as it hasn't had any on mine when I was a student there in 1980's.
Were you brought up in the US and went to study in China, already having decided on your outlook, or did you grow up from early childhood in China? Big difference.
I find it kinda bizarre to buy a US flag only to find out that it's made in China... not. Most of your fabrics (clothes) are manufactured there; why would a flag be any different? Seriously, it's moronic to think you're making some kind of a political statement to say that your flag needs to be manufactured in your country. It doesn't mean you can't still wave it just as patriotically.
Israel has ALWAYS been the aggressor, by virtue of the fact that they have sustained a brutal 60-year occupation of Palestine.
Bollocks.
I presume you're talking about the 'occupation' of the land colonized by the Arab caliphate? If you're gonna go delving into history to see who originally had the land, take a look at this. Quote:
586 BCE. After approximately 50 years the Jewish exiles were allowed, by the Persian Empire, to return back to the Land of Israel, where they built the Second Temple in Jerusalem and were allowed autonomous rule. So the land was mainly occupied by Jews in 600+ BC (and before that). The Muslim/Arab invasion happened a LOT more recently.
I personally think a more legitimate argument is to look at who's living there now, and, well, NOT evict them from their homes, because that's a nasty thing to do. But if you want to go delving into history, the Jews still deserve to live there.
Revolutions, end up having little effect in the long term.
I dunno about that. The French revolution seems to have had a very long-lasting, and very positive effect. They did it right. If only we could all get it right.
If people want to confine their thinking on a subject to what they see on the news then let them see American caskets.
Whilst I take your point, that does rather rely on convincing people that the only reason to pull out of Iraq (and/or admit that it was badly handled and/or a mistake in the first place) is because there have been a few US casualties. If that's the only reason people will listen to, it's pretty sad.
(Looks like you got your Lips syntax wrong (you embed multiple parentheses within one another (like this), but there's no reason to arbitrarily use multiple parentheses).)
OK, I mostly get the Firehost, but as there's no official help or anything, what on Earth is that rainbow about, any why are different stories coloured differently?
God damnit. 2 hours of my life down the drain, I feel numb having concentrated on that thing... and you kill the last creature, and that's it. No ending. Sigh.
I bet that worked really well when the legal folk walked up and announced that your last 2 months of work were wasted and had to be scrapped, because something that was fundamental to the design happened to infringe on a patent.
I think it's quite irresponsible to promote the idea of having 7-10 children, though. The planet is already overpopulated, and 2 is enough. Quite apart from the fact that you need to find a woman who wants to have unprotected sex with you shortly after childbirth, 6 or more times. Not everyone is so lucky.
I don't necessarily like some of the things that the U.S government has done, particularly the current administration, but I am firmly against the use of armed revolution at this point. I still believe change can be brought about in the U.S without the use of violence, even though it will take much longer.
I disagree with you. It looks like it's getting to the point where the rich will control America indefinitely, and power is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Bush is spying on his own citizens, restricting free speech, and generally treating his citizens and most of the world with contempt, and the citizens haven't so much as hinted at a revolt. Haven't even used it as a threat, because presumably they might be locked up as terrorists for doing so. Under that atmosphere, I just don't see an armed revolution (or peaceful change, given the screwed up nature of the electoral college) happening.
having an effective 2nd amendment can still result in a populace that is capable of armed revolution against a modern army. The kill ratio isn't necessarily a measurement of victory. That's the only assertion I'm trying to make.
And all I'm trying to say is that that capability is 100% irrelevant, because they don't and won't ever have the will to make it happen. Therefore, that pro-gun argument is debunked.
I base mine on the knowledge that the Founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, and wanted to place checks on the government that they were creating so that it would not be able to become tyrannical. I think they'd be apalled at what their legacy has become.
My point exactly. They take one look at the US, realize that they gave people the freedom to bear arms, and the people STILL allowed a tyrannical government to take over. They then look at gun crime and conclude that guns aren't really helping. Allow them for sport, but how can a logical person (which I believe the founding fathers were) conclude that the second amendment has succeeded?
There is no doubt that crime, violent crime specifically decrease when a given population because armed.
There most certainly is doubt.
My point is that there is no reason why the military and or police forces have the ability to wield fully automatic weapons, grenades, and other weapons capable of inflicting large scale damage, and the populace does not.
The idea is that they can be trusted more than the general populace, as they're carefully vetted and trained before being allowed to bear arms. The problem is that, in practice, they can't and aren't. But if they could and were, it would make a lot of sense.
BTW when has the "'tyrannical government' argument" been debunked? Nearly ever one of the founding fathers correspondence mentions this as one of the prime reasons for including the 2nd in the Bill of Rights?
It's been debunked in modern times by saying that not only was what the founding fathers wrote written in a totally different political climate, it was written when 'arms' were way less deadly than they are today, to the extent that I believe most of them would, if alive today, not agree with the general population being about to easily (perhaps with a significant amount of effort to prove competency) acquire arms for personal 'protection'. Things have changed, not least the willingness of the US citizens to stand up for their rights!!
I used to agree, but the war in Iraq has made it apparent that I was wrong. Our professional army can't completely stop resistance.
Two points:-
- The insurgency in Iraq has cost ENORMOUS numbers of insurgents' lives; many, many thousands. 'Merely' a couple of thousand US lives, however. - The only reason they're prepared to go as far as they are is because of a combination of anger over US meddling over a long period of time, anger over two US invasions, anger over continued US occupancy of the country, and a good dollop of religious fanaticism.
Do you really think you could find a few hundred thousand people in the US that feel that strongly, that they're prepared to give their own lives to remove what could be described as a 'tyrannical government', let alone organize their march on DC? Do they have the same drivers that the insurgents in Iraq do, or the same determination to win? I don't.
Whatsmore, I seriously doubt the insurgents in Iraq will win, in the end. They are being slowly but surely exterminated in large numbers, the US army is not. The US army is being caused annoyance, not fatal injury, by the insurgents.
Why do you 2nd amendment defenders keep pulling up the 'tyrannical government' argument that has been debunked about 50 million times? I actually think the 'self-defence against murderers/rapists/robbers/etc.' is a far more powerful one. You should drop the tyrannical government one, though. Citizens are too lazy/apathetic/weak against a professional army/ignorant to do anything about it.
"The right to bear arms...shall not be infringed".
Arms. That's rifles, pistols, and light automatic weapons.
Actually, no; from American Heritage:
arm(2) n. 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. The trouble with the constitution is that it's written in English, a language that's not well defined, has different meanings per WORD let alone per sentence, and is changing all the time. 'Arms' can mean anything from fists to nuclear weapons.
I personally think that the founding fathers, if alive today, may support small handguns for the general populace (they may not), but the chances of them supporting assault rifles and thinking guns should be available to civilians without passing background checks and mandatory training, are slim. The political environment, and gun technology, have changed a LOT.
Slashdot Mirror
as it hasn't had any on mine when I was a student there in 1980's.
Were you brought up in the US and went to study in China, already having decided on your outlook, or did you grow up from early childhood in China? Big difference.
I find it kinda bizarre to buy a US flag only to find out that it's made in China ... not. Most of your fabrics (clothes) are manufactured there; why would a flag be any different? Seriously, it's moronic to think you're making some kind of a political statement to say that your flag needs to be manufactured in your country. It doesn't mean you can't still wave it just as patriotically.
Bollocks.
I presume you're talking about the 'occupation' of the land colonized by the Arab caliphate? If you're gonna go delving into history to see who originally had the land, take a look at this. Quote: 586 BCE. After approximately 50 years the Jewish exiles were allowed, by the Persian Empire, to return back to the Land of Israel, where they built the Second Temple in Jerusalem and were allowed autonomous rule. So the land was mainly occupied by Jews in 600+ BC (and before that). The Muslim/Arab invasion happened a LOT more recently.
I personally think a more legitimate argument is to look at who's living there now, and, well, NOT evict them from their homes, because that's a nasty thing to do. But if you want to go delving into history, the Jews still deserve to live there.
Keep in mind that the US has had nuclear weapons for six decades and has been pretty responsible in their use.
Indeed. They've only exploded two of 'em.
And without the 'ulimit'?
Revolutions, end up having little effect in the long term.
I dunno about that. The French revolution seems to have had a very long-lasting, and very positive effect. They did it right. If only we could all get it right.
For example, we haven't seen any pictures of US soldiers giving Iraqi kids candy for a while.
Maybe not, but they do give 'em water.
If people want to confine their thinking on a subject to what they see on the news then let them see American caskets.
Whilst I take your point, that does rather rely on convincing people that the only reason to pull out of Iraq (and/or admit that it was badly handled and/or a mistake in the first place) is because there have been a few US casualties. If that's the only reason people will listen to, it's pretty sad.
(Looks like you got your Lips syntax wrong (you embed multiple parentheses within one another (like this), but there's no reason to arbitrarily use multiple parentheses).)
Bush didn't carry HIS. Hint for the uninformed: it AIN'T TEXAS!
Erm, then what is it? Wikipedia says it's Texas.
OK, I mostly get the Firehost, but as there's no official help or anything, what on Earth is that rainbow about, any why are different stories coloured differently?
You forgot: Windows Vista not selling so well, MS probably scared!
God damnit. 2 hours of my life down the drain, I feel numb having concentrated on that thing... and you kill the last creature, and that's it. No ending. Sigh.
I bet that worked really well when the legal folk walked up and announced that your last 2 months of work were wasted and had to be scrapped, because something that was fundamental to the design happened to infringe on a patent.
*Glad not to be in the US*
Well, that's a lovely story.
I think it's quite irresponsible to promote the idea of having 7-10 children, though. The planet is already overpopulated, and 2 is enough. Quite apart from the fact that you need to find a woman who wants to have unprotected sex with you shortly after childbirth, 6 or more times. Not everyone is so lucky.
</bitter>
Hopefully, this technology can take Nigeria a step closer to being as free, open, and peaceful as Zimbabwe.
Looks like my Skype subscription will be put to good use again
Don't worry, Verizon's investigating how to forcibly provide you with a better service as we speak.
I don't necessarily like some of the things that the U.S government has done, particularly the current administration, but I am firmly against the use of armed revolution at this point. I still believe change can be brought about in the U.S without the use of violence, even though it will take much longer.
I disagree with you. It looks like it's getting to the point where the rich will control America indefinitely, and power is being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Bush is spying on his own citizens, restricting free speech, and generally treating his citizens and most of the world with contempt, and the citizens haven't so much as hinted at a revolt. Haven't even used it as a threat, because presumably they might be locked up as terrorists for doing so. Under that atmosphere, I just don't see an armed revolution (or peaceful change, given the screwed up nature of the electoral college) happening.
having an effective 2nd amendment can still result in a populace that is capable of armed revolution against a modern army. The kill ratio isn't necessarily a measurement of victory. That's the only assertion I'm trying to make.
And all I'm trying to say is that that capability is 100% irrelevant, because they don't and won't ever have the will to make it happen. Therefore, that pro-gun argument is debunked.
I base mine on the knowledge that the Founders had just fought a war of independence from a tyrannical government, and wanted to place checks on the government that they were creating so that it would not be able to become tyrannical. I think they'd be apalled at what their legacy has become.
My point exactly. They take one look at the US, realize that they gave people the freedom to bear arms, and the people STILL allowed a tyrannical government to take over. They then look at gun crime and conclude that guns aren't really helping. Allow them for sport, but how can a logical person (which I believe the founding fathers were) conclude that the second amendment has succeeded?
There is no doubt that crime, violent crime specifically decrease when a given population because armed.
There most certainly is doubt.
My point is that there is no reason why the military and or police forces have the ability to wield fully automatic weapons, grenades, and other weapons capable of inflicting large scale damage, and the populace does not.
The idea is that they can be trusted more than the general populace, as they're carefully vetted and trained before being allowed to bear arms. The problem is that, in practice, they can't and aren't. But if they could and were, it would make a lot of sense.
BTW when has the "'tyrannical government' argument" been debunked? Nearly ever one of the founding fathers correspondence mentions this as one of the prime reasons for including the 2nd in the Bill of Rights?
It's been debunked in modern times by saying that not only was what the founding fathers wrote written in a totally different political climate, it was written when 'arms' were way less deadly than they are today, to the extent that I believe most of them would, if alive today, not agree with the general population being about to easily (perhaps with a significant amount of effort to prove competency) acquire arms for personal 'protection'. Things have changed, not least the willingness of the US citizens to stand up for their rights!!
I used to agree, but the war in Iraq has made it apparent that I was wrong. Our professional army can't completely stop resistance.
Two points:-
- The insurgency in Iraq has cost ENORMOUS numbers of insurgents' lives; many, many thousands. 'Merely' a couple of thousand US lives, however.
- The only reason they're prepared to go as far as they are is because of a combination of anger over US meddling over a long period of time, anger over two US invasions, anger over continued US occupancy of the country, and a good dollop of religious fanaticism.
Do you really think you could find a few hundred thousand people in the US that feel that strongly, that they're prepared to give their own lives to remove what could be described as a 'tyrannical government', let alone organize their march on DC? Do they have the same drivers that the insurgents in Iraq do, or the same determination to win? I don't.
Whatsmore, I seriously doubt the insurgents in Iraq will win, in the end. They are being slowly but surely exterminated in large numbers, the US army is not. The US army is being caused annoyance, not fatal injury, by the insurgents.
Presenting: the only Wikipedia article worth reading. [tinyurl.com]
You bastard!!!!!!!!!
Why do you 2nd amendment defenders keep pulling up the 'tyrannical government' argument that has been debunked about 50 million times? I actually think the 'self-defence against murderers/rapists/robbers/etc.' is a far more powerful one. You should drop the tyrannical government one, though. Citizens are too lazy/apathetic/weak against a professional army/ignorant to do anything about it.
Arms. That's rifles, pistols, and light automatic weapons.
Actually, no; from American Heritage: arm(2)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. The trouble with the constitution is that it's written in English, a language that's not well defined, has different meanings per WORD let alone per sentence, and is changing all the time. 'Arms' can mean anything from fists to nuclear weapons.
I personally think that the founding fathers, if alive today, may support small handguns for the general populace (they may not), but the chances of them supporting assault rifles and thinking guns should be available to civilians without passing background checks and mandatory training, are slim. The political environment, and gun technology, have changed a LOT.
... which the sheep uses to go and hunt mice, whilst slobbing out in front of the TV the rest of the time, waiting for the wolves to creep up on it.