Yeah, duh. Why not try and stop the criminals from getting their hands on them in the first place? Prevention is better than cure. Gun control isn't the problem. Lack of control over the people who have them is.
Newsflash: Criminals can still get them illegally. Why punish the law abiding for the criminal misuse of a few? Are you going to advocate prohibition next because of drunk drivers? I detest alcohol, and drunk drivers make me sick, I nearly lost a damned good friend to one, but does anyone hear me clamoring for a ban on booze? How about keeping violent felons behind bars instead of paroling them all the time? Instead of stripping guns from responsible people, let's strip the irresponsible people - the criminals - from society and try to rehabilitate them. If they're beyond fixing, keep them locked up where they can't hurt anyone else.
Yea, because it was argued that no one has the right to defend themselves. Shit, it wasn't even argued in Bowling for Columbine. So this is irrelevent.
No, but the end result of banning firearms - which is the ultimate goal here, don't pretend it isn't - IS to remove the tools of self-defense. Remember King George? First thing he did is ban firearms when he feared a revolt. Remember Adolph Hitler? He did the same thing - disarmed the population. Invasion followed. It is NOT irrelevent, this is the entire issue at stake here.
I don't think there was anybody more paranoid than Timothy McVeigh, whom, btw, was a conservative extremist.
No, Timothy McVeigh was nothing but a terrorist who deservs to burn in hell for what he did.
Yea, but the left isn't the one supporting standing armies in peace time. Nor are they spending more than half the world's wealth on its army to "keep the peace". And by keeping peace, I mean invading sovereign nations.
No, the left wants to gut the military and leave the country defenseless. "Peace dividends" are a myth. You don't wait for war to knock on your doorstep to prepare for it. That's suicide. As for Iraq, well, they just had the first free election in 50 years. The "bloodbath" promised by the terrorists was a joke, and speaking of jokes, how about the
GI Joe doll "captive", and faked footage of shooting down a British transport plane? The best they can do is kill 40 people, videotape a TOY, and fake a video? Where's this huge backlash from the Iraqis against the "evil imperialist aggressors", eh? The frustration and futility of Zarqawi's crowd is showing, which means they're losing. No, the Iraqi people voted, they voted in droves, even walking on the body parts of a suicide bomber to reform the line after one attack. Oh, and let's not forget Lybia disarmed after Kadhafi saw Saddam pulled out of a hole in the ground that he was hiding in. How's that for prevention? How about the intelligence that was gleaned from Lybia's disarmament in regards to A.Q. Khan's involvement in nuclear proliferation that's the impetus behind Iran's nuclear program?
See I've got nothing against killing the badguys when they break the rules, or invading a foreign country if there's no other alternative. Let's not forget Saddam is the one who invaded Kuwait, the US just kicked him out. Iraq should have been liberated in 1991. The only mistake was believing he could be contained and would "learn his lesson", and not finishing the job then. This war DID finish the job, and to me it's just the inevitable continuation and conclusion to the first Gulf War. Besides, America has invaded comparatively few nations when you look at world history, and mostly that was to counter the USSR's influence during the Cold War. Europe doesn't get flak for its imperalistic period, nor does it seem to take flak for its amoeba-like economic imperialism. The EU is gobbling up every nation it can, and making them a part of its Borg Collective, yet the only people who seem to take notice or care are us right-wing Christian "nuts" who believe the EU to be the Revived Roman Empire spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, and the anti-globalists who like to set places like Seattle on fire.
And yes, I certainly support standing armies in peacetime. The best defense is a good offense, you know who said that? Mel, the cook on Alice.
Gee, I wonder why...
Right, blame America first! It can't possibly be that the world is a dangerous place, and if it is then it's America's fault no matter what, so no matter what happens AMERICA IS WRONG. America is wrong for liberating Europe from Hitler, from liberating the Pacific from Japanese imperialism, America is wrong for being the most free and democratic nation in the world, and wanting to share freedom and democracy with others, America is wrong for not wanting to be conquered by its enemies, America is wrong for sheerly EXISTING because it's an evil capitalist machine that tramples on individual liberties the world over. Obviously Communism has a better track record so let's all go socialist like China![/end dripping sarcasm]Did I miss anything?
No, just western civilization in general.
So I guess France is exempt or what? Seriously, if you hate western civilization, what
would you prefer in its place? If the grass isn't green enough here, try it abroad for a while, and decide where you like it better. I don't really know what's to complain about when you consider how the rest of the world fares. Maybe instead of riding on this guilt-trip over the West being wealthy, free, and strong, you should count your blessings, be thankful, and apreciative of them instead. You do no honor to those less fortunate by feeling bad about being well off. If you're guilt ridden or just want to do something to help those less fortunate then give to charity, go help the poor, or do something constructive instead of tearing down those who ARE fortunate. Let's build the less fortunate up instead of ripping the fortunate down!
Not, just exploitation. Western civilization alwasys finds a way to get cheap labor, and value necessities at cut throat prices. Did someone say "war"?
So... the cheap labor comes from Germany, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam? Did I miss something here? What nation does America occupy that provides slave labor? Surely not Iraq. I thought the cheap labor was in places like China, and Mexico, and India. Tell me, since when does the US dictate China's economic policies, or India's? How about Europe, where do they get their goods from? Who have they militarily invaded recently to enslave the population into producing their $0.99 can openers?
That's right bird, feed the parania. "Do you read that papers." You cad, that's the problem! People only see this minute fraction of the population commiting these atrocities and all of a sudden, everyone is guilty. We find one communist in the country, everyone is a possible subversive. Again, I am not advocating gun control, rather media reconstruction.
Wait, you're accusing me of presuming everyone is guilty? I thought I said just the opposite, that people have a right to presumption of innocence. It's the gunbanners that are presuming anyone who wants a gun has malicious intent. I'm merely pointing out that crime DOES HAPPEN, it's quite common, ANYONE can be victimized at any time, and putting your head in the sand over it does NOT protect you from it. In nature ignoring the predator makes you a meal. The cautious and alert deer evades my talons, the careless one becomes my dinner. Nature's balance is different from crime, but the same principle applies to any attack/defend situation. All I'm saying is that you ignore danger at your own peril. It's just a fact of life.
Who else says this? Oh yea. Bill O'Riley (Fox News), Shawn Hannity (Fox News), Rush Limbaugh (IEB). What do all these people have in common? They are all self-proclaimed conservatives.
This is an unfair and untrue observation. Hannity and Limbaugh I know for a fact do not ever call people stupid. Ignorant perhaps, but not stupid. Limbaugh has an opinion, he makes no attempt to hide his conservatism or the fact that he thinks he's right all the time. He's arrogant as hell, yes, but everything he does is at face value. He doesn't hide what he is, and he invites people to make up their own minds - either listen, or don't. Hannity is pretty much the same way. O'Reilly just likes to tell people to shut up.
I view these people as entertainment mostly, and a nice counterweight to the usual "established" media. You see, I LIKE having these disparate opinions thrown about because then people CAN choose who they want to believe, who they want to listen to. Isn't that what free speech is about? For too long people have heard only one side of it - the Big Three news networks, and papers like the NY Times and LA Times, Washington Post, etc. The news monopoly is over, and now the conservatives are having their say. You don't like them? Don't listen to them, the same as I don't listen to Michael Moore or Al Franken or the like.
Second, don't assume from my above statement that I'm a "dittohead" or just a parrot for conservative talk radio. I disagree with these guys on a HELL of a lot of things, especially when it comes to environmental issues and the belief that the free-market system is some kind of holy grail to happy existence. I have my own thought, you're only getting the side of it that clashes with yours. That's what happens in heated discussions/rants/debates like this.
Yes they are.
Do you include yourself in this criticism, or do you think you're better than everyone else? Where does the "most people who are stupid" end and you begin? Has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps you might be no different from anyone else, and you should treat them with the same amount of respect you think you're entitled to?
Ain't it the truth Pho...
Oh I see, you think I'm talking down to people because I'm expressing a strong opinion. What am I supposed to do, be weak about it? I am a passionate creature, and if I think I'm right I'm going to speak as such. If I'm wrong I admit it and seek to correct my errors. Pride does not enter into it there, I'm not above admitting mistakes. You should know this by now. There's a difference between speaking with authority and acting like everyone else is a complete dolt. You're the one who said most people are stupid, not me. Even if they are that gives me no right to belittle them or treat them less than I would want to be treated myself.
How enlightened of you. I don't want to hear you bitch about Moore then if you never take the time to veiw any of his works.
I saw his work over the last four years, or do you consider his activism and lobbying so insignificant as to ignore them and exclude them from this discussion? Just because I won't watch his propaganda doesn't mean I'm ignorant to his agenda.
Good point actually. Wording it that way, I could see Moore's hypocrisy. *shrugs* Pho, when you're right, you're right.
That's all I was trying to say from the beginning. If you're going to hold an ideal, then stick to it! To me it's like an environmental activist complaining about Kyoto and then driving a Ford Expedition around. All I want to see is honesty in people's causes so we know exactly where they stand.
Not since FDR, whom was a democrat. When was the last time the Republicans did? Reagenonmics was hysterical (speaking of madness).[sarcasm] No no, Men are marrying men, women are marrying women. We must address those crucial issues first![/sarcams]
That's the problem with politics - there's a multitude of issues in motion at any time. World affairs are complex, tedious, and difficult things. Something that looks good at first can turn out disastrous because of some unforseen variable entering the equation. Who expected on September 10, 2001, that the World Trade Center would be gone in 24 hours, except those who planned the attack? Who expected the Berlin Wall to come down when it did, or the Coup that took Gorbechov out of power and collapsed the USSR? The best laid plans fall apart after the initial engagement. To me it's a miracle that humanity has survived this long at all considering how close things come all the time to disaster without anyone ever really seeing it. This is why strong leaders are needed to keep things from going to pieces when it hits the fan, so to speak. It's better to make the wrong choice than to be so indecisive as to make no choice at all. A decisive leader at least can act later to correct a mistake, an indecisive one can do absolutely nothing about anything.
As for men marrying men and women marrying women, this is a social debate that sprung up on its own, and is an ongoing debate. There's no easy, short-term answer to this one, and instead of being an underground thing as it has been for ages, it's out on the table for public discussion. Shouldn't that be considered a plus by those who want this issue dealt with?
Love it or leave it, eh Pho?
I'm not talking about banning from the board, if that's what you're implying. Assamite has done nothing to violate any rules here, if he had done so I would have said so. All I said is he shouldn't kick me.
Edit: And Dr. Jones beat my post, so in the interest of fairness go back and read what he has to say so I don't bury his thoughts with my lengthy ranting![/color]
