Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by Jimbo

The point is that the argument that says you need the second ammendment to keep the government in check needs closer examination. What do you mean by "in check"? How will you all know when the government gets "out of check", and who decides this? What do you do if some people think action needs to be taken, but others don't? If your govt. is prepared to ignore international human rights, what national human rights might it be prepared to ignore, and will you recognise it if/when it happens?

Although I agree with you otherwise, I have to disagree with this.

It's pretty clear that the government has been out of check for some time, and this ime the election fixed it. That's just proff of the strenght of our system. But there are plenty of examples in history where the government went well beyond that point and couldn't be stopped because weapons had been confiscated. Having weapons in the hands of the people would have enabled partisans and popular uprisings.

Bill see what you've`e done ,chucked the fox in the hen house ,we have names in OZ for people like you,and me for that matter,I say this with a cheesy grin but the endearing term of SHIT STIRRER comes to mind,see you have started ,now you can sit back watch and chuckle
Kind regards Peter

Originally Posted by urleebird

Let me start of by saying that this is all Ed's fault ( ) for thinking tempers shouldn't flair over hot topics. Here is what he said in the General Annoyance thread...

Ed... I have to commend you for some very insightful words. I like them... and I wish they would always work. I'm ok with conversations about topics like this as long as that is what the discussion is about in the beginning and it doesn't come out of the air... with the air being someone's methane. Here is why I think it is so hard to live up to your words, however.

• Debates assume that two opinions can be given and the observer should be able to make a choice between the two by listening to the respective arguments.

The thing is that on issues like guns and abortion, and politics, people have already locked in firmly to the side in which they believe. It doesn't matter how many convincing points are made with common sense as a companion. Neither side is going to change their mind... Someone always says something stupid. When the other person responds to the stupidity, the war of words begin.

Allow me to illiterateillustrate, for those of you who didn't get it... )
Guns Kill People
No kidding... but that's a stupid catch-phrase argument for not allowing guns. So, the gun advocate comes back with an insult, and there ya go. It's on...

Seems like "debatable" threads always get a share of gun ownership being mentioned when they have nothing to do with the original topic. Well, everyone can get it out of their system now. Let's do all of them. Guns, politics, and abortion. Let's see how long it stays civil.

Here is my prediction. I think everyone will pretty much behave on this thread 'cause they won't want to let Ed down, including me. But after a hundred posts, maybe we could see if anyone has changed their opinion from when the thread was first started. I think that count will be ZERO.

Here is my take on guns. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it, with one single rule for the ownership... each person is held accountable for its use. Here's a catch phrase that California uses for the commission of crimes. "Use a gun and you're done."

If someone robbed a store and killed the clerk with a gun he/she should be executed, in my book. (Oh wow, death penalty too) But if you don't execute him, keep him in prison for his natural life... without a TV or conjugal visits, and only allowed out of the cell for an hour a day to shower and excercise.

Our country is based on the Constitution. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution reads like this.

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.

Let the debate begin... I promise to be nice on this thread

Oh, and I wonder how civil Ed would be if people started a petition here in California to clear-cut the entire Sequoia forest?

One example of when an armed uprising would be not only justified but a patriotic necessity would be if an administration put into place the sort of extermination policies recommended earlier in this thread.

It's pretty clear that the government has been out of check for some time, and this ime the election fixed it.

Y'know... I really hope that statement turns out to be true... but I doubt it. In fact, I would rejoice at being wrong.

Bill see what you've`e done

What? I told you, it's Ed's fault. Notice how he's hiding behind the tree?

[quote=JLStorm]

Sorry, when they, and those associated with them start slitting our fellow citizens throats on TV, the geneva convention takes a public back seat, with overwelming support.

Wait a minute! Nobody at Guantanimo has ever been convicted of anything, and several hundred have been released. And if we caught the guys that did that, we'd still give them a fair trial. The Constitution is not imited to to our citizens or to our borders. A reasonable argument could be made that it applies wherever we're in control. What do we stand for? If we're like the terrorists, they've beaten us.

Kindness on our part is not leveling an entire country as retrobution for the acts of a few

So I guess you would just nuke them?

The geneva convention and the wartime acts are a nice idea, but lets face it, they only work to a point, and if you think any government that wants information stops all of their interrogations because the wartime acts...you would be mistaken. Again, we only know what we hear, and although we think we hear a lot, we really dont. We have a lot of men at ft. Brag with a lot of job security and its not because they were trained to play nice JSOC has the most support within the military and justice departments in a long time...dont let the small public outcry fool you.

The Geneva Convention is there to protect our soldiers when they're prisoners. By our example, that will nver happen again. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers as war criminals for waterboarding. Last week Cheney was joking about it. If we're going to maintain any kind of credibility, we shouldn't be doing that, not to mention that it is a human rights violation.

I heard a few days ago that they were going to try Rumsfeld in Germany for war crimes. Is that what we're about now?

We'll eventually solve Iraq and terrorism, but what will have happened to us and our standards? Shouldn't we be better than some barbarian terrorists?

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Wait a minute! Nobody at Guantanimo has ever been convicted of anything, and several hundred have been released. And if we caught the guys that did that, we'd still give them a fair trial. The Constitution is not imited to to our citizens or to our borders. A reasonable argument could be made that it applies wherever we're in control. What do we stand for? If we're like the terrorists, they've beaten us.

Well said, and fairly.

The ultimate test of civility indeed. This thread is beginning to earn its title.

Originally Posted by urleebird

You have got to be kidding me! You can't possibly be serious making a statement like that. When the United States gets involved on foreign soil, it is usually because some culture is getting their ass kicked all over their own country at the hands of some evil people. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but I'm sure Australia has history books. Or are they written in arabic?

Is this tone and attitude calculated to promote reasonable the discussion you were seeking?

Let's just look at where we are now. We invaded and are occupying Iraq for whatever the latest explanation may be. The fact is we were not invited and we have overstayed any possible welcome. 70% of the people want us out, and they're saying it's OK to kill Americans. Some of the prisoners at Guantanimo are from Afghanistan and were fighting against us, but many others were just picked up in sweeps in Iraq. One was a Canadian citizen who is now suing us. Hundreds have been released without charges, and none have been tried for anything, so it's not like they're all definitely terrorists. In fact none have been found to be terrorists.

Now we have this law where Bush can define you as an enemy combatant and the you lose habeas corpus rights, torture has been redefined, and Cheney is joking about waterboarding. If some court doesn't declare that law unconstitutional, it'll be taken care of by the next Congress. Like Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Our voters have finally come to their senses and we will be restoring congressional oversight. Hopefully, we'll restore the strength and vitality of the Constitution (you know, that "quaint old document").

Originally Posted by JLStorm

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

I'm afraid it's starting to look like that was our intention long before 9/11. We may find out soon.

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.

Come on JL, if the FBI or state police came to your neighborhood to collect weapons, how many people are going to stand up to them in an emergency situation?

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Even though I don't hate US citizens (the term Americans technically should refer to citizens of all countries in the Americas), lots of people in the world do, mostly because of the US foreign policies.

That's an interesting point. I have an international practice, and the day after 9/11 my office was bombarded with faxes from all over the world expressing concern and sincere support. We had the world behind us and the ability to mobilize the world against terrorism. We would have received any support and cooperation we wanted, and we had wide support for the invasion of Afghanistan. Then we invaded Iraq.