| Author | Message | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1041 Registered: 3-2002 |
sure. its the mid 60's, oil is about $2/bbl, we don't have any problems in the middle east and US companies are drilling there for the cheapest oil on earth, but no thats not enough, we need to go another 6000 miles the wrong way to gobble up potential fields underwater (ie expensive) in the gulf of tonkin.....art, have you been borrowing some of des' reference material again? | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1037 Registered: 3-2002 |
of course he does. and both of you can vote your mind next november, thats the great thing about democracies. i bet he's still gonna feel stupid though..... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1246 Registered: 6-2001 |
Charles: Thank you for making my point: the real reasons for war are frequently different than those used to obtain popular approval. By the way, Viet Nam wasn't really about containing communism: there is substantial oil in the gulf of Tonkin, and there was a dispute over who would own that oil. I believe that was the real reason for our involvement. Interestingly enough, the Chinese and the Vietnamese are now fighting over control of that oil. The last several dust-ups in that region between those two had to do with those oil deposits. I don't think that anyone is currently drilling there, and probably won't be until the ownership issue is resolved. Ross: I certainly know that the Iraqis lie. Having said that, it wasn't our government's job to lie to the population to obtain support for this war, but I have absolutely no control over the Iraqi government. I do have something to say about mine. I have this strange idea that my government shouldn't lie to me, shouldn't kill other people, unless in self defense, in other words be an honorable citizen of the world. It isn't an aberation for me to voice my opinion and insist that the government do so. My point is and has always been, we should be honest. Just because all the other little boys jump off the bridge doesn't make it right. Same thing here. My point again is that when Kerry made his statements, everybody knew that in the short term we were going to destroy the Iraqi army, and effect a quick victory over their military. Whether that is the end of the conflict or just the start of it is another question. Remember Sharon's victory over Lebanon in 82? It just started the conflagration over there, and it is still going on, some 21 years later. Not a good resolution. I would hope that Iraq is not similar. Despite the fact that some of the Iraqis are happy that we won, I haven't seen anyone with any sort of percentage of those Iraqis who are unhappy, vs. those who are happy. Time will tell, if they truly support what we've done, or are angry at us, and will act upon that anger. Kerry has both walked the walk and talked the talk. Those who did this only did the latter. That was and is my point. Because of his record, his deeds, and his ability, he has an absolute right to express his opinions. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1027 Registered: 3-2002 |
so how stupid does kerry feel today........ | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1013 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, i was not really intending to insult you, but take it any way you want. you implied that i did not know my history. i don't agree, but that is not worth arguing about. what i meant to show was that i did recall a very salient piece of history involving chamberlain. he may not have been the root cause of the conflict (another seperate argument), but he did say those famous words 'we have peace in our time' upon his return from meeting hitler and co. in munich. he was obviously lied to, but he chose to believe it, and the rest is history (pun intended). i see you in the same light; protesting that the american govt lies to you (maybe), but totally blind to the fact that saddam and his ilk are lying to you as well. you choose to give benefit of doubt to foreign governments and not your own. strange choice for a man who makes his living on the basis of the laws and orders of that same country. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 388 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art the ship was the Lusitainia and it was Brittish. The US had many more reasons than that to enter the war. In particular the Germans in 1917 delcared unristricted submarine warfare against any nation shipping to Brittan and ended diplomatic relations with the United States. Many military strategists at the time predicted certain defeat for the Germans if America entered the war. In an attempt to eliminate the threat of American involvement, Germany tried to provoke Mexico and Japan into attacking the United States with the promise of German assistance after the war. A message to that effect was decoded by the British and sent to the US. Those things, the horror stories of the sinking of the Lusitainia, and the fact that German forces were threatening to conquer Britain also made Americans feel that the country's security was threatened. All of this swayed public opinion and caused President Wilson to ask Congress to go to war. The fact is our entry into the war was the result of a combination of many factors primarily the fear that we would be next if Brittan was defeated. As far as the Spanish American War is concerned it too was caused by a combination of factors among them were harsh Spanish rule in Cuba which caused a revolution to break out in 1895 during which the Spanish government committed many atrocities. At the time American citizens owned millions of dollars worth of Cuban property in the sugar, tobacco, and iron industries. All of this put President McKinley under tremendous public pressure to defend U.S. interests on the island. The sinking of the Maine was just a good excuse to do what most Americans thought we should do anyway. As for Vietnam, we all know the real reason was to try to contain the expansion of communisim, a carry over from the attitude Americans had after the Korean war. If I not mistaken there were two attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin one of them was verified and the other was not. None of these wars you quoted started because of any single event. They were all the result of numerous factors that all contributed to the eventual envolvment of the US. This conflict is no different. Lets face it, this has been going on for some time now. The issue of WMD is just one small piece of the big picture. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1237 Registered: 6-2001 |
Look up Krystal Night (my spelling is probably not right, the original spelling was German, maybe Martin can help with that). Essentially, the Jews were driven from their business, and had their property taken from them, etc. Some were killed, others tortured, and assaulted. Happened in Germany 1936, maybe 37. Art | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Intermediate Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 1051 Registered: 5-2001 |
Certainly you can't be referring to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews. That wasn't seen until the Russians pushed their way in in 1945. Do you mean no one cared that they were forced into ghettos? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1236 Registered: 6-2001 |
Not because we're 226 years old, but because we don't emphaise history. We educate our kids in those things that allow them to directly earn a living, and it doesn't leave room for things like history. A quick look at our history in warfare: 1. Spanish American War: started on allegations that they sunk the battleship Maine. We later found that it wasn't truthful. 2. WW1: Germans sunk a passenger ship (can recall the name) which later turned out to be a legitimate target because when we got the technology to go down to the wreck, we found that it indeed was carrying municians. Many, many Americans died in that war. 3. Viet Nam: there never was a Gulf of Tonkin incident. 50k dead. Our history for telling accurate reasons for entry into war isn't so good, yet we keep repeating the same mistake: listening to those who want us into war, without insisting upon accurate proof before we get into war. Ross, the problem didn't start with Chamberlin. At the time he was the PM, the UK was totally unprepared for war. The fault for that was attributed to the refusal of the people to pay the money for such preparation. Germany had prepared for war, and in the early 30s would have defeated the UK and France quicker than they ultimately did. Remember that we had been arming the UK since about 1936. No way was the UK ready for a war in 36, probably weren't ready in 1939, if you recall, Hitler threw them off the continent in 40 at Dunkirk, and they were very lucky that they didn't lose their entire Army. As to the failure to deal with Hitler earlier, apparently nobody had read Mine Kauf, nor paid attention to Krystal Night (1936). Had they done so, we might have started earlier. Additionally the people in power here and the UK didn't much care about what Hitler was doing to the Jews, and refused to see that they were next. It most certainly was more than Chamberlin. Bottom line Ross: if you're going to insult someone, make sure that you are on some sort of factual basis. Art | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Intermediate Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 1050 Registered: 5-2001 |
Is that because we are only 226 years old vs other countries that are several thousand years old? | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1011 Registered: 3-2002 |
art chamberLAIN....what history might you be referring to? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1235 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: There is an old addage: "learn the past, so that you don't make the same mistakes". Did you know that of all of the civilized, first tier countries, the US scores the lowest when it comes to history? Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1009 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, don't forget that the nuclear story that powell gave was provided by your brothers the french. big mistake not to have vetted it ourselves, but i wouldn't bury powell for that. as to the mobile chemical unit last seen in the southern part of iraq 2 months ago by satellite.....well they call it 'mobile' for a reason....it could have gone anywhere since then, and since we have been fighting a war there for the last 3 weeks and not had time to thoroughly comb an area the size of texas for a couple of non-descript trucks, i would not be betting against eventually finding something. but of course that won't mean anything to you since you will simply claim that we planted it. you are not in this war art, you are (and probably have been all your life) still fighting the vietnam war. different war, different times, different realities - wake up. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 387 Registered: 11-2002 |
Martin to respond to what you said "the idea of being allowed to own a gun just because you are good does not mean that it is the right thing to do." conversly it does not mean it is the wrong thing to do either, it is just your opinion that it is the wrong thing to do! I happen to think it is the right thing to do and your analogy about traffic lights and cars is just idiotic. I never said we should not change with the times nor did I say I was against all new regulation. Murder has been going on for a very long time, way before there were guns. The fact that guns exist does not change that. I was mearly pointing out that people don't kill because they happen to have a weapon, they kill because they are not like the rest of us who see it as bad. Give me a break! Also I don't think you read my post to Art or you would not have said what you said about the war. To make it more clear I'll say that I am sure the governments intentions where not to free Iraq but I don't care!, it is still the right thing to do so who cares why they are doing it. I would appreciate it if you would pay attention to the conversation before you go about scolding me! Also to resond to this "If the US truely is the Freedowm Figther, lets get into war with Cuba. You can not say a word about Castro, neither can you leave the country if you please. Now that is oppression at its best. Would be much easier to invade as well." I think the free world should do something to eliminate dictatorships like Cuba and if that means going and kicking Castro's butt, so be it. It is high time we stopped tolerating regimes like his so if it were up to me we would! | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1040 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, I think you have correctly synopsized what I meant. That said, I strongly doubt that will happen as it did in Viet Nam....but we'll see. On the 2nd Amendment topic, I have 2 additional thoughts for my gun-banning friends: (1) propose a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment & then try to get 2/3 of the States' legistatures (and thus voters) to approve it); and/or (2) start proposing total 100% gun bans that INCLUDE the police, FBI, and all other armed law enforcement groups in the US. These usually shut them right up.  | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 313 Registered: 1-2003 |
Man we loved those guys at the rear. Not!!! They wanted to direct every move and had never been to the front or in action of any type. But when the subject came up, they were the experts and the guys putting their lives up knew nothing. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1234 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: I do like some of the things that Bush has done, I just can't recall them now. When you were 11, I was stuck in the Army, but it seems you know the lingo. The book, Battle of Midway, describes the Japanese plans for the war. The US was fortunte to have broken the Japanese codes, and knew pretty well what they were up to. That's a major reason we won that battle in 1942, we had the element of surprise then. The Japanese intended to get to Midway, then Hawaii, then the mainland. Since they never got past Midway, whatever the Japanese General said, he shouldn't be believed. Take a look at the book, it has some interesting insights into the US military in it. However this isn't a political party issue. There are plenty of Republicans on this site, who have said that if they were lied to, it would change their perspective. See Dave's last few posts, it's clear that no one likes to be lied to. While Dave and I disagree about whether the falsehood was direct or inadvertent, we both agree that falsehoods in support of war are wrong. Dave: I hope I haven't misquoted you on this issue. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 955 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art, I was only 11 years old in 1968 when the Tet offensive was raging, and one year before Hanoi Jane was chumming up to Charlie at the Hanoi Hilton, but I think that I know the lingo. REMF: Rear echelon mother f*****???? | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 954 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art, regarding the Japanese, YOU need to read your history. I will dig through my paperwork tomorrow and get the name of the Japanese General that I quoted since you DEMAND proof of everything. Charles said (in reference to Art's statements): Are you just pissed because you don't like who is in charge so you will go against anything they do? Yes Charles, as I said in an earlier posting, the Democrats have been whining for nearly 3 years now because they still haven't accepted the fact that Al Gore is not in the White House. So they continue to bash any policy that Bush has anything to do with. Have you ever seen a corpse up close and personal, someone who died from war? It stinks, and its ugly, and I don't want to be part of that unless I have no other choice. I didn't have to go to war to see something like that. My 20 year old next door neighbor checked out with a self inflicted 9mm bullet to the forehead. Martin said: Same as Arlie, you are missing the point that society changes and civilization changes and that process requires new laws and new regulations to live together. Back in 1803 I would totally agree with the founding fathers that in fact we needed the right to bear arms then, in 2003 that is so unnecessary. How true Martin. Since we've seen so much unnecessary turmoil and death in the past 200 years throughout our country due to religious strife and personal disagreements, don't you think that it's high time that the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech were curtailed tremendously so that we can all "live together" more peaceable? You site changing times as a reason to start chopping off parts of the Bill of Rights, why stop with the Second Amendment? You continuously site the success of other countries and their absence of firearms among the population. But you forget that England was BEGGING for firearms during WWII in anticipation of German invasion which, fortunately for them, never occured. You need to study the statistics on crime in England. I believe you will find that crime in London has increased greatly since the English citizens were "invited" (forced without their choice or vote) to turn in their firearms. I wonder how you would feel if you were forced to stop attending the church of your choice, or were ordered not to speak out against government policies that you disagreed with. By the way, speaking of changing times. Since gasoline burning vehicles are an ancient technology, the government has ordered that all privately owned, gas guzzling Ferraris should be turned into the local government operated scrap metal recycling center within 30 days. You have no say-so in the matter, and your vote on the issue is NOT requested. Just DO IT because the government says so. How would you like it if somebody tried to cram such an idea down your throat without your vote? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1231 Registered: 6-2001 |
Anybody figure out what REMF means? Art | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4238 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ross, could not agree more. In the way todays politics are being fought you have be careful what you say. That is why there is no more good politicians. Guys that stand up for their views and say what they mean no matter if people like it or not. You have only those yes-man left that will say anything depending from where the wind is blowing. I can only hope that Kerry's expressed view is truely his view of the situation. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4237 Registered: 5-2001 |
Charles, the idea of being allowed to own a gun just ebcause you are good does not mean that it is the right thing to do. When cars were first out on the street there were no traffic signs, no traffic laws no intersections with traffic lights and no speed limits. With your argument we should be still there today. Same as Arlie, you are missing the point that society changes and civilization changes and that process requires new laws and new regulations to live together. Back in 1803 I would totally agree with the founding fathers that in fact we needed the right to bear arms then, in 2003 that is so unnecessary. As for "freeing Iraq". PLEASE! YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! You can not possibly believe that crap. The US gives a rats ass about Iraq and its people. Never has never will. Iraqi people were oppressed yet they could leave the country at free will. If the US truely is the Freedowm Figther, lets get into war with Cuba. You can not say a word about Castro, neither can you leave the country if you please. Now that is oppression at its best. Would be much easier to invade as well. Oh but I forgot they have nothing but sugar cane, which we can buy cheaper on the world market. Then there is North Korea and those guys are real whackos. You also have China which is as oppressive as Iraq and has a dictator that has killed millions and continues to do so. Guys I can not say it enough, start to question your own government. That truely is the only possibility to prevent your governemnt from being taken over by a Dictator like BUSH! | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4236 Registered: 5-2001 |
" No there is not 'nuff said! You can't walk down the streets as safely today as you could in 1960 because of the gun toting gang members out to rob you because they need your money to buy drugs. " ...so what you are saying is that although guns were allowed and are still allowed the security of your well being has gone down. Not even speaking of the fact that all civilized nations of this wrold have laws that do not allow gun ownership like in the US. And for some strange reason there is less violent crimes being comitted. I guess the London Cops were just plain nutz when they were chasing after criminals on the street with sticks and whistles instead of shooting at them John Wayne style! As for another Hitler: Again, what you are lacking here is thought. Hitler was elected while guns were allowed and frequent in households throughout Germany. That did not stop him from taking over power neither from being a dictator. Since that did not stop him why should it stop the next Hitler. Liberal Left Wingers: hm, I guess I am more of a Republican that a Democrat but if you say so, I will accept whatever you think I am. Who cares! That word must provoke something in you that you can no longer form a reasonable thought. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 386 Registered: 11-2002 |
Dave I'll bet your right! | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Intermediate Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 1045 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with Art when he refers to the old law addage. Based on that ANYTHING that came out of the mouths of the officials of Iraq concerning (their lack of) weapons is cause for major concern and a damn good arguement for going to battle. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1038 Registered: 1-2002 |
Agree, Art. Also, shame on Powell's staff for not fully vetting the "evidence" he presented at the UN. But I would also ask that you direct the majority of your scorn on the source of that fabricated evidence (and their reason for fabricating--i.e., trying to manipulate the US into attacking Iraq) rather than on our highly honorable Secretary of State. Gawd, I'll bet millions of Iraqi's are itching in their britches for the freedom to have the kind of debate we are now having!!! | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 384 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art, I do understand were your comming from. I don't like to be lied to either. I am not yet sure if we even have been lied to. I am also not saying that the government's sole purpose in this war is to free Iraq. All I am saying is it is a good thing no matter what thier reasons are. The only way this world will ever be totally free and safe is for regimes like this to be destroyed. BTW I have seen a corpes or two though not from war and yes it is not fun. Unfortunately there is no other way to rid the world of this kind of oppression. Lets face it, these type of regimes are not going to be talked into changing thier ways, they must be delt with militarily. I can certainly understand why you don't like this option and I respect the fact that you are brave enough to voice your views when so many don't agree with them. Keep in mind that there are millions of people around the world that don't have the privelege of speaking thiers and we are the only chance they have of ever getting it. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1230 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: You're probably right. But we do know that the evidence that Powell used was fabricated, the government admitted to that, denied that they did it. An old addage in law: If one is proven false, the balance of the testimony should be suspect. By the way its isn't haughty, its experience, i.e., something that I sure didn't wish repeated. MikeB had it right, I've seen thing that I sure didn't like, and that has prejudiced my thinking. I still think I'm right, but time will tell. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1035 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, while I respect your differing point of view, I believe it is WAY too early to pronounce that there have been no WMD found yet. Just as I do not believe it when CNN reports that those canisters found yesterday (a) were Sarin, or (b) were pesticides. No one knows yet, as they are being flown to the US for testing. So please save us yoru haughty self-righteous pronouncements of absolutes until this is truly over. If no WMD are found anywhere in Iraq in the next 6-12 months, then you will have been correct...and Bush will probably lose the 2004 election. That is called DEMOCRACY. But if they are, will you be man enough to admit you were wrong as Mr. Bush wins in a landslide? Bottom line: Prove to me we have been lied to! You have no clue about any of this (nor do I) and you are in no position to declare any of your absolutes. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1229 Registered: 6-2001 |
Chareles: I don't like being lied to. I knew they were lying from the start. I got especially made when they fabricated the nuclear weapons evidence and got caught. I've never trusted a liar, and to risk killing young men over lies is wrong. Not hard to understand. You say this war is over freedom. I say BS, this war, like all wars is over money, land, or other economic issues. Sometimes you have no choice, you have to defend yourself. I am against made up wars, and from what I've seen this is one. Over 3,000+ people are dead. I think that a horror, and think that we ought to be ashamed. On the other hand, if there was a provable fact that we were to be attacked, I wouldn't be so reluctant. However, nobody in my government has provided that proof, they just lied. That's why I don't support this. Have you ever seen a corpse up close and personal, someone who died from war? It stinks, and its ugly, and I don't want to be part of that unless I have no other choice. Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 383 Registered: 11-2002 |
One more thing. Attacking a chain of islands like Hawaii is a completely different task than attacking the mainland. Not a very good defense against Arlies argument. I might be wrong about this but I don't think the Japanese had any immediate plans to attack the mainland. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 382 Registered: 11-2002 |
This war is not about WMD it is about freedom! Why is that so hard to see. Art, I might agree that the administration fibbed about the reasons for the war but so what! At least the right thing is being done over there. Why can't you get behind this effort for that reason? Are you just pissed because you don't like who is in charge so you will go against anything they do? Someone has to take these regimes to task. We are a leader in world democracy that is just how it is. We need to just embrace that fact and get the job done. The sooner the rest of the world has the same blessings as we do the sooner we will all be more secure. I am sure you love the freedoms you have so why can't you see that other people deserve to have the same thing. If I recall correctly you defended these principles yourself as I did. I don't understand why you have had such a change of heart. Please fill me in. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1228 Registered: 6-2001 |
Horsefly: The Japanese were intending to invade the U.S. What stopped them was the battle of Midway, which they lost. Next step was to be Hawaii. Read your history. Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1227 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dae & Martin: Weapons of Mass Destruction: turns out they were pesticides. Once again, we hear these claims, and once again upon investigation, it turns out the claims were false. Remember Chenny telling us that the Iraqis were executing the POWs? Heard him on Tim Russert's show, denied saying those were our POWS, denied saying they were POWs from this war. Claimed his wording could have applied to the Iran Iraqi war. Guys, we've been sold the Golden Gate Bridge, and no one, I mean no one, is complaining about being lied to. Remember the alleged bio-weapons near Southern Iraq that Colin Powell used as evidence in his statements to the U.N. regarding proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where in the hell are they? I suggest more B/S to ensure that we went along with the program. My opinion is that this war sucks and we were lied to, to get us into the war. As for Kerry, et al. It is interesting to note that those guys who actually got shot at, not the REMFs, are against the war. (if you don't know what REMF means, ask Jere, he'll know, its a phrase from our war). Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 379 Registered: 11-2002 |
Why does anyone want guns outlawed anyway? If I am not mistaken a gun is an inanimate object which can only kill if someone pulls the trigger. This whole idea that somehow by outlawing them the country will be a safer place is just rediculous. Murder is already illegal. I suppose if we take guns away killers will use knives and if we take knives away they will use clubs and I guess if we take clubs away they will kill with thier bare hands. I am sure someone will come back with something like knives can't kill a bunch of people at once or as easily as guns, so what! I could turn my Ferrari into a weapon if I want to so let's outlaw them too! I like guns and as a free, non violent, law abiding citizen I should have the right to own one. I don't think I need any other reason than that. I keep one just to go to the range and shoot for fun. I don't have guns because I think I need them, I have them because I want them. I thought we were suppose to be able to do stuff like that in this county. I guess it is the same old story of the self righteous types trying to impose thier beliefs on everyone else. Trying to use the argument that guns are not constitutionally garaunteed is just a way to disguise the fact that these people just want to impose thier way on the rest of us. BTW Randall the Constitution does not need to be revised, it works just fine the way it is! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 995 Registered: 3-2002 |
of course kerry has the right to free speech - which in his case he used to put his foot in his mouth. he will not be let out of this one easily - it will be used against him at every opportunity in the coming elections. whereas previously i thought he was a viable democratic alternative, he showed extreme lack of judgement. he thought he was only speaking to the audience he could see (which obviously agreed with him), when in fact the words get blasted out to everybody - just plain stupid. btw, he's not alone in this camp (on the democratic side), gephardt and daschle are keeping him company. the only one who didn't say anything that dumb was liebermann, but then again he has different challenges to his candidacy. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 100 Registered: 12-2002 |
Martin, It is ironic that you blame Arlie for "taking the constitution as he goes" and "denying Kerry's right to free speech". Arlie also has that right. The only way Arlie could deny Kerry's right to free speech is by physically restraining him. He did not do that. He has the right to say he thinks Kerry is an idiot. And you have the right to say you disagree. Its so ironic that you accuse Arlie of denying someone else's free speech right when infact he is only exercising his. As for gun ownership, it is not something for debate... it is a RIGHT guaranteed to us in the constitution. It's not like driving which is a priviledge, it is a fundamental right - it is not open for debate. And the whole purpose of it (which is thoroughly documented) is so that the people have the power to revolt against the government if it becomes necessary. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 325 Registered: 11-2002 |
Martin, I'm sorry, but you just got OWNED by Arlie. Now run off like a good little boy before he makes you look worse. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 953 Registered: 5-2002 |
No there is not 'nuff said! You can't walk down the streets as safely today as you could in 1960 because of the gun toting gang members out to rob you because they need your money to buy drugs. That's why state after state after state are passing laws that allow a person to carry a concealed weapon. The people are demanding the right to protect themselves, and the state politicians are passing laws that conform to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. "Since Hitler was duely elected into power and during a time when owning arms was not prohibited, your thought is flawed when you think your gun will protect you from that ever happening, since it did." It might not stop another Hitler from being elected, but it will sure prevent another Hitler from taking over power, whether in this country on any other. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT POTENTIAL DICTATORS ARE ALWAYS SO AFRAID OF THEIR CITIZENS OWNING FIREARMS? Because they know that an armed citizen is a citizen that can not be controlled. May I remind the board for the 14th time, that a leading Japanese general stated in an interview after WWII that the main reason Japan did not try to perform a land invasion on the west coast was because they knew that nearly every American citizen owned a firearm. Every American would have been firing at them every inch of the way. And I just wonder how many left wing liberals are all for returning to the alcohol free days of prohibition because they know that prohibition will save over 17,000 lives each year due to drunk driving accidents? They worry about a dozen people being killed by some gun toting lunatic, but yet SEVENTEEN THOUSAND people are killed each year on American highways by drunk drivers. I don't see any constitutional amendment that protects a person's right to drink alcohol. Which amendment is that? | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4230 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since Hitler was duely elected into power and during a time when owning arms was not prohibited, your thought is flawed when you think your gun will protect you from that ever happening, since it did. Further your government is taking your rights away on a daily basis. It is done in an interlectual way, the same that you accuse Art of. He has realized what is going on, you have not yet. Guns will not protect you from anything. The only way you can prevent theft of your rights and freedom is being informed and first of not believing what you are told. But you are displaying a classic case of eating what the gov is setting in front of you. I do believe that even here in the US you have certain people that are killed by "accident" through the CIA that are not in full line with the president. What if the Generals would have refused to go into Iraq a few weeks back??? How would Bush have handled that? There is still the question who shot Kennedy, right? I wonder why Powell is changing his story 180 degrees when he senses that Bush really wants Iraq? Unless he has also gain from an invasion. And you thought you are paranoid? I am! Still don't need a gun! BTW the founding fathers were living in a time when you needed a gun to "catch your dinner". Defending yourself in the Wild West and defending yourself in NYC on Park Ave are two different things. This stupid argument that the pro-gunners make is saying they do not give civilisation any credit for moving forward over the past 200+ years. Your mind is stuck in 1803 but your body lives in 2003. nuff said! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 948 Registered: 5-2002 |
Martin said: "What you are saying is that you do not trust the US government, because you need your gun to protect yourself from them. However if a senator the magnitude of Kerry speaks out against the same government you deny him his right to free speach!" I never denied Kerry that right to say whatever he wants; I just totally disagree with it. As for trusting or not trusting the government and needing a gun to protect yourself: Once again, I must remind you that our founding fathers set it up that way. They themselves provided that citizens should have the right to bear arms, and said so repeatedly in historical records. Blame them, not me. (But I like they way they set it up). As for Adolph Hitler: What history book have you been reading? Adolph Hitler took over the German Army during the infamous "Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler's henchmen murdered the top generals of the "brownshirts", the nickname of the German regular army. He didn't actually have anybody's "permission" to go on a murdering rampage and overthrow the existing army. With Hitler in control of the entire army, he had free rule of the country and freedom to conquer the next country. And one of the first things that he did when overthrowing a country was requiring all citizens to hand over their firearms. Do you actually think that the French and Russian Underground resistance forces had "permission" to carry firearms? Hardly. Merely possessing a gun would have gotten you executed by the Germans. By the way, how many people were killed in Cambodia by the Khemer Rouge regime back in the late '70s. Hundreds of thousands? And do you think that the Khemer Rouge forces "allowed" the average Cambodian to possess a firearm? Absolutely not. Thousands were executed just because they were intellectuals and were simply too educated to take a chance at letting stay alive, least they come back to cause trouble to the Khemers at a later date. History has shown time and time again what can happen when people are left defenseless and unarmed. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4229 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, as for the substance, we are all on the same page I guess. I think we all knew all along that he had the weapons, that he was lying, that he is a bad person, that he has killed millions and will kill again, that he is alike to Hitler and Stalin, he is a dictator, the UN is a pathetic bunch of leaders that will never get anything done, that Hussein needed to be taken out. Where people disagree is: when was the right time why the US alone where was the threat to the US My main beef with this war is that the timing was wrong, the situation will not be better for us in 2004, likely worst, there is a much bigger threat in South Korea and we take a diplomatic approach where military action would be needed! Further we should have let the UN play into its own demise. They would not have taken action and eventually everybody would have realized that the UN in a bunch of whackos on a free trip to NYC. But if we take action upon ourself if the UN does not reach a decission that means the UN has no say in the first place so we may as well stop paying Billons into the UN body and do what we feel like in the first place. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4228 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, you could never become a politician! You never flip flopped, that is why you will never be a politician. My comment was never intended to your action. I mean the action of politicians in general. It is also not bad to publically say, "I was wrong because of this and this and that is why I am changing my mind/stands on a subject." To me that is greatness. Admitting one was wrong but corrected his approach. Again Dave, that is not intended to your stands. I hear you loud and clear and can definetely respect that, since your thoughts are well thought out and you have a base to stand on, although I do not agree with you in some of the things, I respect them! | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1020 Registered: 1-2002 |
Perhaps you are right, Martin, perhaps not. However, I do not believe that I have flip-flopped at all, if you have read my previous posts. I was never gung-ho for war at this time. However, it was clear that Hussein was hiding & lying as usual (and it looks like we have today found some of what we knew was there all along), and it was also clear that the UN was playing their typical cowardly lion act. So, who would enforce 18 UN mandates, if not the US? We are the ONLY ones (along with the UK) willing to back up the UN with action, to preserve its remaining effectiveness. And now that we are at war (like ot or not), it is particularly abhorrent, IMO, for wankers like Kerry, who should know better, to make such a comment after voting for it. I have said all of this from the beginning; where's my flip-flop? | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4225 Registered: 5-2001 |
again, what I wish for is that people would start to use their own brains instead of chewing on what others have researched are good words. This, BTW Arlie, is how you prepare for a dictartorship! Again referring to the history book on how you manage to get hundreds of thousands of people rallied up against (then) Jews. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4224 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, can't agree with you more. But since this is what all politicians do! Where is the outrage? Your typical flip flop political approach to things (not that Kerry was flip flopping here). Powell himself spoke out very clearly about what a bad idea it was to go to Iraq. Nobody seems to mind or care for that now. If you look at the media and how the White House has used the media to prepare Americas for the war, it is nothing different. Do you realize in speaches that there are certain catch words that have been researched by research institutes for best possible effect to scare you, make you aree to something because you fear it etc. Bush has used them since summer: weapons of mass destruction. axis of evil. etc. There is not one day that goes by where these words are webed into a press release. Now that scares me! | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4223 Registered: 5-2001 |
Arlie, as usual you crack me up! "But the evil powers with their own agenda would love to put honest citizens in an unarmed defenseless state. Isn't that how most dictatorships start? It sure worked for Adolph Hitler. " Besides that you are lacking serious history lessons, the underlying thought is just great. What you are saying is that you do not trust the US government, because you need your gun to protect yourself from them. However if a senator the magnitude of Kerry speaks out against the same government you deny him his right to free speach! As for the History lesson, Hitler did not get control that way. In fact when you left the military you had to take your riffle and sable to be ready at all times. So in fact exactly the oposite is true! He gained control (and that is even funnier, since you probably are one of the 75% of Americans that can not be bothered to go and vote on a Tuesday) by having the worst voter turnout ever in a German election. Since if you do not vote you always vote for the worst, he managed to gain control of the parliament. There was also some backstabbig coallition (oh sorry maybe in "these"days I should not use that term) with Otto Von Bismarck. Gotta put your head in a book otherwise it is in between your *** . | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1019 Registered: 1-2002 |
Martin, I for one do NOT think Kerry is any sort of traitor at all! I just think he is obviously & foolishly hypocritical given his voting record on this war, and is obviously & very cynically pandering to a radical fringe. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4222 Registered: 5-2001 |
Interesting approach of free speach! So Kerry who is voicing his opinion in "these" times (whatever that is supposed to mean)is a traitor in most of your eyes, (Constitution, freedowm of speach), but you also blame him for wanting to take your right to bear arms (Constitution, right to bear arms). Now that make sense! You take the Constitution just as you go. Democracy only works for you guys if the other has the same opinion. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 984 Registered: 3-2002 |
back to the start of the thread.......... kerry is definetely going to regret that statement. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 2745 Registered: 6-2001 |
so does that mean that all the specs for military equipment, like jets, are all very underrated? | ||
| Jason Williams (Pristines4)
Junior Member Username: Pristines4 Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2002 |
Did anyone else catch the Hannity and Colmes tonight? It's still on, but at the beginning they were talking about this. It's still going back and forth. Hannity has made some very good points. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 321 Registered: 11-2002 |
Randall, I'm referring to the right to privacy that an individual enjoys from the Gov't, not other citizens. Anyways, my point was that the privacy laws of today come from judicial activism, as Art said, based on "loose" interpretations of the constitution. Art - help me out here, 'cause I've forgotten the actual name used, but it was in the early 1900's NY court case, a bakery vs. the state, where the state was imposing a 60 hour week week or an 8 hour day or something, and the bakery contested it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery on "right of contract" or something....please refresh me memory here. Also, there was the 1960's ot 70's case, I think it was Planned Parenthood vs Conn, where Conn was censoring the distribution of protected sex literature, and the SC ruled in favor of PP based on "right of privacy" or something or other. Help me out here....my brain ain't working right! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 944 Registered: 5-2002 |
Robert, won't you feel wonderful debating the correct placements of nouns and verbs with the burglar that breaks into your house late at night? You can tell him that the murder and robbery that he is about to commit is just as improper as the placement of nouns and verbs in the sentence structure of the Second Amendment. I'm sure he will be happy to debate the issue with you as his cocaine distorted brain attempts to locate your money and valuables. As for machine guns, private citizens WERE INDEED allowed to possess fully automatic machine guns until 1934 when restrictions and licensing were imposed. The only people being massacred by machine guns before that time were gangsters, who, by their very nature, are law breaking criminals. Of course the passage of that law restricting fully automatic weapons hasn't stopped drug dealers and gang members from shooting each other with machine guns OR regular firearms. As for nuclear weapons, if you can develope a nuclear weapon that will contain its explosive power to a one half inch diameter circle like a bullet does, then maybe you're onto something. "And one last thought. If it is so cut and dried as the NRA says it is, why don't they take this straight to the US Supreme Court and get a "Final" decision. Than everybody will finally stop debating this subject?" Why should we take it to the Supreme Court? Why not let the "people" decide the issue with a national vote? Gee, that would be a radical thought, let the people decide for themselves exactly what they want instead of letting some guys in black robes decide for them. I don't recall any national votes on other controversial subjects such as abortion, school busing, etc. So why would anybody suddenly decide that we need to vote on something that is already one of our constitutional RIGHTS and has been for over 200 years? We certainly have gone downhill when citizens have to start debating our basic rights, liberties, and freedoms just to maintain the same "status quo" that Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 159 Registered: 7-2002 |
Arlie, Your right (I think) about "the people" being citizens of the US. But the second ammendment is one sentence. As I recall, normally you put the subject of the sentence in the begining. It begins with "A well regulated militia" all that follows must be interpeted with respect to the main subject (the well regulated militia). It would appear to me that any group of people could bear arms - but they would have to be "well regulated" That phrase implies some sort of government (you can not regulate yourself). And what are "arms"? Without a government to limit the weopons and individual can posses why can't we have machine guns? How about nuclear? And one last thought. If it is so cut and dried as the NRA says it is, why don't they take this straight to the US Supreme Court and get a "Final" decision. Than everybody will finally stop debating this subject? Bob | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 943 Registered: 5-2002 |
Jason, when a burglar breaks into your house in the middle of the night and attacks you, your wife, bed ridden grandmother, etc.,--- are you going to have time to drive to the local militia headquarters, check out a gun, drive back to your house, and defend your family against the burglar? Of course the police could also be 20 minutes away so they couldn't help either. And the situation IS currently even worse in rural America where the nearest sheriff is miles away. And you're telling us that back in the 1700s when the country was FAR more rural and even more isolated, that individuals were supposed to rely upon a militia that was 2 hours away to protect themselves from the perils of highwaymen, thieves, murderers, etc??? I don't buy it and I'm glad that American citizens haven't bought into it for the past 200 years. As I said before, it's only been during the past 15 or 20 years that liberals with political agendas have taken to butchering the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1007 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jason, please allow me to respectfully come right to the point: blah-blah-blah. Your 3,000 words are all well & good, but please re-read the following portion of my post: EVERY comment recorded or directly written by every member of the Constitutional Congress who spoke or wrote on the matter SPECIFICALLY identifies the 2nd amendment as a right of the PEOPLE, and not the government. Without equivocation! And Arlie's right--why aren't we debating the 1st Amendment or the 4th or 5th? Not politically correct?? | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 53 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art, as for the division of power inherent in our system of government, this is what our president has to say about it: "The legislatures' job is to write the law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law." (November 22, 2000 in Texas) I guess, then, the Supreme Court goes about enforcing the laws! I'd like to see that. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 52 Registered: 1-2003 |
Regarding the Second Amendemnt: my article wasn't published because, admittedly, the project was much too big for me and the end-product was much more of a first draft. However, that doesn't subtract from my knowlege. The people make up the militia, true, but only when they are acting as such is there a right to bear arms. Remember, 200+ years ago, there was no local police force. From the thousands of pages I read regarding the militia, in a nutshell, this is how it went. On a rotating basis several people from a community were designated as the active miltia. They would go to the local armory (essentially a centrally located storehouse) where they would check out community guns (remember, guns were too expensive for 90% of the citizenry) and patrol the community. They made "arrests", broke up fights and helped people in need, whether emergency or otherwise. While this is obviously an oversimplification and not applicable to every community in 1790, it is an accurate snapshot. Today, a militia is unnecessary, as the role is filled by a myriad of organizations: police, fire, paramedics, National Guard, etc. Thus, while it is true that the people are the militia, only when they are acting as such is there a right to bear arms. With respect to the vast majority of the law review articles, amicus breifs and second amendment lawsuits filed in the past 15 years, they were funded either directly by the NRA through NRA grants and/or lawyers provided by or paid for by the NRA, or indirectly by the NRA in the form of contests (for law review articles) and other incentives. I'm sure there will be some responses to this such as "there's no conspiracy by the NRA" or "you're a left-wing radical", etc., but I personally inquired about the money available for grants for writing a law review article. I was told by an NRA representative that if they liked my article and it was published, they would reimburse me based on the time and money I spent writing the article, based on a reasonable rate. I also did research on several of the authors of some of the more often-cited law review articles espousing the notion that individuals have the right to bear arms. While I do not have the names of the authors in front of me, many of the authors received financial support from the NRA. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1212 Registered: 6-2001 |
You guys should read Roe v. Wade. It does establish a right of privacy, but its based upon various clauses in our constitution, such as that clever little phrase in the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" As you can see, our right to privacy was always there, the courts didn't just make it up, the division of power, in our contract with the government always provided for our rights. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 255 Registered: 1-2003 |
Neb- Hate to break it to you, but there's been countless cases where people have violated someone elses privacy (ie. using a telescope to spy into a house) and nothing can be done because no laws are broke. The constitution, along with several other written documents, shouldn't be left alone forever. I feel most things need revising every 30-50 years. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 320 Registered: 11-2002 |
And Art, lord knows I am probably JUST as confused as you, but.... I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!! Mandatory public service....it does a nation good. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 319 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hey guys - NOWHERE in the constitution is "privacy" granted to the citizens of the US. Only through Judicial Activism was "privacy" afforded, by law, to the populace. Now tell me, oh enlightened ones, how YOU would feel if your "constitutional right" to privacy was infringed upon? What do you mean, you'd get mad?! It's NOT your constitutional right! But I guess it's OK to interpret it how you want when it comes to privacy, but not guns. I get it. It's simply a matter of DOUBLE STANDARD. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 288 Registered: 1-2003 |
I went thru the late 60's and very early 70's with Jimmy Hendrix, Cream, Grateful Dead, Led Zepplin and those type of groups. Arlo Guthrie, John Sebastian and all the anti-war people. Then I joined the Navy. Imagine that. I actually joined the Navy because I did not want to get drafted into the Army or Marines. There were too many of them getting killed in Nam. I go to boot camp, finish A school and the first place I go is Northern Search and Rescue and Carrier Plane Guarding in the north Tonkin Gulf 30 miles off Haiphong Harbor. We had a detachment of Special Forces who were heloed at night from the carrier (Enterprise) onto our ship and then two nights later were heloed into whatever they were to do in North Viet Nam. 20 went over, 12 came back. These were tough guys and well prepared for their mission. It bothered me greatly to sit down with one of them several days later and have him (maybe 21 years old) pour his heart out to me about the guys they had to leave behind. It is not their style to leave anyone behind and he was very upset inside over having to do it. You grow up fast when participating in a war and those who do not do it do not understand the miriad of emotions that hit at different times. Once while I was in transit at Subic Bay in the Phillipines, our barracks was hit by rocket grenades. It was the closest I ever came to combat. They determined that it was some Filipinos who were wanted the US Navy out. No one injured but it sure made some noise and smoke and busted some windows and siding. I cannot imagine being in close combat with that going on all the time. I really respect those guys. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1003 Registered: 1-2002 |
Arlie, I agree with you 110%. Art, I agree with you, too: national service should be mandatory. Jason, I'm not sure what kind of law research you did (and this might explain why it did not get published, in all due respect), but if I'm not mistaken, EVERY comment recorded or directly written by every member of the Constitutional Congress who spoke or wrote on the matter SPECIFICALLY identifies the 2nd amendment as a right of the PEOPLE, and not the government. Without equivocation! And Arlie's right--why aren't we debating the 1st Amendment or the 4th or 5th? Not politically correct?? But I do agree with your statement on Kerry; he is behaving way too much like that ol' pander bear, Slick Willie. But Howard Dean? Puh-LEEZE! The last thing we need is an overt Socialist in the White House. We already have way too many covert ones in Congress..  | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 942 Registered: 5-2002 |
And another thing, why does anybody want to debate the Second Amendment anyway? Nobody would ever consider debating the right to free speech, the right to worship your own religion, or your protection from unlawful search and seizure, etc. Those are assumed to be your constitutional RIGHTS! But the evil powers with their own agenda would love to put honest citizens in an unarmed defenseless state. Isn't that how most dictatorships start? It sure worked for Adolph Hitler. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 941 Registered: 5-2002 |
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Please show me how you are allowed to have ANY guns?" Who do you think the "people" are? They are the citizens of the United States of America. Do you think they were talking about the people of Borneo or Italy? Get real. Only in the self serving legal profession could somebody "debate" who the "people" of the United States are. Thomas Jefferson knew that inquiring minds would ask that question. He asked the question himself, "Who are the militia? They are the people". Of course since those EXACT answers to his EXACT question were not actually printed along with the ACTUAL wording of the Second Amendment, nobody wants to hear about that. Because it comes down to the INTENT of the law. The INTENT was obviously to allow all of the "people" to be armed in order to defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. All these issues were discussed in the Federalist Papers which came out about the same time. But the Constitutional "butchers" don't want to read anything about the true "intent" of the Second Amendment. The actual intent was to provided for additional defense in times of need. The founding fathers had 3 possibilities. Have a standing army with an unarmed population. This was undesirable because the military could then control the population. Have an armed population with no standing army. Also undesirable because of the logistic nightmare if the country needed defending. Have a standing army as well as an armed population. This meant that the population could never be overthrown by a military operation, because the citizens collectively would have more firepower. It also meant that the citizens could also assist the military in times of need because they were also well armed. To be truely technical, the Second Amendment never uses the words "National Guard" either, but the anti gun goons always try to insinuate that militia means "National Guard". It does not. Of course if some of the above statements are not absolutely, positively correct, it's because I don't have my stacks of reference material in front of me, but you get the idea. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1211 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jere: If it were up to me, I wouldn't let them vote until they were 30, maybe 40 years old. No matter how smart someone is, there is a certain amount of experience that one gets as they get older, and unfortunately there is no substitute for direct experience. Like you I went through the late 60s and early 70s in the US Army. I went into the service as a kid from a republican family, and came out to the left of the democratic party. Serving in the Military changed my life. I see the younger kids today, who haven't served making this pronouncements about how they know everything, and it would be funny, but their comments have consequences. If it were up to me, I'd make sure that every person in this country had to serve, either in the Military or in public service for at least 1 year, with a reserve requirement. Regards, Art | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 51 Registered: 1-2003 |
As for Kerry, I agree that he needs to stand by his vote. He authorized force, he has to live with that. As for the general notion that the media, Republicans and everyone else is chastizing anyone who speaks out against the war, that's their right, but it is not unpatriotic to question Bush, the war or our government's actions, as a matter of fact, it's our duty as citizens to criticize, question and yell so that our voices and opinions can be heard, if necessary. Being against the war is not a failure to support our troops. None of the 19 year old kids over there had anything to do with this war, and I (along with everyone else who is against this war) hope they all return safe. Politically, I've gotta give a thumbs up to Howard Dean (former VT governer), for speaking his mind intelligently and respectfully and for being consistent, realistic and unapologetic in his views. I think he has a lot to offer both Dems and Reps. Check out the "on the issues" section on his website www.deanforamerica.com, and decide for yourself. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
New member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 50 Registered: 1-2003 |
Horsefly, I've gotta take exception with your Second Amendment issues. I spent, basically, six months of my life in law school reading about the Second Amendement, gaining historical contextual perspective and studying the arguments regarding the amendement made by both sides. After all of my research, which ultimately culminated in a law review article that did not get published, I can state, unequivocally, that the amendement does not grant individuals the right to bear arms. However, I am a realist and realize that our guns are so much a part of society (for better or for worse, but mostly worse) that you cannot realistically outlaw them. I do believe, though, that the states and/or the federal government can constiutionally require any background check, any waiting period (within reason - 7 days is more than reasonable, hell in NYC you have to wait 24 hrs before getting married, seems purchasing a lethal weapon merits at least that much time) and can ban handguns and assault rifles. I'm sure you'll go crazy over these statements, but that's your right. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 287 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art, I would take that as a compliment and for that I say "thank you". I too respect many people even though I do not agree with them. As you said, I guess it just depends a lot on life experiences. Some people have said that I am always trying to "one-up" them when talking about past experiences. They are usually in their 20's. I have to respond that in 20 to 30 years when they are the age I am now that they will have had a lot more life experiences to draw from. When I was in my mid 20's I knew just enough to be dangerous and thought I knew it all. Now, as I look back, I can see that all of life is a learning experience and we should be open to new lessons in life and allow ideas that differ from our own be expressed. We all have much to learn. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 902 Registered: 10-2002 |
Art There is no question that Kerry was paid by the RNC to make these remarks to insure the futher distruction of the Democratic party. It's sad to see someone like Kerry take a check. Best Jim | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1208 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jere: The difference between your rational discourse in disagreement and the posts that I objected to is their abuse, not disagreement with people who I consider hereos, even though I strongly disagree with McCain's politics. I guess one could say the difference is respect, they've shown none where it is due, you have. That comes I believe with life experience and intelligence. I leave you to make the comparison. Regards, Art | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 279 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art, I am a vet (Viet Nam) with the Viet Nam Service citation, two Viet Nam campaign citations, three letters of commendation in my service record and a few others I will not take time to list. I was never taken prisoner or held against my will. That said, I respect Kerry and McCain for their service to this country just as I respect anyone who takes time out of their lives to serve for all of us. I can empathize with them about their POW times. However, I do not agree with the manner in which Kerry is voicing himself during these times. Regime change?? We are not being held by a dictatorship and forced to endure bodily punishment and torture. We are not being forced to agree with our leader. Using this time to further yourself politically by trying to suck up to the anti-war activists is despicable. He voted for involvement. He needs to stand by his vote, distance himself from the activists for now. He cannot have both involvement and dissension about it. I believe many other, possibly a majority of, veterans would hold the same beliefs that I do in this case. We served also, but do not use that as a crutch to gain sympathy to ourselves. We did it out of loyalty and I believe that a very large majority of the vets would do it again. Yes, they gave to their country, but a list could be compiled of many, many others that no one has ever heard of who endured just as much or more than they did and receive NOTHING for it. Not even a thank you because they have not called attention upon themselves. Possibly the only recognition they receive is during a Veterans Day ceremony when vets are asked to stand and be recognized by those attending. Kerry will definitely not get my vote and I would imagine he has alienated himself from many others in this country as well by attempting to pull in support by those opposing our actions. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3367 Registered: 2-2001 |
The fact that you make your first post proves your second post. Congratulations. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 157 Registered: 7-2002 |
And Arlie, "Some animals are more equal than others". This is a true statement. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 156 Registered: 7-2002 |
Arlie, Unless your in a: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Please show me how you are allowed to have ANY guns? Just interested. Bob | ||
| Jeffrey Caspar (Jcaspar1)
Junior Member Username: Jcaspar1 Post Number: 99 Registered: 5-2002 |
Just because one is a decorated veteran of war doesn't exclude one from saying something stupid. I think Kerry has proved that. I wish I had done something with my life like going to law school! | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 940 Registered: 5-2002 |
"I got upset at the immature trashing of both of these people, by a couple of individuals who I bet haven't done very much in their lives." That's the typical "eliteist" attitude that I was talking about. These days, if you are "only" a working class citizen who works hard, pays your taxes, and lives your life in a decent manner, then the "eliteists" consider you a person who "hasn't done much with your life". I'm sure they agree with George Orwell's words: "Some animals are more equal than others". | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1207 Registered: 6-2001 |
Matt: No need. I was just pointing out that these are great people. They served our country well. Remember that some 12 months into McCain's stay at the Hanoi Hilton, they offered him a free ride home because his father was a Naval Officer in charge of the Pacific Fleet. He declined, and was continued to be tortured. Kerry on the other hand is a holder (I believe) of either the DSC or some other great award from this country. Until you have met someone who has achieved that level of greatness, perhaps it is hard to understand what they gave to this country. While my politics differ dramatically from McCain's I think that he an honorable, great American. I got upset at the immature trashing of both of these people, by a couple of individuals who I bet haven't done very much in their lives. Sorry I got angry, but hopefully you see my point. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 939 Registered: 5-2002 |
People should respect a veteran, but being a veteran does not grant a person "Carte Blanche" acceptance for everything that they say or do. As an American, any person, veteran or not, has a birth right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc. When it comes to the Second Amendment, too many "high and mighty" politicians attempt to explain to the "unwashed masses" what that amendment REALLY means. I don't need their "explanations". Every school kid for over 200 years knows what it means. It's only during the past few years of political correctness (whimpyness) that people have to have their basic American rights "explained" to them. No explanations are needed. Just read the Constitution. I don't need Kerry or McCain or anybody else trying to do a hack job on the Constitution. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3365 Registered: 2-2001 |
Arlie, remember though, only Art is smart enough to shine people's shoes. He's the end all to intelligence on this site, and if you disagree with him about anything you are not simply differing in opinion, but rather are inferior intellectually to him. Oh sh_t now you really bring out the 2nd Amendment, I can hear Art running across the room for his law books now. Prepare for him to allude to you being an idiot. | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 3576 Registered: 8-2002 |
Art, I feel the Kerry, whom I repect, should have not made this statment while American troops are in battle. the word REGIME makes it a tie in to a Czar or dictator. He also voted to use force in Irag so it is a bit of a two-face. Matt p.s. I'll bring my shoe polish on Sunday | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 938 Registered: 5-2002 |
And both of them actively campaign against the Second Amendment right to bear arms. That's why Kerry is so adamently against Foxcroft as attorney general. Foxcroft stated, as any sensible person would, that the Second Amendment protected the INDIVIDUAL'S right to bear arms. Anti-gun goons have attempted to twist the Second Amendment into meaning that only militias, like the National Guard, could bear arms. I wonder what the voting public would think if Kerry or McCain campaigned against a person's right to free speech or attend the church of their choice? They couldn't get elected dog catcher of Bugwhistle, Montana if they tried that. "Look at the source of those who critize them: what have they done, who are they, I would suspect that those who call them names, wouldn't have the ability to shine their shoes." So if somebody hasn't had the misfortune of getting drafted into a war and being held prisoner and tortured, then that person is judged to be a second class citizen unworthy of criticizing politicians who ignore the true meaning of the Bill of Rights? I shine my own shoes; I'm not a political eliteist who expects somebody to bow down and polish them for me. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1204 Registered: 6-2001 |
McCain & Kerry two terrible examples of American Politicians: both decorated war heros, both respected by their colleagues, of both parties, two honorable, decent men, who fought in the time of war, who when faced with adversity, did the right thing, despite, at least in McCain's respect, kept their honor under torture. Look at the source of those who critize them: what have they done, who are they, I would suspect that those who call them names, wouldn't have the ability to shine their shoes. Art | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 935 Registered: 5-2002 |
Exactly. From the same state that brought you the Ted Kennedy School of Drinking, Driving, and Scuba Diving. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3360 Registered: 2-2001 |
What do you expect from a Masshole politician. | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 932 Registered: 5-2002 |
Sounds like another left wing liberal who still hasn't accepted the reality that Clinton is no longer in the White House. They're still crying because Al Gore lost out and they've been crying for over 2 years now. It's starting to get OLD. Good thing that FDR and Harry Truman were not whining Democrats or America would be speaking Japanese in California and German on the east coast. Kerry's comments: ''One of the reasons why I am running for president of the United States is that I look forward with pleasure and zeal for the opportunity to appoint an attorney general of the United States who believes and reads and abides by the Constitution.'' Of course, like his pal John McCain, he will do his best to make sure that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is NOT included in his future attorney general's beliefs. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1198 Registered: 6-2001 |
It's easier to talk about war when you are a decorated veteran, former Navy Seal. Nothing like real world experience. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 969 Registered: 3-2002 |
its easy to talk when your only concern is to campaign for election down the road. he will say whatever that particular audience wants to hear. | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 3531 Registered: 8-2002 |
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/093/nation/Kerry_says_US_needs_its_own_regime_change_+.shtml | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 3530 Registered: 8-2002 |
We can start with him.... |