I love how this is used as an argument. Without historical context it just sounds so damning. But if you start to look at why it was done and what other options there were it falls flat. At the time there was a little war going on between Iraq and Iran. Iran had just kidnapped several american citizens and held them for a conciderable amount of time. Iran was run by one of these overly religious leaders the original poster was railing on. The same type of people that attacked us on 9/11...hmmm.
The vietnam war had not been over for even 10 years yet. Reagan was just beginning to put the military back together. Do you think we should have invaded both countries then and place ourselves next to afganistan, which just happened to be were the russians were going? Ya that would have really stablized the world.
Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time there was a choice. The lesser of two evils was choosen. There were those then that told Reagan he would regret that decision. The lesson is not whether it was the right decision or not, its what we learned from it. So now, with the world in a completely different political climate, when we can remove a dictator from power and bring some stablity to the region, we do it. And when there is ample proof that we can create a stable society in both Germany and Japan this is still painted as the americans rough riding over the world.
So according to your logic I must be a racist, male schovinist son of a bitch, just like my grandfather?
raving rightwing religious lunatic as Hitler
What part of National Socialist German Workers Party confuses you? There was nothing right wing about the Nazi's. Try reading something other than Michael Lind's trash, like...say... The Twenty Five Points. Pay attention to the 14 demands they make. How you can relate them to Bush or the Conservative movement is beyond me, but I await the entertainment of your attempt.
he has allegedly been found face down on the Oval Office floor praying
...just like Hitler often was, right?????
...Bush's cronies, the neocons, are mostly neo-Troskyites
Oh this one has to be my favorite. What is it, do you think that using big words make you sound all highbrowed or something?
First of it's: Trotskyite or follower of the writings of Leon Trotsky. Second its the left that has called them neo cons and as such, you are now trying to apply the 1970's meaning of the word to those its currently being applied to. But there's nothing to back it up. And yet the two terms are ideologically opposite One is a former socalist who now beleives in a free market, the other is a socalist.
I don't understand how these bush cronies can be capitalist and socalist at the same time? Please feel free to explain...
If one country is better than another, it doesn't mean that the better country's actions against the worse one will always be good and for the best.
So we should have no involvment then? Please clarify what other options we have?
As I see it we as human beings have an obligation as the number 1 superpower to attempt to stablize the world. Will we make mistakes in our attempts? Most certainly we are human and humans make mistakes. But does that mean we should not try? Absolutly not.
You may remember a little war we had back in 1770's against the british. By your logic we should hate them now. We should be at each others necks. And yet we are not, why do you think that is?
I think that many people view the current war as a continuation of a bad history of international meddling.
And most historians believe that the US policy of isolationizm before WWII was a worse idea. Remember it was economic sanctions and trade restictions that forced the Japanese to attack us.
So what is the magical third option that will save us from all of this?
And now it's my turn to ask when in history something has ever worked.
Isn't it funny how you can only point out terroist groups to make your point, Save for the Luftwaffe. To which I pose the equal question of did the Polish, once conquered respect their oppressors? I actually know through a family friend that saw men, women and children kill infront of him in WWII and that once they saw that the most certainly did. But alas they respected the American GI's who came through and freed them much much more. Yes they cause a great deal of destruction and my friend saw another of him relations crushed by a falling ceiling when the americans attacked and liberated his city. But as my friend explained, many more would have died at the hands of the Germans.
Do you honestly believe that once the Iraqi people get a taste of freedom and are able to speak their mind they will hate us for bring it to them???
I have showed my friend this thread and he feels that you have never seen oppression and pointed out to me that oppression is far far worse than any destruction that might fall from an aircraft.
Not a problem! Please remember next time to come to the table with an understanding of the facts and a clear knowledge of the historic precidents that bear on the issues your are discussing.
You failed to answer any questions I posed to you. You accusing me of hand waving and chest beating and never addressed the points except to run UN babble up the flag pole. The UN is not a world government and has no power over the US! You can yell and scream about that all you want but its the simple truth. The US has the right to protect itself, its citizens, and its national interests. Even a "naiive statesmen" could tell you that!
You accused me of jingoism and then accuse me of misdirection when I make the point that we as americans don't throw people into plastic shredders as an example of how our country is better. And as such demonstrating that the US is a better country. The Extremizim is not in my belief that my country is better, instead its in the way that Iraq treats its own people.
What I am confused about is that because the US operated with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" style of foreign policy and as such dealt with people of less than quality track records for human rights, that this somehow means that we can not change our policy.
And of course the only alternative to this is to bomb them until they love you.
The may not love us but they will respect us. Foreign policy has nothing to do with liking or disliking. We will always have enemies. Their will always be those who wish to control those that they can. And there will always be those that wish to do away with freedom and liberty. And as such we can not get anyone to love us we can only make them respect us. This is one of those little lessons of history that many people fail to learn. The USSR did not like us but they certainly did respect us.
It's the selective nature of enforcement that undermines any authority the UN has/had. The stench of hypocracy is quite overwhelming.
We seem to agree on this point. But it seems we disagree that when they proved that they were unable to react and were simple an talking club it was up to the US to react to protect its citizens.
By they way where were you when Clinton did his bombing in 98' without UN approval?
The French (and others too, remember) would not support a resolution that led to automaticity of force...
No absolutely right. The French said they would Veto no matter what. The Russians and Chinese said that they would vote against it. A vote against is not a veto! Currently every country that was "on the fense" for that vote have commited assest to the war. Making it more than likely that the vote would have been in favor of the UK/US resolution. But alas we'll never know because France said they would use their veto no matter what.
Well, I'm not going to get sidetracked into how skewed the domestic US justice system is (eg black imprisonment rates).
Sure wouldn't want to go into the 40 years of Democratic Control and their social programs that destroyed the inner city leading to the unbalanced crime of those that were stuck in those inner cities.
My point is that it should be the UN that decides international "justice", not a cabal in Washington.
And my point is that we should not wait for another smoking hole in the ground to be allowed to protect our interests. And fortunately, for me and 70+% of Americans the administration feels the same way.
That's why so many individuals and governments are outraged about this.
And they can be... The Russians were outraged by Reagan, but we still kicked their ass. And in the end forced them to respect us. And so will the Arab street.
I can go on and sight history to prove all this but just look for yourself into past conflicts and you will see that there are plenty of examples of what I'm trying to explain to you. Mean while your kowtowing lead to some of the largest genocides of history.
You worry that because of our actions we MAY face a terrorist in the future. I say that if we don't we WILL face it! Remember its the home of the Free BECAUSE it's the land of the Brave. You can't have one without the other.
I only put as many words you your mouth as you put in mine.
Where our disagreement lies is in who's power it is to decided what course of action the US and UK may take to protect their citizens and provide a stable world for them to live in. You make the argument that it is upto the UN to decide. I argue that the UN's inaction is the reason that it lost that ability. After 18...18 ignored resolutions enough is enough. Say whatever you want but until you justify how the ignoring of 18 resolutions makes the US the bad guy your argument holds no water.
Or are we going to do away with the UN now and replace it with a bully-boy, "might is right" approach to international relations?
We did not make the UN irrevelant, France did! They are the ones who said that they would veto any resolution that would remove those in power in Iraq. They said they would veto the resolution before Iraq had even said that it would not agree to it. Why do you thing that was????
That would appear to be a perfect example of "force without justice" which your own quote defines as tyranny.
To justify that statement you would need to prove that the US is an unjust society. Where exactly is this lack of justice?
The tyranny is not within the US but within Iraq and the Baath Party which took control and kills all those who oppose it. You have lived so long in a free society that you have lost touch with what tyranny is!
So what you're saying is that Serious Consequences meant that we would "Seriously" talk about the "Consequences"?
The resolution did not authorise automaticity of force, however much you would like it to be the case.
But however much you would like it not to say what it says... it says "Serious Consequences" and the President of the US and the Prime Minister of the UK believed that it meant what it said. Those that disagreed on the UN Council did so because they have serious financial interest in keeping the current people in power in Iraq.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the current action is in breach of the UN Charter and is therefore "illegal".
Does this mean that the UK and US will have UN resolutions enacted against them that will carry the same weight as the 18 resolutions on Iraq carried? Oh boy I can tell ya I'm worried.
I'll leave you with this quote:
Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.
--Blaise Pascal
I'm not sure how you can pervert my statement that the US does not throw people into plastic shredders and rape wives and daughters in front of their husbands and fathers, into jingoism. But if believing that such actions are wrong and make my country better then I guess it is.
Difficult decisions, et cetera, and as we have now seen, it's always possible to take it back later and fix everything by offering peace and freedom from the end of a gun.
So what your saying is that we should crawl to these third rate countries with our hat in our hand and beg forgiveness and allow them to fly planes into buildings and possibly bomb our cities with WMD, all because of failed policy?
Show me where in history that has produced the desired results? Show me where in history kowtowing produced a stronger stance in the end?
As I see it we have learned that leaving these people in power because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not work. So we have taken a different tack. You may not agree with it but that's you right. In a free society you have the option to express that opinion and I'll listen to it... and not throw you in a plastic shredder for having it.
"the war would be one of days and weeks, not months and years."
Last I checked its hasn't even been two weeks and we have, for all intents and purposes, Baghdad surrounded! But some in the media would have you believe that every time we have an idiot with an AK-47 fire a shot at our troops we are losing this war.
There's nothing in the U.N resolutions that said that would be a consequence if Iraq didn't comply with it's U.N. obligations.
Allow me to quote the resolution to you:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
I'm not sure what you thought Serious Consequences meant but it didn't mean we would send them milk and cookies and ask them to play nice! To remove the WMD you must remove those that wish to build and use them. Otherwise what will stop them from doing it again???
I don't mean to sound callous or unsympathetic...don't tear up a country...It's arrogant.
Your argument is morally dead! Plain and simple! Your freedom and happiness is fine, but it's not worth anything to you! You are not willing to offer it to anyone else cause there's a chance they don't want it. I'm sure that everyone in Iraq is just waiting to hop into the plastic shredders and have their wives and daughters raped in front of them. You say we have no right to free these people! I say we've not only have the right, we as Human Beings have an OBLIGATION to stop this regime from treating Human Beings in such a manner!
Yes I hate Saddam as much as any other person, and yes i am an American.
You may live in America, but you are not an American! An American would never stand by while another human being was tortured in the ways the Iraqis are everyday! But hey you've got your MTV and Survivor so your life is fine. So if some Arab can't say a bad word about their leader with out having their tongue cut out, who cares really...
...simply *remove* those WMD, then people like France, and all the other countries who oppose the war, could live with the use of force to reach their agreed consensus.
Ok this you're going to have trouble with because its a fact you'll not want to hear. FRANCE IS OWED OIL BY IRAQ TO PAY FOR THE REACTOR THAT JACQUES CHIRAC SOLD THEM! Now ask yourself why a country that has the second largest oil reserve in the world needs a reactor???? And if we secure the oil fields and allow Iraq to start selling it on the open market again at full price instead of france at a discount, who loses????
Please don't fool yourself into believing that france has some moral reasons for their objections to the war. Its nothing but a staggering financial loss to them.
This piece [pkarchive.org] by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.
Doesn't really present anything different, he just attempts to spin all the bad on to the power companies. Hell he starts the article with "unlikely that California would ever get anything back from the energy companies" which is the battle cry of the left. "We are entitled to cheap energy. It doesn't matter if we set up bad rules and they used them to their advantage."
"the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government"
I don't know this either... but this is California where even the Repubs are leftist. To explain, I would consider myself a constitutionalist not a repub. I just happen to aggree with more Repubs than Dems.
How would you explain this observation?
I would say that the power companies reacted in their best interest. The rules were perverted by the government and then everyone acted surprised when the power companies played by those rules.
To say it another way they left a kid in a candy store alone and then were surprised when they kid started eating candy.
Now before you jump on your horse about how this proves that a free market doesn't work allow me to counter that this was not a free market. It was still infact regulated, as very very few new power companies were allowed to enter the area and provide the power. This was due to regulations on both who could provide power as well as green activist who would not allow new power plants to be built. ( As a side note I remember reading about a gold mine that shut down mining gold and sold their power to the distributers. Why? Cause they could make more money selling their power than MINING GOLD!!!)
To put it another way if your buddy is selling porkbellies and making a 500 percent profit, are you not going to look into doing the same thing and maybe only making a 499 percent profit?
I suppose everything bad that happens is the fault of these awful liberal conspiracies.
Never said it was a conspiracy! It's more of a socialist agenda, or the belief that people need managed and can not think for themselves.
For you, I suspect phrases like "reverse discrimination" and "giving in to multiculturalism" and "liberal media" have some meaning.
Not really the only one that I have ever used is "liberal media". Feel free to disagree but most of the major media outlet's top journalist admit that they are leftist and call themselves liberal.
But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking.
So how come only the judges that think like they do get approved? While those that think different are not allowed to proceed? Why are they not open-minded to them? Why is their freedom of thought not allowed?
And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION.
Yes, conservation of the ideals and values that this country was founded on. Things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I missed where in the constitution or the declaration of independence it stated that everyone was entitled to be rich and not have to work.
"willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing"
Did you know that the average Democrat in congress has more wealth that the average Republican? But believe me I don't agree with every repub on face value... They can and do support and vote for bad laws. It just seems to me that they don't do it as often.
But since the AI is trained to eliminate spam, won't spammers be the first thing they go after?
This would give the rest of us time to stop them, we'd just wait till they were done with the spammers before we melted Arnold down in the steel smelter.
I'm confused on what your point is or if its any different than what I said:
because of high electricty prices which were caused by an increase in demand.
California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation which was written into the laws by the liberal government that could not let go, because we all need managed, left to our own we would all perish. (that last part was sarcastic!)
and market manipulation I assume you mean the fact that the wholesalers didn't lower their prices and the distributers had to layoff their workers that maintain their systems.
it ended up with large increases in the cost of power caused by the fact that the wholesalers still needed to build new infastructure to supply demand. And the distriubuters now had to replace infastructure that had not been maintained due to lack of a paid work force.
and blackouts to go with it. caused by the fact that the orginal law did nothing to solve the problem of demand outstepping supply. It just swept it under the carpet for a few years. When the lights started to go out it suddenly became a huge issue.
"just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states."
Ah... where did you get that idea??? Liberals wrote the law not the power companies. The supposed deregulation set up a fix rate for the consumer but the distributers still had to pay the whatever the wholesaler wanted. Which is to say that it wasn't deregulated it was infact regulated. As demand rose the wholesalers started to charge more so that they could afford to build new cabling to supple the demand. Only problem was that the distributer was not allowed to raise the rates to cover his increased cost because his fess where, say it with me, REGULATED!
"so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want."
If it was truely private the government wouldn't be making all these laws to, say it with me again, REGULATE the market.
What this is, is an example of QUINN'S FIRST LAW - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
First place the axle nails in a drill and using very fine wet/dry sandpaper buff the axles while spinning the drill. Then, using a rag apply some graphite to the axle in the same way.
Third mount the wheels themselves in the drill and lightly sand the outsides of them, as there is ussually a ridge of plastic left from molding. Now mount the wheels on the axle and the axle in the drill. Spin it up again and apply some more graphite to the spinning wheel. The idea is that a small amount of lapping takes place and smoothes the wheel's spin on the axle.
When mounting make sure to mount the wheels so that they spin freely but yet don't wobble on the axle.
Finally, yes bulbus shapes (think falling water droplet cut in half) are the most streamlined but I felt that keeping the weight in the back was more important as it gave gravity a split second longer to act on the car. in which case a wedge shape is best.
Just my thoughts and three first place trophies talking so take it with a grain of graphite!!!
I assure you my brain is on an functioning quite well. I have all my teeth, tie my own shoes and don't wear flannel.
Not that most pro-gun freaks probably own the...organ in question.
The ones I know are some of the smartest people I've met in my life. I would suggest you do a bit more research on the subject and open your mind a bit more. I fear the information on it that you have received up till now has been very onesided and emotionally charged.
These are all UK stories. Would you like me to going I have over fifty of them just for the past month(you can find them here by searching for UK), or have I ruined you little puppies and snowflakes view of the world enough for one day?
There are other ways to stop your house being broken into than using deadly force, and they don't involve you having to risk your life confronting a criminal either.
But like securing a computer none of those methods are full proof. Banks have some of the most elaborate security around, and yet they are robbed everyday. Well the ones without armed guards are anyway. The point is Security Systems are there to keep you safe from all the dangers you can think of. My firearm is there to safeguard me from all the dangers that you didn't think of!
So you apparently don't want to risk your life. Thats fine, its your choice. But why must I live with your lack of courage. I assure you that I am well trained and versed in the use of firearms. So what is it about me having a weapon that scares you?
Remember it's called the land of the Free and Home of the Brave! You can't have one without the other!
Or my other favorite quote:
Wire cutters to cut phone and alarm wires: $10 Cellular Jammer to block failsafe: $100
Firearm to double tap the sicko raping your 12 year old daughter: PRICELESS
By the way how does your insurance deter the rapist? Or is it fine to give you wife or daughter's dignity away cause, hell, its not your life!!! Right???
And I know at some point your going to try and tell me that me being armed increases the chance of injury to those around me. So lets just look at the numbers for a sec. Every year 32,000 people on average are killed with firearms. 16,000 are suicides. So that leaves us with 16,000 people who are unwilling victims of a firearm( Numbers are from the Brady Website, small note: not all of those deaths are unjustifed, but I digress). Gary Kleck in his study: Armed Resistance to Crime states that his results show that on average there are 2.4 MILLION Defensive Gun Uses(DGU) in the US every year and of those some 300,000 lives are saved by those uses. Now I'll give you a HUGE margin of error and say only one in ten of those actually saved someones life. Thats still 30,000 people saved! So my final Two questions for you are:
Should we save the 16,000 but in doing so sacrafice the 30,000 to 300,000?
And now that you know this, who is really tring to save lives?
While I could argue the fact that The Declaration of Independence is in fact the origin and foundation of all the jurisprudence you stated, for with out the establish of a government the jurisprudence you state would be meaningless. Which in the end was my point that there exist a higher code of conducted than any stated by a government.
What we have in our codified law is an amendment that prohibits the government from endorsing any one religion...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Semantics I know, but you are incorrect what we infact have is an amendment that states that the government can not establish a state religion, um like say... The Church of England!
1) attempt to overturn the First Amendment
Don't want to. Never did. Believe its the second most important right we have.
2) leave the country
Why would I do that, I love this country and would give my life in defense of it.
3) grow up and learn to live with a government that treats Christians, Muslims, atheists, and all other people the same regardless of their beliefs. Oh, isn't that a horror!
I'm not preaching fundamentalism. I agree with you 100%. But that is not what is happening in this country. There are those that would remove all mention of religion from government. And that is not what this country was founded on. That is Marxism and the belief that the government is the highest power and not to be questioned.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must go fuel up the black helicopters.
Funny... Sorry don't believe the whole black helo, chem trails thing either. But that doesn't mean that I believe because everything is roses today that it can't change tomorrow.
OK... but did any of them involve deaths? Did any of those involve anything but property theft? If not, why up the ante by involving deadly weapons?
So what happens when I come into your house and steal your computer, and you let me of course cause your life is more valuable and you file your insurance claim? Your insurance goes up. Now I was wearing a mask and gloves so theres no evidence that the average cop can use against me. So two weeks later I come in and get your tv. Next week something else... how long before you can't afford your insurance? How long before you arm yourself to protect your hard earned valuables?
Well, I can't really think of a way I could accidently kill someone with my insurance. Or have my insurance lying around the house and have someone at a party use it to kill someone.
Yup thats very true. So what, as above, is the deterant for the criminal?(Come on, tell me the Police... Come on you know you want to tell me the Police. Please Please Please!) Please note that I'll go to great lengths to explain to you that the police are under absolutly no obligation to protect you let alone your property. So I'll ask again what is it that will stop criminals from repeatedly taking everything you have until you have nothing? Your Insurance???
but again, cars are a bit easier to dodge than a bullet... slightly slower.
So why are more people killed by cars every year than by guns? Or are you saying we should make guns more complex to operate?
Pieces of jurisprudence that are famous for not mentioning gods, Jesii, etc.
Really??? Have you ever read The Declaration of Independence? Allow me to quote:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
I don't like to rub others noses in religion. I am a religious person but ask not that you believe as I do but instead live by a similar moral code. i.e. Stealing is wrong. Killing without reason is wrong. That is what governments are for, creating a moral code we can all live with. But to say that the goverment must be seperate from religion is not possible. What the orginal jurisprudence does not contain is the mythical seperation of church and state.
Attempts to remove the moral code of a creator is an attempt to state that there is no higher code than that of the government and as such only the rights it sees fit are the ones we are to enjoy. There is a higher code, a right and wrong, call it what you will God's Law, Natures Law.
From what I know about Economics, this is patently false. Raising the price reduces demand*
The key that your missing is return on investment. The cost of making a gun is very very small. And the equipment to do can be created for very little as well. You can build the machining tools you need using these books from Lindsay Publishing and then using the books by Bill Holmes on firearms manufacture you have every thing you need to produce a reliable weapon.
This setup could be built at very little cost and materials for it can be found almost anywhere in the world. So the barrier to entry is very low and the cost of production is in time far more than materials. So the return on investment when selling a firearm would be quite high. In other word what you are looking at is demand side economics, but are not taking into account supply side economics. (Oh my did I just admint that I'm a right winger or what...) If you make a business model profitable others will pick up on it. So the shear number of manufactures will keep the price low because the risk is spread out and as such the demand will be there because the product in still reasonably priced.
As you stated the demand for drugs has not diminished due to high cost(because of the low barrier to entry verses the high return on investment(an ounces of week can cost more than an ounce of gold and you can grow it in your house)). And there is no reason to believe that the demand for firearms would either. In fact as the orginal parent I replied to was from Canada I would suggest that he lookin to the reports on illegal black market of weapons sales going on in his country. It is my understanding that it is quite the sellers market.
Note: I am not promoting, condoning or praticipating in any illegal activity. The statements above are simply examples that can be located in many places on the net.
But to simplify the discussion back on track, my orginal point was that making the ownership of guns would hardly mean that the supply of them would be deminished. It would simply mean that only those willing to break the law would have firearms and those of us who are law abiding citizens would be the ones outgunned. And those moral people who secretly still posessed guns would be much less likely to use them in defense of you and your family because of the repocussions.
You having a gun would have helped if you were in one of those cars how?
Yes, If I were shot at and not hit. Which is the only case in which my having a gun would make a difference. And in such a case I now have 3000 pounds of hard cover from which to mount my defense. By placing the engine block between me and the threat I can then plan and execute a defence of mine and the other lives around me. And in doing such I am safeguarding others by forcing the threat to deal with me. I am very sorry to hear that, although I am willing to defend your life, you are not willing to defend mine. But that is your choice and I will still defend you if we are ever in such a situation together.
Do you play the lottery? Do you have any idea how small the odds are that someone will try to kill you with a gun?
No I do not play the lottery. And Yes the odds of me being attacked are quite a bit higher than me ever winning the lottery, hence I am armed but don't play the lottery.
Do you know how LARGE the odds are that the guy shooting those people stole his gun from someone just like you who has it legally?
Yes some 80% of firearms used in crimes are stolen. Whats your point? Do you believe that if guns were illegal that there would be less of them? Drugs are illegal are they hard to come by? Outlawing something that is easily produced does nothing to the supply. It simply raises the price of the item to offset the cost of production and distribution which both rise do to the risk involved. But the increase in price causes more people to consider becoming suppliers dues to the high return on investment.
Your beliefs are your own and it is apparent that where you live is the right place for you. I am not asking you to change your beliefs. I do not agree with your beliefs and would never live in Canada because of my beliefs. I have no fear of indians, why should I? People of color? nope! Terrorist...hmmm... can say I'm scared of them. In fact I've often stated that I fear no man in this world, save for my Mother!:-) And the reason for that is I am armed and well versed in the use of those arms. If I am killed by someone elses actions that is not a in itself a freak accident it will then be while defending myself, my family, my friends or my country. And if in defending those I am killed then I do so willingly for that my friend is call HONOR!
I will attempt to explain my personal mentality when it comes to why I arm myself. To answer your question: I do not live in a dangerous area. The chief reason I carry a weapon is that I have the belief that my life and the lives of my friends, family and those good people that I share this community with have a value. So my first question to you is do you see human life as valuable? If we can agree that human life has value we can move on to ask is that life worth defending? If we can agree that human life is worth defending we must ask what is the absolute best method to defend human life? I'll expound on that question a bit and ask what tool or method provides the easiest use, the quickest solution in the most reliable fashion? On a cold hard factual level the firearm is one of the simplest tools ever make. Anyone can use one! Second when pointed at the threat and used it can hardly be argued that it does not provide a quick solution to the threat. And third modern firearms are extremely reliable, firing even after the harshest of abuse.
So if you're with me to this point we have stated that human life is valuable and worth defending and that a firearm is the easiest, quickest and most reliable tool for that defense. So now on to the question I know that some of you are shouting at the screen. Who am I to decide that one life is more valuable than another and as such to have the right to take another's life? Which is a valid question. So lets look at the situation where that decision must be made. You or someone else near you is being threatened. There are three possible responses to this situation:
Attempt to resolve the threat
Attempt to flea the threat
Attempt to fight the threat
The level of response depends very much on the level of threat. You bump in to a large man at the coffee shop and he spills coffee on himself, you resolve the conflict by buying the guy another cup and offering to pay the cleaning bill. Thus resolving the threat. The same thing happens at the bar. Only this time the man says he's going to punch you in the face. You turn and walk away. Thus fleeing the threat. Third situation you are caught between you and your car by the large man and he demands your cash or your life. Your route of escape is cut off. That leaves you with two options. One give this guy your hard earned money (and thus reinforce the idea that he can take what he wants from others, also you are acting under the assumption that he will let you live to ID him later) or you can pull out your firearm and shoot him square in the chest. This action firmly reinforces to him that he cannot take what is not his.
Now you are saying to yourself, I'm sure, that I have not answered why his life was judged less valuable. But that is simply not the case. In fact the man made the judgment for you and himself when he decided to act on the course he chose. He himself decided that it was worth risking his life to take what you had. He understood that his actions were not morally acceptible in the society he lived in and that by taking that action he was a less valued member of that society. Your life is more valuable and worth defending and we have already discussed the best tool for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
...including for example Saddam Hussein.
I love how this is used as an argument. Without historical context it just sounds so damning. But if you start to look at why it was done and what other options there were it falls flat. At the time there was a little war going on between Iraq and Iran. Iran had just kidnapped several american citizens and held them for a conciderable amount of time. Iran was run by one of these overly religious leaders the original poster was railing on. The same type of people that attacked us on 9/11...hmmm.
The vietnam war had not been over for even 10 years yet. Reagan was just beginning to put the military back together. Do you think we should have invaded both countries then and place ourselves next to afganistan, which just happened to be were the russians were going? Ya that would have really stablized the world.
Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time there was a choice. The lesser of two evils was choosen. There were those then that told Reagan he would regret that decision. The lesson is not whether it was the right decision or not, its what we learned from it. So now, with the world in a completely different political climate, when we can remove a dictator from power and bring some stablity to the region, we do it. And when there is ample proof that we can create a stable society in both Germany and Japan this is still painted as the americans rough riding over the world.
including Prescott Bush, George's grandfather
...just like Hitler often was, right?????
...Bush's cronies, the neocons, are mostly neo-Troskyites
So according to your logic I must be a racist, male schovinist son of a bitch, just like my grandfather?
raving rightwing religious lunatic as Hitler
What part of National Socialist German Workers Party confuses you? There was nothing right wing about the Nazi's. Try reading something other than Michael Lind's trash, like...say... The Twenty Five Points. Pay attention to the 14 demands they make. How you can relate them to Bush or the Conservative movement is beyond me, but I await the entertainment of your attempt.
he has allegedly been found face down on the Oval Office floor praying
Oh this one has to be my favorite. What is it, do you think that using big words make you sound all highbrowed or something?
First of it's: Trotskyite or follower of the writings of Leon Trotsky. Second its the left that has called them neo cons and as such, you are now trying to apply the 1970's meaning of the word to those its currently being applied to. But there's nothing to back it up. And yet the two terms are ideologically opposite One is a former socalist who now beleives in a free market, the other is a socalist.
I don't understand how these bush cronies can be capitalist and socalist at the same time? Please feel free to explain...
If one country is better than another, it doesn't mean that the better country's actions against the worse one will always be good and for the best.
So we should have no involvment then? Please clarify what other options we have?
As I see it we as human beings have an obligation as the number 1 superpower to attempt to stablize the world. Will we make mistakes in our attempts? Most certainly we are human and humans make mistakes. But does that mean we should not try? Absolutly not.
You may remember a little war we had back in 1770's against the british. By your logic we should hate them now. We should be at each others necks. And yet we are not, why do you think that is?
I think that many people view the current war as a continuation of a bad history of international meddling.
And most historians believe that the US policy of isolationizm before WWII was a worse idea. Remember it was economic sanctions and trade restictions that forced the Japanese to attack us.
So what is the magical third option that will save us from all of this?
And now it's my turn to ask when in history something has ever worked.
Isn't it funny how you can only point out terroist groups to make your point, Save for the Luftwaffe. To which I pose the equal question of did the Polish, once conquered respect their oppressors? I actually know through a family friend that saw men, women and children kill infront of him in WWII and that once they saw that the most certainly did. But alas they respected the American GI's who came through and freed them much much more. Yes they cause a great deal of destruction and my friend saw another of him relations crushed by a falling ceiling when the americans attacked and liberated his city. But as my friend explained, many more would have died at the hands of the Germans.
Do you honestly believe that once the Iraqi people get a taste of freedom and are able to speak their mind they will hate us for bring it to them???
I have showed my friend this thread and he feels that you have never seen oppression and pointed out to me that oppression is far far worse than any destruction that might fall from an aircraft.
Not a problem! Please remember next time to come to the table with an understanding of the facts and a clear knowledge of the historic precidents that bear on the issues your are discussing.
You failed to answer any questions I posed to you. You accusing me of hand waving and chest beating and never addressed the points except to run UN babble up the flag pole. The UN is not a world government and has no power over the US! You can yell and scream about that all you want but its the simple truth. The US has the right to protect itself, its citizens, and its national interests. Even a "naiive statesmen" could tell you that!
You accused me of jingoism and then accuse me of misdirection when I make the point that we as americans don't throw people into plastic shredders as an example of how our country is better. And as such demonstrating that the US is a better country. The Extremizim is not in my belief that my country is better, instead its in the way that Iraq treats its own people.
What I am confused about is that because the US operated with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" style of foreign policy and as such dealt with people of less than quality track records for human rights, that this somehow means that we can not change our policy.
And of course the only alternative to this is to bomb them until they love you.
The may not love us but they will respect us. Foreign policy has nothing to do with liking or disliking. We will always have enemies. Their will always be those who wish to control those that they can. And there will always be those that wish to do away with freedom and liberty. And as such we can not get anyone to love us we can only make them respect us. This is one of those little lessons of history that many people fail to learn. The USSR did not like us but they certainly did respect us.
It's the selective nature of enforcement that undermines any authority the UN has/had. The stench of hypocracy is quite overwhelming.
We seem to agree on this point. But it seems we disagree that when they proved that they were unable to react and were simple an talking club it was up to the US to react to protect its citizens.
By they way where were you when Clinton did his bombing in 98' without UN approval?
The French (and others too, remember) would not support a resolution that led to automaticity of force...
No absolutely right. The French said they would Veto no matter what. The Russians and Chinese said that they would vote against it. A vote against is not a veto! Currently every country that was "on the fense" for that vote have commited assest to the war. Making it more than likely that the vote would have been in favor of the UK/US resolution. But alas we'll never know because France said they would use their veto no matter what.
Well, I'm not going to get sidetracked into how skewed the domestic US justice system is (eg black imprisonment rates).
Sure wouldn't want to go into the 40 years of Democratic Control and their social programs that destroyed the inner city leading to the unbalanced crime of those that were stuck in those inner cities.
My point is that it should be the UN that decides international "justice", not a cabal in Washington.
And my point is that we should not wait for another smoking hole in the ground to be allowed to protect our interests. And fortunately, for me and 70+% of Americans the administration feels the same way.
That's why so many individuals and governments are outraged about this.
And they can be... The Russians were outraged by Reagan, but we still kicked their ass. And in the end forced them to respect us. And so will the Arab street.
I can go on and sight history to prove all this but just look for yourself into past conflicts and you will see that there are plenty of examples of what I'm trying to explain to you. Mean while your kowtowing lead to some of the largest genocides of history.
You worry that because of our actions we MAY face a terrorist in the future. I say that if we don't we WILL face it! Remember its the home of the Free BECAUSE it's the land of the Brave. You can't have one without the other.
I only put as many words you your mouth as you put in mine.
Where our disagreement lies is in who's power it is to decided what course of action the US and UK may take to protect their citizens and provide a stable world for them to live in. You make the argument that it is upto the UN to decide. I argue that the UN's inaction is the reason that it lost that ability. After 18...18 ignored resolutions enough is enough. Say whatever you want but until you justify how the ignoring of 18 resolutions makes the US the bad guy your argument holds no water.
Or are we going to do away with the UN now and replace it with a bully-boy, "might is right" approach to international relations?
We did not make the UN irrevelant, France did! They are the ones who said that they would veto any resolution that would remove those in power in Iraq. They said they would veto the resolution before Iraq had even said that it would not agree to it. Why do you thing that was????
That would appear to be a perfect example of "force without justice" which your own quote defines as tyranny.
To justify that statement you would need to prove that the US is an unjust society. Where exactly is this lack of justice?
The tyranny is not within the US but within Iraq and the Baath Party which took control and kills all those who oppose it. You have lived so long in a free society that you have lost touch with what tyranny is!
So what you're saying is that Serious Consequences meant that we would "Seriously" talk about the "Consequences"?
The resolution did not authorise automaticity of force, however much you would like it to be the case.
But however much you would like it not to say what it says... it says "Serious Consequences" and the President of the US and the Prime Minister of the UK believed that it meant what it said. Those that disagreed on the UN Council did so because they have serious financial interest in keeping the current people in power in Iraq.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the current action is in breach of the UN Charter and is therefore "illegal".
Does this mean that the UK and US will have UN resolutions enacted against them that will carry the same weight as the 18 resolutions on Iraq carried? Oh boy I can tell ya I'm worried.
I'll leave you with this quote:
Justice without force is powerless; force without justice is tyrannical.
--Blaise Pascal
I'm not sure how you can pervert my statement that the US does not throw people into plastic shredders and rape wives and daughters in front of their husbands and fathers, into jingoism. But if believing that such actions are wrong and make my country better then I guess it is.
Difficult decisions, et cetera, and as we have now seen, it's always possible to take it back later and fix everything by offering peace and freedom from the end of a gun.
So what your saying is that we should crawl to these third rate countries with our hat in our hand and beg forgiveness and allow them to fly planes into buildings and possibly bomb our cities with WMD, all because of failed policy?
Show me where in history that has produced the desired results? Show me where in history kowtowing produced a stronger stance in the end?
As I see it we have learned that leaving these people in power because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not work. So we have taken a different tack. You may not agree with it but that's you right. In a free society you have the option to express that opinion and I'll listen to it... and not throw you in a plastic shredder for having it.
"the war would be one of days and weeks, not months and years."
...don't tear up a country...It's arrogant.
...simply *remove* those WMD, then people like France, and all the other countries who oppose the war, could live with the use of force to reach their agreed consensus.
Last I checked its hasn't even been two weeks and we have, for all intents and purposes, Baghdad surrounded! But some in the media would have you believe that every time we have an idiot with an AK-47 fire a shot at our troops we are losing this war.
There's nothing in the U.N resolutions that said that would be a consequence if Iraq didn't comply with it's U.N. obligations.
Allow me to quote the resolution to you:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
I'm not sure what you thought Serious Consequences meant but it didn't mean we would send them milk and cookies and ask them to play nice! To remove the WMD you must remove those that wish to build and use them. Otherwise what will stop them from doing it again???
I don't mean to sound callous or unsympathetic
Your argument is morally dead! Plain and simple! Your freedom and happiness is fine, but it's not worth anything to you! You are not willing to offer it to anyone else cause there's a chance they don't want it. I'm sure that everyone in Iraq is just waiting to hop into the plastic shredders and have their wives and daughters raped in front of them. You say we have no right to free these people! I say we've not only have the right, we as Human Beings have an OBLIGATION to stop this regime from treating Human Beings in such a manner!
Yes I hate Saddam as much as any other person, and yes i am an American.
You may live in America, but you are not an American! An American would never stand by while another human being was tortured in the ways the Iraqis are everyday! But hey you've got your MTV and Survivor so your life is fine. So if some Arab can't say a bad word about their leader with out having their tongue cut out, who cares really...
Ok this you're going to have trouble with because its a fact you'll not want to hear. FRANCE IS OWED OIL BY IRAQ TO PAY FOR THE REACTOR THAT JACQUES CHIRAC SOLD THEM! Now ask yourself why a country that has the second largest oil reserve in the world needs a reactor???? And if we secure the oil fields and allow Iraq to start selling it on the open market again at full price instead of france at a discount, who loses????
Please don't fool yourself into believing that france has some moral reasons for their objections to the war. Its nothing but a staggering financial loss to them.
This piece [pkarchive.org] by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.
Doesn't really present anything different, he just attempts to spin all the bad on to the power companies. Hell he starts the article with "unlikely that California would ever get anything back from the energy companies" which is the battle cry of the left. "We are entitled to cheap energy. It doesn't matter if we set up bad rules and they used them to their advantage."
"the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government"
I don't know this either... but this is California where even the Repubs are leftist. To explain, I would consider myself a constitutionalist not a repub. I just happen to aggree with more Repubs than Dems.
How would you explain this observation?
I would say that the power companies reacted in their best interest. The rules were perverted by the government and then everyone acted surprised when the power companies played by those rules.
To say it another way they left a kid in a candy store alone and then were surprised when they kid started eating candy.
Now before you jump on your horse about how this proves that a free market doesn't work allow me to counter that this was not a free market. It was still infact regulated, as very very few new power companies were allowed to enter the area and provide the power. This was due to regulations on both who could provide power as well as green activist who would not allow new power plants to be built. ( As a side note I remember reading about a gold mine that shut down mining gold and sold their power to the distributers. Why? Cause they could make more money selling their power than MINING GOLD!!!)
To put it another way if your buddy is selling porkbellies and making a 500 percent profit, are you not going to look into doing the same thing and maybe only making a 499 percent profit?
I suppose everything bad that happens is the fault of these awful liberal conspiracies.
Never said it was a conspiracy! It's more of a socialist agenda, or the belief that people need managed and can not think for themselves.
For you, I suspect phrases like "reverse discrimination" and "giving in to multiculturalism" and "liberal media" have some meaning.
Not really the only one that I have ever used is "liberal media". Feel free to disagree but most of the major media outlet's top journalist admit that they are leftist and call themselves liberal.
But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking.
So how come only the judges that think like they do get approved? While those that think different are not allowed to proceed? Why are they not open-minded to them? Why is their freedom of thought not allowed?
And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION.
Yes, conservation of the ideals and values that this country was founded on. Things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I missed where in the constitution or the declaration of independence it stated that everyone was entitled to be rich and not have to work.
"willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing"
Did you know that the average Democrat in congress has more wealth that the average Republican? But believe me I don't agree with every repub on face value... They can and do support and vote for bad laws. It just seems to me that they don't do it as often.
But since the AI is trained to eliminate spam, won't spammers be the first thing they go after?
This would give the rest of us time to stop them, we'd just wait till they were done with the spammers before we melted Arnold down in the steel smelter.
I'm confused on what your point is or if its any different than what I said:
because of high electricty prices which were caused by an increase in demand.
California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation which was written into the laws by the liberal government that could not let go, because we all need managed, left to our own we would all perish. (that last part was sarcastic!)
and market manipulation I assume you mean the fact that the wholesalers didn't lower their prices and the distributers had to layoff their workers that maintain their systems.
it ended up with large increases in the cost of power caused by the fact that the wholesalers still needed to build new infastructure to supply demand. And the distriubuters now had to replace infastructure that had not been maintained due to lack of a paid work force.
and blackouts to go with it. caused by the fact that the orginal law did nothing to solve the problem of demand outstepping supply. It just swept it under the carpet for a few years. When the lights started to go out it suddenly became a huge issue.
"just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states."
Ah... where did you get that idea??? Liberals wrote the law not the power companies. The supposed deregulation set up a fix rate for the consumer but the distributers still had to pay the whatever the wholesaler wanted. Which is to say that it wasn't deregulated it was infact regulated. As demand rose the wholesalers started to charge more so that they could afford to build new cabling to supple the demand. Only problem was that the distributer was not allowed to raise the rates to cover his increased cost because his fess where, say it with me, REGULATED!
"so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want."
If it was truely private the government wouldn't be making all these laws to, say it with me again, REGULATE the market.
What this is, is an example of QUINN'S FIRST LAW - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
First place the axle nails in a drill and using very fine wet/dry sandpaper buff the axles while spinning the drill. Then, using a rag apply some graphite to the axle in the same way.
Third mount the wheels themselves in the drill and lightly sand the outsides of them, as there is ussually a ridge of plastic left from molding. Now mount the wheels on the axle and the axle in the drill. Spin it up again and apply some more graphite to the spinning wheel. The idea is that a small amount of lapping takes place and smoothes the wheel's spin on the axle.
When mounting make sure to mount the wheels so that they spin freely but yet don't wobble on the axle.
Finally, yes bulbus shapes (think falling water droplet cut in half) are the most streamlined but I felt that keeping the weight in the back was more important as it gave gravity a split second longer to act on the car. in which case a wedge shape is best.
Just my thoughts and three first place trophies talking so take it with a grain of graphite!!!
What he did say is that US has more such crimes. Not that hard to understand, nae? Would you please try and turn your brains on.
Maybe you missed the link to this story:
England has worst crime rate in world
How does that mean the US has more crime?
I assure you my brain is on an functioning quite well. I have all my teeth, tie my own shoes and don't wear flannel.
Not that most pro-gun freaks probably own the...organ in question.
The ones I know are some of the smartest people I've met in my life. I would suggest you do a bit more research on the subject and open your mind a bit more. I fear the information on it that you have received up till now has been very onesided and emotionally charged.
Hmm lets see:
Man threatened in own home with gun
HELP POLICE CAPTURE GUNMAN
Tower block gun terror
England has worst crime rate in world
These are all UK stories. Would you like me to going I have over fifty of them just for the past month(you can find them here by searching for UK), or have I ruined you little puppies and snowflakes view of the world enough for one day?
There are other ways to stop your house being broken into than using deadly force, and they don't involve you having to risk your life confronting a criminal either.
But like securing a computer none of those methods are full proof. Banks have some of the most elaborate security around, and yet they are robbed everyday. Well the ones without armed guards are anyway. The point is Security Systems are there to keep you safe from all the dangers you can think of. My firearm is there to safeguard me from all the dangers that you didn't think of!
So you apparently don't want to risk your life. Thats fine, its your choice. But why must I live with your lack of courage. I assure you that I am well trained and versed in the use of firearms. So what is it about me having a weapon that scares you?
Remember it's called the land of the Free and Home of the Brave! You can't have one without the other!
Or my other favorite quote:
Wire cutters to cut phone and alarm wires: $10
Cellular Jammer to block failsafe: $100
Firearm to double tap the sicko raping your 12 year old daughter: PRICELESS
By the way how does your insurance deter the rapist? Or is it fine to give you wife or daughter's dignity away cause, hell, its not your life!!! Right???
And I know at some point your going to try and tell me that me being armed increases the chance of injury to those around me. So lets just look at the numbers for a sec. Every year 32,000 people on average are killed with firearms. 16,000 are suicides. So that leaves us with 16,000 people who are unwilling victims of a firearm( Numbers are from the Brady Website, small note: not all of those deaths are unjustifed, but I digress). Gary Kleck in his study: Armed Resistance to Crime states that his results show that on average there are 2.4 MILLION Defensive Gun Uses(DGU) in the US every year and of those some 300,000 lives are saved by those uses. Now I'll give you a HUGE margin of error and say only one in ten of those actually saved someones life. Thats still 30,000 people saved! So my final Two questions for you are:
Should we save the 16,000 but in doing so sacrafice the 30,000 to 300,000?
And now that you know this, who is really tring to save lives?
While I could argue the fact that The Declaration of Independence is in fact the origin and foundation of all the jurisprudence you stated, for with out the establish of a government the jurisprudence you state would be meaningless. Which in the end was my point that there exist a higher code of conducted than any stated by a government.
What we have in our codified law is an amendment that prohibits the government from endorsing any one religion...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Semantics I know, but you are incorrect what we infact have is an amendment that states that the government can not establish a state religion, um like say... The Church of England!
1) attempt to overturn the First Amendment
Don't want to. Never did. Believe its the second most important right we have.
2) leave the country
Why would I do that, I love this country and would give my life in defense of it.
3) grow up and learn to live with a government that treats Christians, Muslims, atheists, and all other people the same regardless of their beliefs. Oh, isn't that a horror!
I'm not preaching fundamentalism. I agree with you 100%. But that is not what is happening in this country. There are those that would remove all mention of religion from government. And that is not what this country was founded on. That is Marxism and the belief that the government is the highest power and not to be questioned.
Now, if you will excuse me, I must go fuel up the black helicopters.
Funny... Sorry don't believe the whole black helo, chem trails thing either. But that doesn't mean that I believe because everything is roses today that it can't change tomorrow.
OK... but did any of them involve deaths? Did any of those involve anything but property theft? If not, why up the ante by involving deadly weapons?
So what happens when I come into your house and steal your computer, and you let me of course cause your life is more valuable and you file your insurance claim? Your insurance goes up. Now I was wearing a mask and gloves so theres no evidence that the average cop can use against me. So two weeks later I come in and get your tv. Next week something else... how long before you can't afford your insurance? How long before you arm yourself to protect your hard earned valuables?
Well, I can't really think of a way I could accidently kill someone with my insurance. Or have my insurance lying around the house and have someone at a party use it to kill someone.
Yup thats very true. So what, as above, is the deterant for the criminal?(Come on, tell me the Police... Come on you know you want to tell me the Police. Please Please Please!) Please note that I'll go to great lengths to explain to you that the police are under absolutly no obligation to protect you let alone your property. So I'll ask again what is it that will stop criminals from repeatedly taking everything you have until you have nothing? Your Insurance???
but again, cars are a bit easier to dodge than a bullet... slightly slower.
So why are more people killed by cars every year than by guns? Or are you saying we should make guns more complex to operate?
Pieces of jurisprudence that are famous for not mentioning gods, Jesii, etc.
Really??? Have you ever read The Declaration of Independence? Allow me to quote:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
I don't like to rub others noses in religion. I am a religious person but ask not that you believe as I do but instead live by a similar moral code. i.e. Stealing is wrong. Killing without reason is wrong. That is what governments are for, creating a moral code we can all live with. But to say that the goverment must be seperate from religion is not possible. What the orginal jurisprudence does not contain is the mythical seperation of church and state.
Attempts to remove the moral code of a creator is an attempt to state that there is no higher code than that of the government and as such only the rights it sees fit are the ones we are to enjoy. There is a higher code, a right and wrong, call it what you will God's Law, Natures Law.
From what I know about Economics, this is patently false. Raising the price reduces demand*
The key that your missing is return on investment. The cost of making a gun is very very small. And the equipment to do can be created for very little as well. You can build the machining tools you need using these books from Lindsay Publishing and then using the books by Bill Holmes on firearms manufacture you have every thing you need to produce a reliable weapon.
This setup could be built at very little cost and materials for it can be found almost anywhere in the world. So the barrier to entry is very low and the cost of production is in time far more than materials. So the return on investment when selling a firearm would be quite high. In other word what you are looking at is demand side economics, but are not taking into account supply side economics. (Oh my did I just admint that I'm a right winger or what...) If you make a business model profitable others will pick up on it. So the shear number of manufactures will keep the price low because the risk is spread out and as such the demand will be there because the product in still reasonably priced.
As you stated the demand for drugs has not diminished due to high cost(because of the low barrier to entry verses the high return on investment(an ounces of week can cost more than an ounce of gold and you can grow it in your house)). And there is no reason to believe that the demand for firearms would either. In fact as the orginal parent I replied to was from Canada I would suggest that he lookin to the reports on illegal black market of weapons sales going on in his country. It is my understanding that it is quite the sellers market.
Note: I am not promoting, condoning or praticipating in any illegal activity. The statements above are simply examples that can be located in many places on the net.
But to simplify the discussion back on track, my orginal point was that making the ownership of guns would hardly mean that the supply of them would be deminished. It would simply mean that only those willing to break the law would have firearms and those of us who are law abiding citizens would be the ones outgunned. And those moral people who secretly still posessed guns would be much less likely to use them in defense of you and your family because of the repocussions.
You having a gun would have helped if you were in one of those cars how?
:-) And the reason for that is I am armed and well versed in the use of those arms. If I am killed by someone elses actions that is not a in itself a freak accident it will then be while defending myself, my family, my friends or my country. And if in defending those I am killed then I do so willingly for that my friend is call HONOR!
Yes, If I were shot at and not hit. Which is the only case in which my having a gun would make a difference. And in such a case I now have 3000 pounds of hard cover from which to mount my defense. By placing the engine block between me and the threat I can then plan and execute a defence of mine and the other lives around me. And in doing such I am safeguarding others by forcing the threat to deal with me. I am very sorry to hear that, although I am willing to defend your life, you are not willing to defend mine. But that is your choice and I will still defend you if we are ever in such a situation together.
Do you play the lottery? Do you have any idea how small the odds are that someone will try to kill you with a gun?
No I do not play the lottery. And Yes the odds of me being attacked are quite a bit higher than me ever winning the lottery, hence I am armed but don't play the lottery.
Do you know how LARGE the odds are that the guy shooting those people stole his gun from someone just like you who has it legally?
Yes some 80% of firearms used in crimes are stolen. Whats your point? Do you believe that if guns were illegal that there would be less of them? Drugs are illegal are they hard to come by?
Outlawing something that is easily produced does nothing to the supply. It simply raises the price of the item to offset the cost of production and distribution which both rise do to the risk involved. But the increase in price causes more people to consider becoming suppliers dues to the high return on investment.
Your beliefs are your own and it is apparent that where you live is the right place for you. I am not asking you to change your beliefs. I do not agree with your beliefs and would never live in Canada because of my beliefs. I have no fear of indians, why should I? People of color? nope! Terrorist...hmmm... can say I'm scared of them. In fact I've often stated that I fear no man in this world, save for my Mother!
So if you're with me to this point we have stated that human life is valuable and worth defending and that a firearm is the easiest, quickest and most reliable tool for that defense. So now on to the question I know that some of you are shouting at the screen. Who am I to decide that one life is more valuable than another and as such to have the right to take another's life? Which is a valid question. So lets look at the situation where that decision must be made. You or someone else near you is being threatened. There are three possible responses to this situation:
Attempt to resolve the threat
Attempt to flea the threat
Attempt to fight the threat
The level of response depends very much on the level of threat. You bump in to a large man at the coffee shop and he spills coffee on himself, you resolve the conflict by buying the guy another cup and offering to pay the cleaning bill. Thus resolving the threat. The same thing happens at the bar. Only this time the man says he's going to punch you in the face. You turn and walk away. Thus fleeing the threat. Third situation you are caught between you and your car by the large man and he demands your cash or your life. Your route of escape is cut off. That leaves you with two options. One give this guy your hard earned money (and thus reinforce the idea that he can take what he wants from others, also you are acting under the assumption that he will let you live to ID him later) or you can pull out your firearm and shoot him square in the chest. This action firmly reinforces to him that he cannot take what is not his.
Now you are saying to yourself, I'm sure, that I have not answered why his life was judged less valuable. But that is simply not the case. In fact the man made the judgment for you and himself when he decided to act on the course he chose. He himself decided that it was worth risking his life to take what you had. He understood that his actions were not morally acceptible in the society he lived in and that by taking that action he was a less valued member of that society. Your life is more valuable and worth defending and we have already discussed the best tool for the job.