooey. It's easy to change the balance of that equation, by upping the punishment. Commit a crime with a gun, life in prison, no parole. Or death. That'd cut down on gun use. They once said that a beautiful princess carrying a bag of gold could walk unmolested from one end of the Mongol empire to the other. Why? Because the punishment for crimes was so severe that few would risk committing crime, and those that did died. If we had the collective will to eradicate gun deaths, we could do it. We just don't have the will. We're already losing as many people each year to guns as we lost in the entire Vietnam War. If that doesn't provide the will to make a change, then I don't think anything will. And I'm okay with that.
Last edited:
ViRedd
New Member
1. Republicans want to strip the rights from women and society in general? What rights are those? Please be specific.
2. The rich have gotten too rich? How much is too much, who is to decide, and what would you do to regulate income? The top 1% of income earners pay over 30% of the cost of government.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html
3. The poor have gotten too poor? Please define the term "poor," and at whose expense would you make them nonpoor?
4. Middle class all beat to hell? Under Bush, the middle class has moved up. Where have all the new millionaires come from if not from the middle class?
5. Infrastructure crumbling? What did government bureaucrats do to the gasoline taxes that are supposed to go for the roads?
6. Status in the world diminished? Is it important to be liked, or more important to be respected?
7. Don't elect any more big business ass-kissing buttheads? The business of America IS business. Your comments on this, please?
8. "They once said that a beautiful princess carrying a bag of gold could walk unmolested from one end of the Mongol empire to the other. Why? Because the punishment for crimes was so severe that few would risk committing crime, and those that did died."
Yes, and that was Stalin's philosophy as well as Pol Pot's, Saddam Hussien's, Mao's, Castro's ... etc. In actuality, you are proposing a system that is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-The Rights of Man.
You are supporting a totalitarian system whereby government controls every aspect of our lives. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll take liberty every time.
Vi
2. The rich have gotten too rich? How much is too much, who is to decide, and what would you do to regulate income? The top 1% of income earners pay over 30% of the cost of government.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/sburns/stories/DN-burns_04bus.ART.State.Edition1.4603045.html
3. The poor have gotten too poor? Please define the term "poor," and at whose expense would you make them nonpoor?
4. Middle class all beat to hell? Under Bush, the middle class has moved up. Where have all the new millionaires come from if not from the middle class?
5. Infrastructure crumbling? What did government bureaucrats do to the gasoline taxes that are supposed to go for the roads?
6. Status in the world diminished? Is it important to be liked, or more important to be respected?
7. Don't elect any more big business ass-kissing buttheads? The business of America IS business. Your comments on this, please?
8. "They once said that a beautiful princess carrying a bag of gold could walk unmolested from one end of the Mongol empire to the other. Why? Because the punishment for crimes was so severe that few would risk committing crime, and those that did died."
Yes, and that was Stalin's philosophy as well as Pol Pot's, Saddam Hussien's, Mao's, Castro's ... etc. In actuality, you are proposing a system that is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-The Rights of Man.
You are supporting a totalitarian system whereby government controls every aspect of our lives. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll take liberty every time.
Vi
undertheice
Well-Known Member
when it comes to infringing on the rights of the people, there is no such thing as a minor issue. it has been pointed out many times that a population that is unable to defend itself is all too easily enslaved and, considering the socialist bent of the upcoming power structure, slavery might not be too extreme a term for what seems to be in the offing.
so we should steal from the rich, give to the poor, and place our fate in the hands of our benevolent leadership? i'm sure our infrastructure can stand for a bit longer while the government builds new bureaucracies to see to this redistribution of wealth. i'm sure we will all be happy in our newfound comfortable poverty, as long as the rest of the world loves us. how many generations do you think it will take for us to regain the freedoms that we give away today for that more perfect tomorrow?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
better yet, let's just kill everyone who has a gun. sorry, but it's been tried before and all that was achieved was tyranny.
Pandabear-The whole thing was predicated on a bunch of big fat juicy lies. You are in every sense of the word a TOOL.
Iraq is just a big drain on our economy and did not do shit to protect you. It's a joke. A fun little game of knock it down and rebuild it on the tax payer dollar while we plunder their oil reserves and position to take out Iran if possible. Please quit listening to right wing radio and use your own head.
What you need to worry about is the complete systemic failure of the entire banking system and devolution to a high-tech fascist state. Watch it happen, soon.
Iraq is just a big drain on our economy and did not do shit to protect you. It's a joke. A fun little game of knock it down and rebuild it on the tax payer dollar while we plunder their oil reserves and position to take out Iran if possible. Please quit listening to right wing radio and use your own head.
What you need to worry about is the complete systemic failure of the entire banking system and devolution to a high-tech fascist state. Watch it happen, soon.
ccodiane
New Member
***rimshot***
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
You are in every sense a moron.
Why cannot people fathom that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Is it beyond you? We went to war on multiple issues, not one having to do with 9/11. Give me one instance, just one, of where we "plundered their oil". You can't. You're making shit up to further your argument. You know we found huge reserves of money stashes in Iraq? Guess what we did with them. Give you a hint, we didn't fucking keep it. Please stop listening to liberal propaganda and use your head.
What you need to worry about is Obama being elected and turning this country into a communist state where social programs are rampant with the huge reduction of our military. Watch it happen, soon.
GoodbyeFreedom
Well-Known Member
"President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission."
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary."
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis | Sunday Herald, The | Find Articles at BNET
"NBC News has learned that a draft government audit faults the United States for “inadequate stewardship” of up to $8.8 billion in oil money, handed over to Iraq’s ministries but never fully accounted for."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/
Last edited:
GoodbyeFreedom
Well-Known Member
And PLEASE dont say anything about WMDs... LMAO.
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
1) "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said. "We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.""President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission."
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that "Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East" and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US "military intervention" is necessary."
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis | Sunday Herald, The | Find Articles at BNET
"NBC News has learned that a draft government audit faults the United States for inadequate stewardship of up to $8.8 billion in oil money, handed over to Iraqs ministries but never fully accounted for."
What happened to Iraqâs oil money? - Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com
Of course Saddam had contact with Al Qaeda, he wanted them under his league, but they knew better than that, they kept their distance. Next.
2) Hell, last Gulf War Saddam set fire to all the oil refineries, so yeah he can upset the international economy but that is not why we went to war, and that little article does not prove that. We went to war because he constantly broke the cease fire and failed to uphold his end of the treaties. Not to mention (yes here it comes) he refused to let U.N. inspectors visit restricted facilities that were producing WMDs. Wheres there smoke theirs fire. Next.
3) This article has nothing but speculation and zero proof. This is your irrefutable evidence that we are gaining something from this occupation? Please.
Try again, buddy
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Our military itself is a socialized institution, ya know? In other words, paid for with tax dollars. Shall we privatize it? How about roads, privatize them too, every road becomes a toll? Privatize schools, so if you're too poor to pay to go to one, well, sucks to be you. There's nothing wrong with socialized institutions. Like Spock said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.' If there's something that's good for our society as a whole, we all pay for it. That includes our military, our space program, our federal highway system, our public education system (which, while flawed, is a damn sight better than no education), and on and on.
So Obama believes that there are a few things that are so big and so important to so many that we all need to share the burden. So what? I think that's entirely logical. The private sector is not always the best idea in every circumstance.
So Obama believes that there are a few things that are so big and so important to so many that we all need to share the burden. So what? I think that's entirely logical. The private sector is not always the best idea in every circumstance.
VTXDave
Well-Known Member
Not trueZen. In Obama's very own "Blueprint for America" (it's available on his website and I've read all his docs which is precisely why I'd rather eat a bullet than vote for the worthless fuck)he outlines an increase of 100,000 additional troops to go to the US Army and Marine Corp. And just this week he publicly declared that he intends on redeploying troops to Afghanistan. Obama is far from a "dove" as many would like to think he is. The people voting for Obama solely on the premise of hoping he ends the war, I have just one thing to say...
Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one fills up faster...
GoodbyeFreedom
Well-Known Member
Sure, no problem.Try again, buddy
While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Transcript for Sept. 14 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com (almost halfway down the page)
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001"
-George W. Bush, May 1st, 2003
President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
When you add all this shit together, you see that the Bush Administration used 9/11 and key words like freedom (propaganda) to sell the war. Oil production has picked up since then, but Iraqis, the ones we were SUPPOSED to be liberating, still aren't seeing any revenue from oil. AMERICAN TAXPAYERS have been paying for reconstruction, not Iraqi oil money. So the question is, wheres the oil money going?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html
Senators: Where is Iraq's oil money going? - CNN.com
Iraqs Oil Money Not Buying Health Care, When Millions From Oil Flow Out Of Iraq Every Day, Why Are So Many Citizens Suffering? - CBS News
Oh... and Rumsfield did sell Iraq anthrax and bubonic plague, along with other weapons in the early 80s. So i guess its true that Iraq did posses WMDs. Lol. Kinda hypocritical dont ya think?
Attachments
Last edited: