Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Josh, that would be a more practical solution, with a few qualifications though. You keep equating muslims with extremists. Unless you invade the country, the percentage of extremists will be veyr small. That's when the percentage rises, like in Iraq. Therefore, there has to be a limiting factor on "extreme prejudice"
However, you are still falling into the same trap as the German people did back in the 1930s/1940s. According to Hitler, the Jews didn't want to peacefuly. They wanted to dominate the global economy and take over the world. He created the image of the Jewish money-grubber (like the Arab terrorist) and with it he justified concentration camps.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Josh, that would be a more practical solution, with a few qualifications though. You keep equating muslims with extremists. Unless you invade the country, the percentage of extremists will be veyr small. That's when the percentage rises, like in Iraq. Therefore, there has to be a limiting factor on "extreme prejudice"
However, you are still falling into the same trap as the German people did back in the 1930s/1940s. According to Hitler, the Jews didn't want to peacefuly. They wanted to dominate the global economy and take over the world. He created the image of the Jewish money-grubber (like the Arab terrorist) and with it he justified concentration camps.

Well I think thats the whol logistical problem si that extremists are so well hidden and may not represent the whole population of a country. However, we need to make examples of some countries who harbor these people. If residents of a country were happy to tell us where these groups were hiding, we wouldnt have to tear up an entire city looking for them. Unfortunately that would mean if anyone helped them hide, gave them money, or even saw them and said nothing, they would be aiding and abetting and an accessory, and as such they should be punished to extremese to be made examples of and reinforce how it will not be tollerated.

Josh, look at it from the basic premise of your legal system where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Josh, look at it from the basic premise of your legal system where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Thus our weakness, we have gone into war with morals, fighting against those who have none. They set bombs in arbitrary locations, we would simply be shooting to kill them and those who have any part in helping them. Its time to fight fire with fire, being the "bigger" person only gets our men killed, while their people do nothing but complain. Our military would have far fewer losses if we could shoot onsite without regard to the feelings of those who live there. If we clearly made it in the best interest of those who live there to give the enemy up, our troops as well as their citizens would be much better off.

Yeah but then you'd become just like them. Nobody'd know who the real terrorists are.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

They are a cancer of the human race... I say screw them, end them, eliminate them in their entirety. They breed like rats as well.

This conversation sure has taken a surprising turn.

I wonder if it shouldn't become a new thread, since it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

It could be called "The moral logic and strategic efficacy of exterminating millions of people who remind us of Hitler."

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Yeah but then you'd become just like them. Nobody'd know who the real terrorists are.

We have many many military detachments that specialize in this type of warfare, it would just be a matter of implimenting them in new ways and training more. I just really dont see how to win against people hoping to die unless you play their game. Its certainly not optimal, but then again, this is one of the reasons why I wasnt elected to run the country I suppose...besides the whole not running thing.

By voting for a government that would allow for such measures, your whole nation would be guilty of terrorist acts more than the nation that voted for a government that looks the other way.

Let me start by saying I already regret posting in this thread. I really should just keep walking.

The worst army is the one fighting an enemy for revenge. Alas, most military training involves convincing recruits that they are going off to fight the most vile reprobates ever known to man. Threats not to their country, but to everything they hold dear, to every notion they have of decency. Slants, gooks, ragheads, camelhumpers; The nigger. The Jew. Dehumanise the target and there will be far less chance of a soldier hesitating when it comes time to blow a man’s life, dreams and hopes out the back of his head before he blows your hopes, dreams and life out the back of yours. It has been a long time since our armies were made up of only the brightest and finest of society. The result has been situations like that at Abu Ghraib, which probably did more to unify Iraqi sentiment against coalition forces than anything else in the early days of this meandering, ill-conceived invasion. (Scapegoating a few expendable soldiers, if they even merit that term, doesn’t waylay the resentment and outrage that sprang from that travesty of justice.) When rape becomes a tool of war, forgive me if I’d rather side with the rebels. But once an enemy has been dehumanized, there’s really no reason to ponder the sanctity of their bodies, is there?

War is supposed to be an undesired last resort when diplomacy has failed. Instead, armies are used today as hired thugs for corporation-bought politicians with agendas that have little, if any, bearing on the good of the people or the countries they’re supposed to represent. Support from the people for their wars, still partially necessary in a nation trying to convince the casual onlooker that it is a democracy, is gained through good, ol’ propaganda. PR and ad firms are always on the list of hired help when a government wants to sell a war. After all, if the ad men can make McDonald’s sound delicious, how hard could it be to sell a war to home viewers who will never even have to taste it?

The president comes on TV and looks sincere as he talks about the coming plague of foreign invaders and the risks every man, woman and especially child faces if his plan of action isn’t implemented right now. White House grunts hit all the news channels and talk shows warning of a threat so grave only immediate force will solve it. They spin, they concoct, they outright lie and enough people either believe them or get scared enough to stay quiet as the foul air unfurls over yet another bloody chapter in the history books. And the end result, they’ll tell you, is always apple pie, baseball and Christmas with the family. In the meantime, the politicians and their friends get richer off the offal of often brave, sometimes desperate, young men, broken homes and horrors that come with living your life knowing that it was you who scattered those limbs across somebody else’s front lawn.

Left to their own devices and free of the politics that shape the nations almost everyone lives in, I think one would find that most of the common people want the same thing, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Palestinian, Israeli, American or Russian. It’s not to convert every land to their religion or to their political ideal. It’s not to see capitalism thrive or communism thrive. It’s to be left the Hell alone to live out their 80-odd years or so with enough security and freedom to be happy with what they themselves are doing, not have to worry about their children being fed or harmed and not be at risk of being blown apart by someone who says they’re worshipping the wrong God. Pity the common man never gets a chance to run the place. Probably never will.

As for the argument for or against gun ownership, I think new coverage of the recent release of the PS3 can aptly prove, discredit, make, counter, solidify or render moot every point put forth in this thread so far. We saw people steal PS3s at gunpoint, people steal them without guns, armed people intervening on attempted theft, unarmed people intervening on attempted thefts; There was even a Canadian involved in one incident! So who is it that’s going to tally up the score on this debate anyway? Any volunteers?

Originally Posted by urleebird

The argument that counters that misconception is rather lengthy. I can post it, but it would mostly be boring. For the most part, the amendment specifically states "the people". It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

I'm afraid it's not a misconception, but the predominant point od view of the law.

The Constitution does not give rights to the people. The people own all the rights and give certain rights to the federal government. Whatever they don't is retained by them. The amendments were added to make sure that the government could not use its granted powers to curtail certain rights. Each amendment has to be looked at as a whole. Most of the amendments, for example the 1st, have no limitations on their proscriptions, but the second does. And it's important enough to come before the proscription itself. You are allowed to own and bear arms forthe prupose of supporting a strong militia.

If there's anyting we need to be conservative about it's the Constitution (lately, we seem to have forgotten that). Until the Constitution is amended, the 2nd amendment has the militia provision, and you can't ignore it. It says what it says and nothing LESS.