Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

**JLStorm** · 11-19-2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Bill,

It was never my intention to scold anyone, and my apologies again if it came across that way.

You're right, I was stating an opinion. My opinion is that I couldn't see how a "keeping the govt. in check" argument could possibly work in a practical sense. There is, in my mind, too many variables, too many opposing points of view, and perhaps (although this is pure conjecture) too many different agendas to create a unified opposition. I gather the original purpose of the 2nd ammendment was clear cut - to enable the overthrow of a repressive government. However, I think in modern times things aren't so clear cut, and aren't likely to ever develop to that point. My point in raising the GB detainees was to highlight that - although it certainly appears to have been a singularly poor example, and in fact probably proved the point against my argument!

For the record I am neither pro - or anti - guns. I grew up with them, my father taught me how to use them and care for them, and how to be safe with them. I choose not to own any as an adult, but that certainly doesn't mean I oppose those that do.

James.

I find that people fight for the greatest cause regardless of personal differences. Look at 9/11 in the US, people who hated each other because of race or religous disagreements (other than the muslims obviously) bonded together and put aside their differences simply because they had a something they both hated more, which was pretty much anyone who looked like a terrorist. The guns in this case are just our tools, same as writing letters to our congress our also tools. Its just a lot harder to ignore a gun than it is a letter. The pen is only mightier than the sword when people are willing to read after all.

**xman** · 11-19-2006, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Well you never have too...until you have too, but by then its to late. Hence the planning ahead, the same reason I carry a multitool...

Yup, that would be the why.

Anybody ever see a very cool movie from the late 90's starring Kyle McGlaughlin called The Trigger Effect? Very cool, about the California blackouts and guns. Smart movie.

X

**Jimbo** · 11-19-2006, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by JLStorm

...The pen is only mightier than the sword when people are willing to read after all.

Well, I can't argue with that!

James.

**Sec162** · 11-19-2006, 11:13 AM

Wow, I thought this thread was dying a few pages ago. Its my bed time, but something popped in my head and just wanted to interject quick.

Now we are 4 pages along and I am sorry if I missed it but I don't recall anyone mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath?

There were a lot of people that were darn happy they had weapons, and a lot of others that probably would have sold their left nut for one! A very recent and messy example that the Gov. cannot take care of us (and we should not expect them to) and we must be responsible for ourself. Now we can argue about how it was handled but that was not my intention. Even if handled better, the first 72 hours (at least) are going to be fubar.

For those of you than live in concrete jungles, what would happen where you live if something like that happened? Or what if something as simple as loosing power for a few days would happen on a wide scale?

Then of course there is the discussion of legal guns being taken from legal gunowners after Katrina. Out of curisoity, do we have any members here that were affected by the Hurricane?? If so I would be interested in your thoughts on the above.

**Kees** · 11-19-2006, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by urleebird

I think you forget. The U.S. could have expanded its territories ten-fold if she chose to do so. But, what do we do? We bail anyone and everyone's asses out, turn their country over to them after many American deaths, and then give them billions of dollars a year in perpetuity so they can stay afloat. The entire continent of Europe would be speaking German right now were it not for us. That's not a dig on the language... it's a dig on nazi's.

Bill,

I am afraid I only partially agree with you. America gave us freedom from oppression by a foreign invader (i.e. Germany). Unfortunately that's not the way it always worked. Afganistan was invaded because of 9/11. I can see the justification of that.
Iraq however was invaded after the American govt had made the world believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which appeared a fabrication. Iraq was a stable country, it did not pose a threat to the USA and the people of Iraq do not like the presence of Westerners in their country. I agree Saddam oppressed his people, he mass murdered a few thousand opponents in the more than 20 years of his regime. However, in the few years of Western presence in Iraq the same number of Iraqi's got killed by the civil war initiated and fuelled by its foreign invasion. A new Vietnam is on the horizon. So who was bailed out in Iraq? I am afraid we ( I say we because there's number of countries involved in Iraq and Afganistan including my own unfortunately) will have to be bailed out of Iraq sooner or later, just as the US had to be bailed out of Vietnam. So this ten fold expansion of US territory does not apply to Vietnam and is not going to apply to Iraq nor Afganistan. The US and the other countries involved will be glad if they can pull out without losing their face.

We must realise that the Arab world has a completely different way of looking at things. They hate the West for their cultural and religious sense of superiority and the way the West condones the violence of Israel against the Palestinians. For every one Israeli dying at the hands of Palestinian terrorists at least 10 Palestinians get killed by Israeli state violence. many Arabs believe their Palestinian brothers would not suffer this violence if the West did not back Israel, some even see it as part of a wicked plan to eradicate Arabs alltogether. Whether we like it or not, that's the Arab perspective of things. And we do not improve that by military actions against them. Bin Laden and his likes call these actions of the West against Arab nations the so manieth crusade and many Arabs are more than happy to believe him.

**superfly** · 11-19-2006, 04:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY

**JLStorm** · 11-19-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kees

Bill,

I am afraid I only partially agree with you. America gave us freedom from oppression by a foreign invader (i.e. Germany). Unfortunately that's not the way it always worked. Afganistan was invaded because of 9/11. I can see the justification of that.
Iraq however was invaded after the American govt had made the world believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which appeared a fabrication. Iraq was a stable country, it did not pose a threat to the USA and the people of Iraq do not like the presence of Westerners in their country. I agree Saddam oppressed his people, he mass murdered a few thousand opponents in the more than 20 years of his regime. However, in the few years of Western presence in Iraq the same number of Iraqi's got killed by the civil war initiated and fuelled by its foreign invasion. A new Vietnam is on the horizon. So who was bailed out in Iraq? I am afraid we ( I say we because there's number of countries involved in Iraq and Afganistan including my own unfortunately) will have to be bailed out of Iraq sooner or later, just as the US had to be bailed out of Vietnam. So this ten fold expansion of US territory does not apply to Vietnam and is not going to apply to Iraq nor Afganistan. The US and the other countries involved will be glad if they can pull out without losing their face.

We must realise that the Arab world has a completely different way of looking at things. They hate the West for their cultural and religious sense of superiority and the way the West condones the violence of Israel against the Palestinians. For every one Israeli dying at the hands of Palestinian terrorists at least 10 Palestinians get killed by Israeli state violence. many Arabs believe their Palestinian brothers would not suffer this violence if the West did not back Israel, some even see it as part of a wicked plan to eradicate Arabs alltogether. Whether we like it or not, that's the Arab perspective of things. And we do not improve that by military actions against them. Bin Laden and his likes call these actions of the West against Arab nations the so manieth crusade and many Arabs are more than happy to believe him.

I think Bills point was (and Im not sure, so sorry if I am taking your words out of context Bill) that right now we could be claiming Iraq's oil for ourselves, bomb the crap out of them even if we kill many civilians and then making Iraq a US territory so we could continue getting free oil and have a large perminant military presence in that area, but instead we are handing the country back to the people and giving them billions to rebuild their country, not to mention we sacrifice our own troops lives in order to make sure as little of Iraq's citizens get needlessly killed. We could do things VERY differently and less costly if we wanted too.

Originally Posted by Sec162

Wow, I thought this thread was dying a few pages ago. Its my bed time, but something popped in my head and just wanted to interject quick.

Now we are 4 pages along and I am sorry if I missed it but I don't recall anyone mentioning Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath?

There were a lot of people that were darn happy they had weapons, and a lot of others that probably would have sold their left nut for one! A very recent and messy example that the Gov. cannot take care of us (and we should not expect them to) and we must be responsible for ourself. Now we can argue about how it was handled but that was not my intention. Even if handled better, the first 72 hours (at least) are going to be fubar.

For those of you than live in concrete jungles, what would happen where you live if something like that happened? Or what if something as simple as loosing power for a few days would happen on a wide scale?

Then of course there is the discussion of legal guns being taken from legal gunowners after Katrina. Out of curisoity, do we have any members here that were affected by the Hurricane?? If so I would be interested in your thoughts on the above.

We recently passed laws stating that state authorities (and I think that extends to national guard) cannot try the post katrina crap again. That is exactly why we have guns, its amazing more government and state employees didnt get killed over taking weapons away, but I get the distinct feeling that they only took them away from citizens who did not pose a threat to their unit like the 90 y/o grandmother or the family of 5.

**Kees** · 11-19-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by JLStorm

I think Bills point was (and Im not sure, so sorry if I am taking your words out of context Bill) that right now we could be claiming Iraq's oil for ourselves, bomb the crap out of them even if we kill many civilians and then making Iraq a US territory so we could continue getting free oil and have a large perminant military presence in that area,

Well, it did not work in Vetnam, so why would it work in Iraq? I am quite sure mister Poutin wouldn't turn a blind eye!

**JLStorm** · 11-19-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kees

Well, it did not work in Vetnam, so why would it work in Iraq? I am quite sure mister Poutin wouldn't turn a blind eye!

Because we did the same thing in Vietnam, we tried to win over the people, only not to this degree, but we still tried to help them in our own way. Iraq has no jungles to hide in, and the desert only affords so many hiding spots once the buildings are levelled. As far as any countries near Russia, they are so poor Im pretty sure they would help us for the oil

**urleebird** · 11-19-2006, 05:22 PM

Kees...

I'm thinkin' that you have limited yourself from looking beyond the narrow perspective of the Arabs. There is an awful lot of information on the internet for you to make, possibly, a wiser conclusion for the reasoning behind U.S. presense in Iraq. I would personally like for the U.S. to not be there. I don't think the entire country of Iraq is worth a single American life. I say, let them kill each other off. But, who am I to say.

It could be my imagination, but I think I see a hint of disdain for Jews in your argument while dismissing the merely few thousand murders at the hands of Saddam. (I think it's more than a few thousand, by the way) It looks like you have the resourses to find better answers, unlike most Arabs who do not have the benefit of the Internet. It appears you have made a conscious decision to limit your reasoning by gathering information from obviously biased web sites. You are free to do that, of course.

Sec162... I think you made a very good point about katrina. The same kind of thing happened in LA after the Rodney King beating. Remember seeing the video of the Koreans on top of their businesses with rifles to protect their businesses? Do you also remember that the police wouldn't even go near the area? There went that help.That would have been a pretty good time to have a gun in the house, I would think. I bet old Reginald Denny wished he had a gun in that truck of his.

Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions