View Full Version : People hunting.
In my opinion machine guns, and the like, are only used to hunt other people. A true sports man (person) if they must hunt, should be able to succesfully kill whatever animal there after w/o shooting many hundreds of times per second.
Thank you for a good laugh tomndebb.
You're right about the machne guns. There really isn't a sportsman-like use for them. Can't hunt with 'em. The deer would be in too many peices.
Collecting, however is one ostensible reason.
I'm anti- gun control, but I can't really see a purpose for them either.
I would believe the "gun collectors" excuse if it wasn't used by every single nutcase with a large stockpile of weapons and ammo.
I have seen "gun collectors" with a couple dozen of the same make and model Uzis and other "hunting" rifles and gun shows.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
NRA members should be taken out and shot.
With a bows 'n' arrows.
"Machine-guns" and all other full-auto firearms have been illegal for private ownership without a special, federally issued collectors permit for over 70 years.
Semi-auto firearms have been avialable to the general population with varing degrees of regulation for over one hundred years.
Oh, yeah, its the "sudden availability" of guns causing the latest rash of violence in schools.
as for shooting NRA members....
Well, you're welcome to try. But I will put two rounds center-mass while someone is still drawing back thier bowstring!
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
OK FINE!!!!
Ryan if all NRA members have thier guns, can stock up ammo (If we warrn you first.)
And then, stop making these weapons for the general public and when a weapon of this kind is used in a crime it should be confiscated permantely. The number of guns used in crimes would reduse as the responcable people keep thier guns anr the irresponcable people, (weather the gun was used by them in the crime or not) lose the guns. This takes care of the irresponcable parrents with guns too. Hows this? (Oh, boy am I in for it now.)
FireTiger:
OK FINE!!!!
Ryan if all NRA members have thier guns, can stock up ammo (If we warrn you first.)
And then, stop making these weapons for the general public and when a weapon of this kind is
used in a crime it should be confiscated permantely. The number of guns used in crimes would
reduse as the responcable people keep thier guns anr the irresponcable people, (weather the
gun was used by them in the crime or not) lose the guns. This takes care of the irresponcable
parrents with guns too. Hows this? (Oh, boy am I in for it now.)
Well, yeah, but as much for your obvious drunkenness while typing as your opinions.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Okkaaaaay....Not really sure what you are trying to "say" here Firetiger...But if I decypher your message correctly you advocate
us NRA-types to stockpile guns and ammo then the industry will just stop producing more?!?
Yeah, that will work!
(dismissive snorting sound)
FYI the strongest advocates of sever sentencing for the use of guns in a crime are NRA members.
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
People hunting is actually very apropos. The founding fathers did not guarantee gun ownership for hunting, collecting and target practice. They added guarnteed the right of gun ownership (and I am not going to argue whether it is private vs. militia) to shoot people. Namely tyrants, autocrats and those that would try to take away the rights of US citizens.
So the right to bear arms was indeed created to "hunt people." not exactly how I would put it, but close enough. The trick is which people can be hunted. It is certainly OK to kill Serbs and iraqis. Murderers can be killed as can intruders. The problem only comes when you kill the wrong type of "people."
strongest advocates of sever sentencing Does that mean we cut off their trigger fingers?
"Machine-guns" and all other full-auto firearms have been illegal for private ownership without a special, federally issued collectors permit for over 70 years. Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic (at least as far as the AR-15 goes). *Poof* goes this argument.
A small package of value will come to you shortly.
No, that's a song title from The Jefferson Airplane's After Bathing at Baxter's.
Nickrz wrote:
Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple
hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic (at least as
far as the AR-15 goes). *Poof* goes this argument.
Sorry, but the idea that semi-aut weapons are easy to make into fully-auto weapons is a "hollywood special" just like people flying through the air when shot...looks impressive, but isn't realistic.
And again, anyone who would attempt such modification is breaking an exsisting federal law, a new law banning such weapons is hardly required. BTW- the "right to keep and bear arms" refers to what is and was considered "small arms" rifles, pistols ect.
NOT "engines of war" such as then were in use
cannons, mortars and warships, or now in use
machine guns, nuclear weapons, or biological warfare agents.
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
Machine guns are OK.
But for my money, you can't hunt a human better than with a good old-fashioned military-grade sniper rifle; bolt action, heavy barrel, monster scope.
Remind me to watch my back.
Sniper rifles-reach out and touch someone!
FYI some target-style rifles are far
more accurate than mil-spec sniper rifles, but if your "hunt" takes you into the bush, take the mil-spec.Walther, Dragunov, or H&K are the best bets!
Remember-at close range, nothing beats a shotgun...except a flame-thrower!
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
At close range, nothing beats a shotgun..
except a sawed-off shotgun. Oops.. that would be a violation of state & federal laws.. good thing nobody would think of violating those, huh?
I gave a very specific instance of a weapon (AR-15) that can very easily be made fully automatic. Although others are more difficult (or impossible) to convert, they can still spew hot lead death at an alarming rate. Sporting arms, my ass.
I don't know about some of you people. Your lack of brain power makes me sad for this country. Lets just suppose that it became illegal for American Citizens to own guns. Ok, so now we have a country where the only people with guns are the criminals. Hmmmm....seems like it would be a field day every day for them. They wouldn't think twice about robbing everyone they came across. I think I'd prefer to live in Iraq if guns were outlawed in the U.S. Now lets look at it the way I think it should be. Every American Citizen who is over the age of lets just say 18 bacause some would say 16 is too young, I wouldn't say that but I'm sure some of you would. Ok, and to own a gun you would be required to take a firearms safety course before your permit would be granted. Then once you have your permit you are allowed to carry your weapon concealed or not, anywhere and everywhere you went. Do you think that the criminals would have the balls to rob a bank or a 7-11 store when the chances are that most if not everyone in the place had a weapon of their own. Ponder that one. I'm sure some of you would agree with me.
------------------
Visit Spedrick's Playground @ http://members.xoom.com/Spedrick/
Ok, so now we have a country where the only people with guns are the criminals. OH MY GOD WHAT AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT SO MANNY PEOPLE HAVE POSTED HERE WITHOUT KNOWING THIS PLEASE TELL US MORE.
Wow. Never before have I encountered a thread so difficult to follow. You're all drunk and illiterate, aren't you?
Allow me to throw in an observation from north of the border:
Gun control prevents accidental shootings by the bucketful. Gun control does not prevent sane, civilized people from going out and shooting either targets or food. Gun control does mean that the nasty kind of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled blather.
Homicides and other violent crimes involving guns are much more prevalent in the U.S. than other countries with stricter gun laws. It doesn't seem to be a huge problem in those countries that only "criminals" have the guns. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Iraq doesn't allow its citizens to own guns, so moving there wouldn't help you.) I've been going to convenience stores for years and I've never been in one during a robbery. On the other hand, if I knew every citizen on the street was armed, I'd be too afraid to leave the house.
I've always thought that since gunowners and their disciples (i.e. children) are something like five times more likely to die accidently in their homes, that the gun nut problem was one that would tend to solve itself over time. As Cecil says, it taking longer than we thought.
BTW Eris, what are gun control laws like in Canada? I assume there must be provisions for hunters, unless those moose and rabbits you ate in the other thread died of natural causes. :->
If I know Eris, she's already doing the research. Response time for a detailed and informative reply is usually about 20 min. If you don't post before you read this, Eris, could you also let us know how Canada keeps their own gun nuts from just getting their guns south of the border. I've smuggled my share of Havanas so I know how easy it is to bring whatever you want across the line.
Hey kids. Glad to know you're anxiously awaiting my input on this :)
Canada has recently enacted very strict gun control. All firearms, down to BB guns, must be registered with the RCMP gun registry. This was free for the last few years (I think - or a nominal fee anyway) but now I think it costs somewhere in the range of $100. Handguns are more strictly regulated, and you must prove that you belong to a gun club in order to own one. Gun clubs themselves must prove that the exist and are legitimate. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are, as far as I know, strictly illegal (except if you're the military, of course). My family owns several rifles that, in accordance with the law, are not only registered, but stored a certain distance away from their ammunition, and all have key-locks on the triggers. The keys themselves are not stored in the vicinity of the guns. It is illegal to carry a firearm unless you're actually hunting or target shooting (i.e., away from people).
As far as preventing gun-smuggling across the border goes, the main lines of defense are the RCMP and Customs. Some guns do, of course, get through. In my area, these are primarily used by criminals (duh). Fortunately, the number of innocent people shot by criminals is small. Crimes involving guns are usually either hold-ups or drug operations. The hold-ups (which are rare enough to guarantee front-page newspaper coverage) rarely involve actual shooting, and the drug operations usually involve shooting other drug dealers, so no big deal. Overall, guns cause far fewer deaths in Canada PER CAPITA than in the States. I will endeavour to obtain actual statistics if I get a chance later today.
Gun accidents have been on the decline, too, since the new regulations came in. This is only my observations, but it used to be that a couple of kids managed to shoot their babysitter/brother/cat every year by accident. I haven't heard of a case like that for some time.
Thor
Member posted 05-21-99 04:34 PM
So the right to bear arms was indeed created to "hunt people." not exactly how I would put it, but close enough. The trick is which people can be hunted. It is certainly OK to kill Serbs and iraqis.
Oh, give that crap a rest, Thor! Legitimate military actions do not consitute murder. NATO has embarked on their current course for very specific reasons.
Yugoslavia's government is cconducting an ethnic cleansing campaign against people whom they just plain don't like; this dislike being rooted in religion and ethnicity.
Iraq invaded a peaceful, and much smaller, neighbour.
You have proven on this board that you can neither communicate in the English language nor present even an elementary school level grasp of facts and history.
The right to bear arms was not created, it was recognized. And it was recognized as a right of defense, not offense.
I repeat: give this crap a rest!
Over the last few years, the state of Tennessee has banned electric stun guns [for obscure reasons-just too "newfangled"?] but made it easier to carry a concealed [lethal] handgun. HELP!!!!!!!!
------------------
Good stats & discussion of Canadian vs American attitudes towards guns and crime rates: http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/Canadian_Gun_Control.htm
I haven't been able to find anything post-bill-C-68 (the really tough gun-control bill) but I'll keep looking. There is a bunch of stuff from the NFA (the kinder, gentler, Canadian version of the NRA and still pretty scary) but it's all pretty biased.
Monty,
"Give this Crap a rest" -- Your command of the language is indeed astounding.
But you make a salient pointwhich I assume is that state sanctioned killing is not murder because it is justified. That was my point. Killing people is not always illegal, it depends on who you are killing and how the state feels about it. Hell, they might not feel too hot about you, either.
Judge: Now, who did the defendant murder?
Pub. Def.: A member of the SD BBq Pit named Monty.
Judge: Oh, who the hell cares about him. Case dismissed.
There was a time in this century when a few good lynchings were considered healthy by certain state officials. After all, the negroes raped white women and killed babies. Right?
As for the war, all of this demonizing is pretty unconvincing. Can anyone find an example of a war (preferably a 20th century war) where a) Either side truly beleived that God was not on their side or b) where the enemy was not demonized.
The whole point of protecting the right to bear arms is to make sure that dupes who believe Big Brother is infallible don't turn our country into a totalitarian state. As long as I can fight back, I can protect my rights. That is what the founding fathers did.
Eris wrote [QUOTE}Wow. Never before have I encountered a thread so difficult to follow. You're all drunk and illiterate, aren't you?
[/QUOTE]
No, I am not drunk, nor am I illiterate.
I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Ammendment of the US Constitution. Those who offer up statistics from contries other than the US are missing a couple of points. First-We have fought a successful revolution against a foreign government in the not too distant past, which has made guns and to a lesser extent violence a part of our culture. Second-Modern American culture and society is suffering through a periond of moral, and ethical decline. It has gotten to the point that violence is an acceptable first response to problems and not a deeply regretable last resort. There are other nations that have an armed populace (Switzerland and Israel come to mind) but lack the "impetus to violence" prevalent in America.
I support training to use any firearm privately owned, and am horrified at the senseless death of a child whose parents did not keep their guns secured out of their reach. I am also a person who has used a gun to prevent a violent crime from being committed against myself.
Lets face reality here...the police (whom I support wholeheartedly) do not exsist to protect the populace, they exsist to catch those who have already committed crimes, thus limiting their oppurtunity to commit more crimes. This means that someone will get robbed, raped, assaulted ect. before the police become involved. I chose not to be a victim. I have taken personal responsbility for my own safety. I have sought education in ways to limit my own vulnerability to crime, and have prepared myself for what I might have to do in the event of an assault upon my person.
My life, my responsibility.
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
Good Point ryan. The fact that we actually defeated the English in the revolution certainly colors our attitude towards guns. Our country was founded on a type of distrust of government, hence the checks and balances and the whole democracy thing. Those who cite Britain and Japan as being the ultimate ideal societies when it comes to gun control may fail to notice that they were Monarchies. The people do not have guns because the aristocracy did not want an armed populace. Ask any monarch what the result of an armed populace is. Soviet citizens certainly couldn't own guns. Government of the people my ass.
I would like to see a statistic that shows the rates of human rights violations in countries that do not permit private gun ownership.
On a side note...Riddle me this: why do those who oppose the second amendment limit their rebuttals to accusing us of being illiterate and stupid/drunk. Is this the foundation of their anti-gun belief?
No, Thor. It's the incredibly high death rate due to guns, both intentional and accidental.
------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter Thompson
Thor
Member posted 06-01-99 02:01 PM
Monty,
"Give this Crap a rest" -- Your command of the language is indeed astounding.
Well, Thor, you're obviously prepared to pursue a career in comedy.
When you find yourself on a ship of fools, it takes a good sense of humor to get along.
I have been looking for this quote for a while and just found it. This is what George Washington had to say about private gun ownership when addressed the first session of the US Congress:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and the keystone under independence...
When firearms go, all goes -we need them every hour."
But his language does sound a bit odd to my ear, perhaps he had a poor command of the English language....
Sigh. And on it goes...
Couple things should be clarified, though.
First, it is inaccurate to characterize those of us who are anti-guns as being anti-2nd amendment. I passionately embrace the constitution in its entirety. I simply interpret it differently than you do. Does the phrase "well-regulated militia" ring any bells? That hardly translates as everybody armed to the teeth.
The intent behind giving everyone the right to bear arms, within the limits given!, was to give us a means to protect ourselves should the state become a little too overbearing.
But times have changed. In the modern world, anyone who hopes to keep the government at bay using weapons is merely suicidal. Much better to hire yourself an excellent lawyer and take it to court.
So now the 2nd is used as a screen to convince us that we need firearms to protect ourselves from criminals.
Well, this whole "Crime in the streets! Get your guns!" thing is fundamentally ridiculous, and the idea that taking away everyone's guns would motivate the bad guys to rob, rape and murder anyone and everyone they encounter is even more ridiculous.
The fact is that the vast majority of people in this country (and when I say vast, I mean truly vast, like nearly everyone above a very low socioeconomic threshhold) will never even see a violent crime being committed, much less be the victims of any. Especially if they don't already know the perpetrator of the crime personally. The hysteria about crime is completely out of proportion to its occurance.
And in those very rare instances where you might be the victim of a randomly violent crime? Chances are good you won't have, or have a chance to get, your handy dandy gun.
Unless you clerk at a liquor store, drive a cab, or live/work in gangbanger territory, basic precautions should keep you safer than any gun you might own. What crime you do experience in this life is much more likely to be crime against your property than your person, committed while you are not around - something gun ownership is not going to prevent. And in fact, your gun is one of the most likely bits of your property to be taken from you!
It would be so nice if the gun freaks would just be honest with everyone about it. "I love my gun. It makes me feel big and bad. I like to hunt, I like killing stuff. It turns me on and excites me to watch things die and know that I, mighty man with huge deadly penis, umm, gun, has brought about this death. Leave me alone."
------------------
Stoidela
First, it is inaccurate to characterize those of us who are anti-guns as being anti-2nd amendment. I passionately embrace the constitution in its entirety. I simply interpret it differently than you do. Does the phrase "well-regulated militia" ring any bells? That hardly translates as everybody armed to the teeth.
Grrr...without offering my own gun-control opinions...please....read the thing. Fucking read it:
"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."
The clause up to the comma does not modify "the people," grammatically. And in every single court case you care to look up, "the people" has been held by the Supreme Court to mean all the people. Not some of the people, not a few people, all the people. Unless you can come up with some compelling, legally sound reason why the courts should interpret "the people" to mean something other than what they've held it to mean in every single other instance, you're just pissing in the wind.
I'm sick and tired of people bleating "well-regulated milita! well-regulated militia!" as if they hold some sort of trump card. Sorry, folks, but legally and Constitutionally, it doesn't wash. Even if you reconstruct the sentence to read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can maintain a well-regulated militia," the Amendment still quite clearly confers that right on the people, not the militia.
Goodness, you folks sure do get each other into a lather about some topics, don;t you? I feel that I really must make some comments. First, I would like to take some of the statements I have seen on this thread and try to discuss them with reason and facts.
"...shooting many hundreds of times per second." Of course, this is an obvious misstatement. Although high capacity magazines (often incorrectly referred to as "clips") are no longer manufactured for use by the civilian population, there are still some "shelf stock" or "previously manufactured" magazines available, and even with these magazines (holding as many as 30 rounds of ammunition), I would challenge any person to be able to change magazines fast enough to attain a rate of fire that could be described as "many hundreds of times per second."
"Machine guns are used for two things only..." I make the assumption that the writer here refers to the civilian population. If one concedes that there is a need for military force, there are very legitimate uses for fully automatic firearms.
"Yah, and any boob with a bastard file, half a brain and a couple of hours to spare knows how to make them fully automatic..." This is a very interesting and widely-held misconception. Firearms currently in production in the U.S. and firearms imported from other countries must be manufactured in such a way to preclude the conversion of the firearm to enable it to operate in a full automatic mode. This is federal law. Any person in possession of a firearm (without the proper legal authorization) that has been modified or altered - even if not done by the owner - is in violation of federal law. In addition to being in violation of the law, a firearm that has been modified in a way to change its mode of function is extremely unreliable and is therefore dangerous to the user as well as others in any setting, whether it be hunting, target shooting, personal defense, or competition. The "conversion" of semi-automatic firearms of any kind to fire in a full-automatic mode is not an easy or quick task for firearms of current manufacture. There have been some firearms in the past which were very easy to "convert", but federal law has stepped in to prevent the "conversion" by declaring these specific firearms (even in their semi-auto version) to be Class III (also known as NFA) firearms (machine guns). As a matter of fact, if a person owns a semi-auto firearm and also has in possession parts to "convert" that firearm to full-auto function, that person is deemed to possess a Class III firearm. Of course, the possession of such a firearm is regulated by federal law.
"I gave a very specific instance of a weapon (AR15) that can very easily be made fully automatic. Although others are more difficult (or impossible) to convert, they can still spew hot lead death at an alarming rate." This is a very inflammatory statement that in not only inaccurate, but would have us believe that a military-style firearm can somehow shoot bullets of a more lethal nature than a sporting-style firearm! Nothing could be further from the truth - a bullet is a bullet is a bullet, no matter what style firearm it is shot from. In addition, the sporting-style firearm operates at the same "alarming rate" as the military-style firearm.
"Gun control does mean that the nasty kinds of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this." Wow! Where do I start with this attitude? First of all, does the writer feel that it is okay for "nasty kinds of guns" to kill some people and not others? When the writer talks of "criminals", does the writer refer to anyone who owns a gun? (Remember the line that has been repeated ad nauseum - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!)? What are "nasty kinds of guns"? Does the writer's definition mean military-style firearms, or all black firearms, or all semi-auto firearms, or all magazine-fed firearms, or just plain, old "all firearms"?
"I've always thought that since gun owners and their disciples(i.e., children) are something like five time more likely to die accidentally in their home, that the gun nut problem would tend to solve itself over time." This statement is an insult to concerned law-abiding firearms owners all over the country. How would the writer interpret my attitude if I substituted the words "X-rated movies" or "alcohol beverages" for the word "gun" in the statement? There is a very close parallel because all of these items are legal to own at the present time. Since the writer doesn't specify what kind of accidents in the home, it would be hard to quantify deaths due to hobbies, interests, and video tastes.
To clarify a point made by another writer, Uzi firearms have never been portrayed as hunting rifles. On another point, full-auto firearms, as well as short-barrelled shotguns and firearm suppressors are legal to own if a person fulfills the obligations of ownership (lots of red tape, including background checks, fingerprints, photo identification, registration with the BATF and payment of fees to the IRS, and approval of local law enforcement agency). Ownership of all kinds of guns therefore depends upon availability, legal authority, and disposable cash capacity of all citizens.
Guns are in our national psyche. Whether viewed as good or bad, they are a part of our society. Many consider guns to be tools, to be used intelligently and prudently. Others think guns are evil incarnate and have no place in a civilized society. I would hope that we can come to some common ground because we need to solve the absolutely horrific problem that guns cause in our nation today. One of the problems we must grapple with is the fact that many law enforcement units tell us that it is no longer possible for them to be able to repsond quickly enough in an emergency to prevent harm from coming to us on an idividual basis. Until the police arrive, we are on our own. The decision to use a gun to protect ourselves should be an individual choice, made within the framework of existing laws. There is no doubt that this issue is a complicated one; however, with cooperation and rational, measured debate, we must find a solution.
As a parting thought, see if you think this analogy is appropriate to this discussion: Should the U.S. unilaterally divest itself of all nuclear arms, in spite of the fact that many and various countries around the world have or are developing nuclear capabilities? Do we have a right to have the means to defend ourselves against "the bad guys"? Why or why not?
here is some of what those who were there during the formulation of the 2nd amendment said:
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion. . . in private self-defence . . . ." John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America 475 (1787-8)
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776) I T Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyl ed. 1950)
"to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . ." George Mason, 3 Elliot Debates 380
So the intent was for self defense and for liberty.
Now convince me that the current anti-gun pundits know more about the constitution than those who created it.
Mr. President, any word on that?
We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-- Bill Clinton
President of the United States in USA Today, March 11, 1993
Ryan:
Why are you resentful of the characterization if it does not apply to you? I spoke specifically of gun freaks, I did not say all owners of guns. I am perfectly aware that there are many people who do not hunt, yet own guns because they are convinced that their lives are threatened.
And if hunters don't hunt for amusement/fun, why do they do it? While they may eat what they kill, that is NOT why they do it. They do it because they ENJOY doing it. They LIKE TO KILL. You can dress it up any way you like, but if they did not derive pleasure from the act of killing, they would not hunt. It is leisure, sport, entertainment, FUN. And I find the idea that anyone would KILL for FUN nauseating.
(Yes, I eat meat. I also hate the way animals are treated in the corporate version of animal husbandry, and seek free-range meat whenever possible. If I had to kill the animals I ate myself, I would surely become a vegetarian in short order. It is not the eating of animals I object to, it is taking pleasure in the act of killing them.)
And by the way, your portrayal of the quick, clean kill that does not cause suffering is the exception, not the rule.
As for home invasion robberies, etc. I never claimed that no one is ever a victim of violent crime. What I said, and what is true, is that the likelihood of it happening to most of us, and most particularly the people who are most likely to use that as their reason for owning guns, is on a par with being struck by lightening.
PLdennison:
The courts once held that "separate but equal" was possible, too. The courts are not infallible (Witness the recent decision that suing a sitting president wouldn't interfere with his work.) and I think they have missed the boat here. And I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but I know there are many who side with me on this. So it goes back to a matter of interpretation.
And all that aside, it doesnt' matter anyway. The genie is out of the bottle and the best we can hope for now is regulation and enforcement of existing law, much as I might like to amend the constitution. (And then again, I might not. I would want a gun in one particular cicumstance: the breakdown of social order brought about by some disaster. I dont' feel the need to own a gun now because I dont' feel that there is a significant chance I'd need it. I do feel that I might need it in case of a massive earthquake, or if Y2K turns out to be as bad as some people fear. But so long as our society remains essentially functional, owning a gun is an invitation to trouble.)
Radar Ralf:
You are evidently a thoughtful, informed, and intedlligent person whose contributions are of interest to me. Could you make it a little easier by spacing your paragraphs? Thanks.
------------------
Stoidela
Stoidela, I resent your charaterization of gun owners a "freaks" who use guns as a phallic substitute and glory in killing.
I don't hunt, or shoot animals for amusement.
You will note the difference, I will explain just in case you don't understand it.
Hunting-Going into the countryside, using you skill and knowledge to track prey and place yourself for a single, clean shot which kills quickly and without needless suffering to the animal. Cleaning and dressing the carcass for edible meat and disposing of the remainder.
Hunters are among the strongest advocates for wilderness preservation in the US. The perform a service that is vital to the ecology of many areas as mankind has eliminated natural predators from the food chain.
Killing for "fun"-Someone with emotional/mental problems who is just as likely to aim their cars at dogs near the road as go out with a gun. They have problems that are unrelated to the instrument they use to kill.
Just for the record, I have hunted, although I don't care to do so anymore. I have no issues about my own mental stability/sexual identity that require a gun as a phallic substitute. I use my guns to target shoot at a competitive level, and for home defense.
Dispite you protestations to the contrary, there is an alarming tendancy in the US to a robbery technique called "Home Invasion". Perhaps youve heard of it? Armed intruders, making no attempt at stealth, force their way into a home when they know the occupants are home. The force the homeowners to surrender all valuables and often brutalize them physically, emotionally or sexually. I was nearly a victem of such a "invasion" 6 years ago, but upon hearing them breaking the outer door I armed myself when confronted with the business-end of a 12gauge shotgun, they fled.
I am gratefull I didn't have to shoot to protect myself, but I am certainly glad I had the means to defend myself!
I will soon be moving to NYC, and I can assure you, I am not at all comfortable going into an area where I will be unarmed, and the crimerate is so much higher than where I live now!
------------------
"The universe doesn't give first warnings or second chances"
Thor
Member posted 06-02-99 09:28 AM
When you find yourself on a ship of fools, it takes a good sense of humor to get along.
Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.
PLdennison:
The courts once held that "separate but equal" was possible, too. The courts are not infallible
Of course not, but in an instance such as this, when the language in the Bill of Rights is consistent throughout and has been consistently interpreted, you need an extremely compelling reason to convince the courts that "the people" means something other than "the people." In fact, throughout our history, whenever the question of to whom "the people" refers has been addressed, the definition has overwhelmingly been broadened rather than narrowed.
Monty wrote:
Gee, Thor; I wonder how the populace of Iceland feels about that characterization.
OK, I'll bite: Iceland?
Thor - FYI there is a poster here abouts named Thorsomethingorother who as well as being a jerk is also from Iceland. If you have been encountering what you might think is unwarrented hostility, it is probably due to people confusing you with the other Thor.
Thanks for the info. I live in Colorado, not Iceland. I was wondering about some of the hostile responses I was getting.
Appologies, Monty. I did not understand the context.
"Gun control does mean that the nasty kinds of guns stay in the hands of criminals, where they are generally used to kill other criminals. I'm not seeing a big problem with this." Wow! Where do I start with this attitude? First of all, does the writer feel that it is okay for "nasty kinds of guns" to kill some people and not others? When the writer talks of "criminals", does the writer refer to anyone who owns a gun? (Remember the line that has been repeated ad nauseum - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!)? What are "nasty kinds of guns"? Does the writer's definition mean military-style firearms, or all black firearms, or all semi-auto firearms, or all magazine-fed firearms, or just plain, old "all firearms"?
What I meant was that contrary to what most people think, much of the damage that comes from guns in the hands of criminals is inflicted upon other criminals. More specifically, at least around here, guns accompany drug deals, and when drug deals go wrong, the guns get pulled out. Arming the general population isn't going to help this situation. The types of guns I was referring to are handguns and military assault weapons - basically anything that's not a flare gun or a hunting rifle.
Many people seem to be concerned that the criminals will have guns, and their victims will not. I do not believe that this is a valid argument, since the odds (assuming you are a law-abiding, nice sort of person) that your gun will be used in an accidental shooting (by, say, your five-year-old) far outweigh the odds that a crime will be committed against you in such a way that you will be able to defend yourself with your gun.
And yes, it's a harsh position, but I do NOT have a problem with criminals shooting other criminals. There are degrees and exceptions to this of course, but our justice system (and yours, too - to a far worse degree) is overloaded and if the criminals are going to police themselves to some extent, that's great.
Hey, just remember:
GUNS don't kill people....
It's the bullets that do it.
_____________________________________
President of the Vernon Dent fan club.
Prairie Rose sez (ever so charmingly):
"Stoidela, your proctologist called- they found your head."
Jeez, what is it with you people around here that you can't have a lively debate without resorting to snotty little swipes like that? Tsk tsk...very uncivilized.
Now, about your actual points...
I am absolutely clear and comfortable with the idea of wildlife management (although it wouldn't be as necessary if people weren't so hellbent on exterminating natural predators like wolves! We keep creating the problems that then need solving.) But here's what I want to know: why do YOU do it? If it's simply a matter of wildlife management, and no one is ENJOYING it, why not just send a bunch of rangers out to do the deed and have done with it? Why are you and all the hunters eagerly lining up to be the ones to do the killing? Hmmm? Seems to me somebody is having a grand 'ol time blowing holes in living things.
And perhaps it's not you. Perhaps there isn't the slightest rush or thrill in it for you, perhaps you alone, among the thousands of hunters in this land, go forth to do your killing with a heavy heart and a tear rolling down your cheek as you take aim. Let's say, for the hell of it, that that is true. You going to tell me that you are REPRESENTATIVE of the typical hunter? Not bloody likely.
SO I shall modify my statement: MOST hunters hunt because they LIKE IT. They get a thrill out of KILLING. Because if they did not, they would not do it. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars on guns and gear and licenses because they want to do their duty in caring for the herds. Baloney.
------------------
Stoidela
(Yes, I eat meat. I also hate the way animals are treated in the corporate version of animal husbandry, and seek free-range meat whenever possible. If I had to kill the animals I ate myself, I would surely become a vegetarian in short order. It is not the eating of animals I object to, it is taking pleasure in the act of killing them.) Aha. In here spouting your same hypocrisy? Dead is dead, and whether anyone derives pleasure from killing the meat laid on your table is irrelevant. What you're saying is "Killing animals is ok, as long as I don't know the mechanics or emotional state of the executioners." Feh.
Stoidela said:
"And if hunters don't hunt for amusement, fun, why do they do it? While they may eat what they kill, that is NOT why they do it. They do it because they ENJOY doing it. They LIKE TO KILL. You can dress it up any way you like, but if they did not derive pleasure from the act of killing, they would not hunt. It is leisure, sport, FUN. And I find the idea that anyone would KILL for FUN nauseating."
Stoidela, your proctologist called- they found your head.
I find your assumptions about MY reasons for hunting nauseating. The deer population where I live can swell to the point where the herd begins to die of starvation and disease. When the population goes up, so do the number of licenses issued. Thinning out the herd is WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, not cruelty.
When I hunt, I do it with deep respect, not malice. It is no different than euthanizing an animal which would have died (a long agonizing death) anyway.
I completely clean the carcass, and the meat goes to family, friends, and the area's homeless shelters. No waste. You DID say you were okay with free-range meat, and it doesn't get any more "free-range" than that. Or is it okay with you to kill chickens and cows but not deer or game birds? What is the difference here?
And as far as the house invasion bit goes, believe me, it happens more than you think, and even in "quiet" areas like mine. Owning a gun may not save my life, but I can at least pull the trigger on myself rather than than be raped. Some things you shouldn't have to live through twice.
PR
Nickrz:
Irrelevant to you. And for more on this, see the cats and dogs post.
------------------
Stoidela
Owning a gun may not save my life, but I can at least pull the trigger on myself rather than than be raped. Some things you shouldn't have to live through twice.
Prairie Rose: evidently the only reason your proctologist hasn't called is that (s)he needs to delve further before finding your head.
The comment of yours above shows that you are completely insensitive to the fate and feelings of those who consider suicide to be a far greater sin than submission to a violent rape.
FYI, someone very close to me faced such a choice. She is alive today because she isn't the ass that you are.
Owning a gun may not save my life, but I can at least pull the trigger on myself rather than than be raped. Some things you shouldn't have to live through twice.
Prairie Rose: evidently the only reason your proctologist hasn't called is that (s)he needs to delve further before finding your head.
The comment of yours above shows that you are completely insensitive to the fate and feelings of those who consider suicide to be a far greater sin than submission to a violent rape.
FYI, someone very close to me faced such a choice. She is alive today because she isn't the ass that you are.
And before anyone jumps all over me about the sin remark: NO, I DO NOT THINK BEING RAPED IS A SIN. It's the rapist who's doing the sinning; however, there are so-called religious folks who think that the victims are guilty too. They're asses, also.
Prairie Rose:
I have known...hmmm...maybe 5. I do not choose to make friends with hunters, because I do not make friends with people who kill animals for sport. My father in law is a hunter, but he is not my friend.
So if only a few hunters fall on the extremes of "gun nut" vs consider wildlife managers...how would you charterize the ones who fall in the middle? Why do they hunt? Do they enjoy it? Do they like to get thier guns and bows and go out and stalk things and shott them and make them die? And if they don't like it, why do they do it? What are you trying to say, here?
Wolves don't eat kids, and it would be less expensive and less trouble all around to let nature take care of itself, and lose the few sheep along the way.
And your uncivilized remarks didn't offend me at all. I'm never offended by anything I read in debate forums. It's just that remarks like the one you made are very poor form, and don't really bolster your arguments. It's a lot more rewarding to debate on point.
------------------
Stoidela
A few glaring typos above, sorry. My fingers are fumbling, it's late in a long day.
Stoidela,
How many hunters have you actually *known*? To say that all of us are considerate wildlife management types, or all crazy guns nuts is invalid. However, from the number of hunters I have known (many, thank you, and I was raised amongst many), the population tends to be about a bell-shaped curve of very few that are of the former type, and very few of the latter (gun nuts).
For your information, around here the rangers DO help thin out herds. I guess I should have said that in my earlier post. But they simply do not have the time and resources to do all that is needed.
And hunting, like many hobbies, is about as expensive as you WANT to make it. I don't even own a single gun (I bow-hunt).
And as far as letting the wolves come back, the problem is that along with eating deer, they tend to prey on other species that the park service people would rather they didn't nosh on (including kids perhaps). If only we could teach the wolves to eat only deer, and only a certain number... :)
And as far as my "uncharming and uncivilized" remark goes, Stoidela, you are in the BBQ pit. Making blanket statements about a person's motives for ANYTHING will probably get you a little singed in the real world, as well as a place (here) meant for volatile discussion. If you were *really* that offended, think more before you post.
PR (venison steaks, anyone?)
Monty,
Did I advocate that any woman take her life rather than be raped? I'm sorry if that is the impression I gave. Being raped is not a sin (duh), it is just simply something I would rather not go though again. If that makes me a coward, so be it. I was not put on this earth for my decisions to be liked by everyone. It is a choice. And since I am not Christian, it is NOT a sin for me.
PR
I do not choose to make friends with hunters, because I do not make friends with people who kill animals for sport.
What makes you assume that all hunters kill animals for sport?
I hunt. I will freely admit that I enjoy it, but I don't consider it a sport any more than wearing roller blades to the grocery store is a sport.
Hunting allows you contact with the animals you eat. It means that nobody else is doing your dirty work for you. If you've ever gutted and cleaned an animal, you'd know that it's not all fun and games. Hunting means you have to take responsibility for the life that you are consuming to preserve your own. Hunting means accepting what it is to be omnivorous; it means that you understand that animals suffer, that they are pursued and killed and eaten and that YES you are a part of this.
I know that some people do hunt for sport. Killing animals for the sake of killing IS wrong - I couldn't agree with you more on that score. However, making a blanket assumption about the motives of every human who goes into the woods with a gun is also wrong.
What I really can't stand is the hypocracy of those who live in cities, who barely acknowledge that there is a natural world, much less participate in it, and consume meat that is raised contrary to every natural rule in existence, then have the gall to condemn me for taking responsibility for my food, claiming that it's cruel or harmful or mean to the poor little animals.
Somehow the notion of "stewardship" misses these people completely.
If you're not a vegetarian, you have no right to criticize those who hunt for food. If you want to think about it a little more, and limit your criticisms to the "sport hunters" who actually deserve it, then I'll help.
(Oh, and Prairie Rose - I'll take you up on that venison steak offer :))
Prairie Rose: I think you need to read my post again. I specifically said that I don't think it's a sin and mentioned that there are fools out here who do think it is. That's part of what the victims have to face--prejudice from society. I've heard that part of the ordeal called "the second raping of the victim."
Eris:
I hunt. I will freely admit that I enjoy it, but I don't consider it a sport any more than wearing roller blades to the grocery store is a sport.
And if you did not enjoy it, would you do it?? I believe the honest answer is no, of course not. Anyone who owns a computer has no need to go out and kill their own lunch.
I have said repeatedly the following, and I will say them again:
1) I freely confess that were I forced to eviscerate my entree personally, I would instantly become a vegetarian. I am deeply squeamish and extremely picky about what I eat, and I am quite certain I could never eat anything I had known in life. Or even seen pre-butchering, for that matter. I need it cut up, cleaned, and packaged neatly, yep, I sure do.
2) I have no objection to killing animals for food. Obviously, since I happily pay others to do it on my behalf. And I am pleased that others are willing to do it for me, in a way not dissimilar to my gratitude that others are willing to join the military and protect me.
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
In a very similar fashion, anyone who ENJOYS the killing of animals, and chooses to undertake it without any real need to do so, is not really my kinda person, ya know? I don't hang with people who LIKE TO KILL, who take PLEASURE IN DOING SO.
I am lucky that I am able to indulge my carnivorous nature without having to "take responsibility" for it, and I know it. That doesnn't mean I have to like you because you LIKE "taking responsibility" for it, now does it?
Nope. You icky.
------------------
Stoidela
Geez, Stoidela, you have just set yourself up as the most unlikeable person anyone has ever seen. Those who kill so that you can eat meat and those who are willing to kill so that you can enjoy your privileged American life are beneath you, huh?
Lawrence:
No, not at all. I never said anyone was "beneath" me, nor did I imply it. I just don't have enough in comon with such people, and these are the kinds of things that bespeak a very different world view than mine. Therefore, it's unlikely that we would ever enjoy one another's company- at least, not enough to make friendship likely.
And if my attitudes on these two topics make me the "most unlikeable person anyone has ever seen", I can only assume that "anyone" has led a very sheltered life.
Besides which, I don't participate in debate boards with the goal of having everyone like me. (although it's certianly not unheard of, depending on the board and the topics) I have more than enough people who like me a great deal in my "real" life. I debate because it's fun. I like to challenge, be challenged, and battle over ideas. Being liked is beside the point.
------------------
Stoidela
There's a lot more to hunting than killing. I've gone hunting dozens of times in my 36 years on Earth and I've never managed to kill anything (unless you count fish). Yes, I've enjoyed all my hunting trips even though I didn't get to kill anything. If I did manage to bring down a buck with a clean shot, I'm sure it would be quite thrilling, but it would only be a small portion of the total enjoyment I've gotten from this activity.
Papabear: I've had the same lack of results you've had whilst hunting. What do you say we start the Straight Dope Orienteering Society?
Papbear:
Then why don't you just go camping?
Oh, that's right...you are trying to get the "thrill" of "bringing down a buck".
The thrill of watching a beautiful animal collapse in pain and death. Bitchen.
yech.
------------------
Stoidela
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Yes, I eat meat. I also hate the way animals are treated in the corporate version of animal husbandry, and seek free-range meat whenever possible. If I had to kill the animals I ate myself, I would surely become a vegetarian in short order. It is not the eating of animals I object to, it is taking pleasure in the act of killing them.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha. In here spouting your same hypocrisy? Dead is dead, and whether anyone derives pleasure from killing the meat laid on your table is irrelevant. What you're saying is "Killing animals is ok, as long as I don't know the mechanics or emotional state of the executioners." Feh.
That's preposterous. Even being a vegetarian, I can recognize that it is orally defensible both to eat meat and to object to the cruelty found in modern factory farming methods.
To Radar Ralf:
I looked up your question, why keep Nuclear arms (or a gun. I assume that this was meant to be a meaphor for the gun debate.) It is always better to negotiate from a position of power. THis does not mean that you should use the power indiscriminately. But it is better to have it than not. I would rather have the gun and have the decision to use or misuse it, than to be unarmed and hope that the thug breaking into my house makes the right decision.
On the hunting debate: My father owned a hunting store. I knew thousands of hunters. I have killed all kinds of animals. Am I pro hunting? Yes. Do I hunt? No, can't stand to kill anything. Not even fish. If you don't like to hunt, then don't. But don't infringe on the lives of others.
If you don't like to hunt, then don't. But don't infringe on the lives of others.
But feel free to infringe on the lives of animals.
------------------
Stoidela
"don't infringe on the rights of animals"
That is a much different discussion. Are animals the moral equivalent of people?
I dunno. I haven't thought that one all the way out yet. There is something distastefull about hurting any living creature, but then, that is kind of how the world was set up.
I guess my point is, until I do get it figured out, I am not going to advocate for the cessation of hunting.
The clause up to the comma does not modify "the people," grammatically. And in every single court case you care to look up, "the people" has been held by the Supreme Court to mean all the people. Not some of the people, not a few people, all the people. Unless you can come up with some compelling, legally sound reason why the courts should interpret "the people" to mean something other than what they've held it to mean in every single other instance, you're just pissing in the wind.
I'm sick and tired of people bleating "well-regulated milita! well-regulated militia!" as if they hold some sort of trump card. Sorry, folks, but legally and Constitutionally, it doesn't wash. ]] PLD
Exactly -- the business about the militia that so many take refuge in does not condition the right -- it is what we call mere "precatory" language.
And, FTR, I HATE guns. But that has no bearing on how the constitution should be read.
That is a much different discussion. Are animals the moral equivalent of people?
Yes.
(See the end of the "dogs and cats" discussion)
------------------
Stoidela
Stoidela, I read your long post on the cats vs. Dogs thread. I think I need to clarify the question.
If animals are the moral equivalent of humans then killing them is murder. In your post you said that killing animals for food was OK if the animal did not suffer. This would seem to contradict your position on this thread.
So if one kills Bambi, are they a murderer, or does it depend on how much Bambi suffers?
Thor:
Good point.
No, I dont' consider it murder. I consider it the natural workings of the food chain. But I consider the way we treat animals to be torture, and morally indefensible.
As for Bambi, and hunting in general (sigh) - I think it's alright as long as the animals being hunted are in NO danger of extinction whatsoever, and they are being hunted for food. But this doesn't change the fact that I think hunting is disgusting and I have no use for the people who do it.
------------------
Stoidela
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
--Stoidela
Well guess what- you're hanging with them right here, right now, on this board.
In asking how/why anyone would choose to serve in the military, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the notion of "civic duty".
You have many rights and privileges that have been fought for and won in blood; that have been reaffirmed again and again in the blood of those who came after...
Some of us were taught to respect and honor the sacrifices others have made, and to show that respect and honor by putting on a uniform and serving our time, as repayment to the society and people that have made so much possible for us.
Your decision not to serve is your own, of course, and I respect it.
Your statement that you respect the choice of those who choose to serve, while generally being at odds with the tone of the rest of your statement, is appreciated.
But your closing words, about those sort of people not being the sort that you would like to associate with, does have the ring of elitism, or snobbery.
Whether you intended this or not, I don't know; but some of the finest men and women in this country have worn a uniform.
Whether they are police officers, firefighters, paramedics; soldies, sailors, airmen or Marines, these people serve their country, their state, their communities, their people, with honor, courage and integrity.
They give freely and often, and when called upon, make the ultimate sacrifice; not for medals or parades, or for special holidays that no one remembers or recognizes, but to:
"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Try not to set yourself too high above them.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
[i]"...from 73 Easting."
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
--Stoidela
Well guess what- you're hanging with them right here, right now, on this board.
In asking how/why anyone would choose to serve in the military, perhaps you can wrap your brain around the notion of "civic duty".
You have many rights and privileges that have been fought for and won in blood; that have been reaffirmed again and again in the blood of those who came after...
Some of us were taught to respect and honor the sacrifices others have made, and to show that respect and honor by putting on a uniform and serving our time, as repayment to the society and people that have made so much possible for us.
Your decision not to serve is your own, of course, and I respect it.
Your statement that you respect the choice of those who choose to serve, while generally being at odds with the tone of the rest of your statement, is appreciated.
But your closing words, about those sort of people not being the sort that you would like to associate with, does have the ring of elitism, or snobbery.
Whether you intended this or not, I don't know; but some of the finest men and women in this country have worn a uniform.
Whether they are police officers, firefighters, paramedics; soldies, sailors, airmen or Marines, these people serve their country, their state, their communities, their people, with honor, courage and integrity.
They give freely and often, and when called upon, make the ultimate sacrifice; not for medals or parades, or for special holidays that no one remembers or recognizes, but to:
"...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
Try not to set yourself too high above them.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"...from 73 Easting."
Sorry for the double post.
Stoidela
Member posted 06-07-99 04:15 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't like to hunt, then don't. But don't infringe on the lives of others.
-----(quote line truncated)
But feel free to infringe on the lives of animals.[/quote]
well, Stoi, I did notice you refer just above to the food chain and the natural order of things. Humans are naturally omnivores. That means that, by nature, humans eat both plant and animal. Why should it be wrong to enjoy one's nature?
Extank:
Well, at least you actually read what I sad about respecting the choice. People around here have a tendency not to read what is written and do alot of reading INTO what is written.
Including you, right here.
Why does it follow that if I do not like a certain type of person, that I thik that I am BETTER than they are? Is that how it operates for you? Are you better than everyone you dislike, or better than everyone who indulges in behavior you dislike?
I am very grateful for the sacrifices men (and a few women) much more courageous than I have made in order to preserve freedom and the American way of life. I am PARTICULARLY grateful to the men who fought WWII, since I believe that was the definition of a just and righteous war. (And I actually THANK men who fought in WWII when I meet them.)
But I would never be that person. I dont' have the guts, I don't have the discipline,and I don't have the ability to harm others (which is something of a drawback in war). I dont' think anything about military life is remotely appealing. It is unfathomable to me why anyone would want to serve if they DID NOT FEEL THREATENED. To jsut choose it as a career? Totally outside my ken.
But that doesn't mean I think I'm better. Just really, really different.
------------------
Stoidela
Eris
Member posted 05-31-99 11:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey kids. Glad to know you're anxiously awaiting my input on this
Canada has recently enacted very strict gun control. All firearms, down to BB guns, must be registered with the RCMP gun registry. This was free for the last few years (I think - or a nominal fee anyway) but now I think it costs somewhere in the range of $100. Handguns are more strictly regulated, and you must prove that you belong to a gun club in order to own one. Gun clubs themselves must prove that the exist and are legitimate. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons are, as far as I know, strictly illegal (except if you're the military, of course). My family owns several rifles that, in accordance with the law, are not only registered, but stored a certain distance away from their ammunition, and all have key-locks on the triggers. The keys themselves are not stored in the vicinity of the guns. It is illegal to carry a firearm unless you're actually hunting or target shooting (i.e., away from people).
Keeping an unarmed gun in the home makes that gun pretty useless when your house is being broken into. I have mine on the top shelf of my closet, fully loaded but with the chamber empty. I'm always ready.
------------------
Visit Spedrick's Playground @ http://members.xoom.com/Spedrick/
Dang! You folks are still carryin' on! I thought you would learn to make nice with each other while I was gone. I wonder why no one has bothered with my "Why or why not?" question (see above).
Stoidela and Extank hit on a good aspect of the gun and hunting debate which is that some bigotry does get wrapped up in it.
Now I am NOT calling anuyone here a bigot, so don't flame me. But there are a lot of arguments that go something like this: "while I may be trustworthy and law abiding, it is all of *them* that I don't trust." Them being whatever perceived group is violent e.g. gang members, inner city folks, New Yorkers, whatever. It is a slippery slope, and one that some of our leaders are walking on. For example:
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein
I have to say that in the few months that I've been on this board, this is the closest I've been to feeling ashamed to share the same species designation with anyone here. Stoidela, I could ALMOST see your point on the abortion for men thread, although I didn't agree with it, but the following gives credence to my fears that humanity will kill itself off in rather short order.
I have said repeatedly the following, and I will say them again:
1) I freely confess that were I forced to eviscerate my entree personally, I would instantly become a vegetarian. I am deeply squeamish and extremely picky about what I eat, and I am quite certain I could never eat anything I had known in life. Or even seen pre-butchering, for that matter. I need it cut up, cleaned, and packaged neatly, yep, I sure do.
So, you want someone else to do your dirty work for you. You don't care if the animal in question has been force-fed antibiotics (contributing to the "superbug" problem), you don't care if the factory farm from whence it came is gushing tons of contaminated waste into the continent's water supply, you don't care that the grain used to feed this animal was sprayed with pesticides and other harmful chemicals, screwing up the land around the farm; you don't care that the plastic, styrofoam, paper and whatever used to "neatly package" your meat are in and of themselves harmful pollutants, and contributing yet more to the destruction of our natural resources. In short, you don't care how much the stuff you eat damages the rest of the planet, you just care that you don't have to feel squeamish about it.
2) I have no objection to killing animals for food. Obviously, since I happily pay others to do it on my behalf. And I am pleased that others are willing to do it for me, in a way not dissimilar to my gratitude that others are willing to join the military and protect me.
So if I went out and poached a cow from a factory farm, butchered it and delivered it to your door in the form of neatly packaged steaks and hamburgers, you'd be grateful to me. Would I be "icky" then? Are you by chance descended from European nobility - the people who had their servants empty their chamberpots for them? Holy snobbery, batman!
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
So they're good enough to protect you, but not good enough to be permitted to converse with you? Perhaps their intellect is deficient, somehow, in your mind? You disdain these people, yet expect them to preserve your rights and freedoms? Again, holy snobbery, batman!
In a very similar fashion, anyone who ENJOYS the killing of animals, and chooses to undertake it without any real need to do so, is not really my kinda person, ya know? I don't hang with people who LIKE TO KILL, who take PLEASURE IN DOING SO.
GET OFF YOUR HIGH MORAL HORSE THERE, dearie. Where did I say I LIKED killing animals? I don't, when it comes right down to it. Having respect for life is NOT incompatible with hunting. I simply like to know where my meat is coming from, and that no OTHER HUMANS OR ANIMALS will suffer for the meat I take. In addition to your dead cow, that factory farm has killed fish, insects, small animals and birds by the millions, and has destroyed the habitat of several species of deer, bunnies, whatever. Don't think your hands are clean in this just because someone else does the work.
I am lucky that I am able to indulge my carnivorous nature without having to "take responsibility" for it, and I know it. That doesnn't mean I have to like you because you LIKE "taking responsibility" for it, now does it?
Nobody's going to force you to like me. I won't return the sentiment even if you do. A modicum of respect or consideration might be in order, however.
You certainly are lucky, however. Not many humans in the history of the planet have been able to get away with being as selfish, shortsighted, inconsiderate and narrowminded as you. Those that did ended up going down in history as the worst examples of the selfish aristocracy. They were frequently beheaded. It's a pity we can't do that anymore.
You icky.
I am responsible. I know you have difficulties with that concept (see Abortion for Men thread) but I assure you, it's absolutely vital to the continuation of our species.
I also know how to use verbs in every sentence. You might want to brush up on that, too.
Eris:
So, you want someone else to do your dirty work for you. You don't care if the
animal in question has been force-fed antibiotics (contributing to the
"superbug" problem), you don't care if the factory farm from whence it came is
gushing tons of contaminated waste into the continent's water supply, you
don't care that the grain used to feed this animal was sprayed with pesticides
and other harmful chemicals, screwing up the land around the farm; you don't
care that the plastic, styrofoam, paper and whatever used to "neatly package"
your meat are in and of themselves harmful pollutants, and contributing yet
more to the destruction of our natural resources. In short, you don't care how
much the stuff you eat damages the rest of the planet, you just care that you
don't have to feel squeamish about it.
Uh, Eris? Evidently you didn't read this thread very carefully, and you certainly haven't visited the dogs and cats thread, because if you had you would certainly never have written this.
------------------
Stoidela
Stoidela, you are correct in that I hadn't visited the dogs & cats thread. I just read it, and am glad that you have the same concerns over factory farming that I do.
However, I'm curious as to where you get your meat from. If you don't know, exactly, how can you be sure that the meat you eat is NOT contributing to the problems I mentioned?
Eris:
I can't be absolutely sure. But I buy meat at a health food market that labels it, and even though I like it, I NEVER eat veal.
I'm not perfect, but I do care. Lots.
------------------
Stoidela
that last post of mine was omnidirectional
Stoidela
Member posted 06-06-99 06:02 PM
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
I, on the other hand, think it's a far better thing to prevent the "immediate threat" from happening. What? You don't recall the Missiles of October?
I am very grateful for the sacrifices men (and a few women) much more courageous than I have made in order to preserve freedom and the American way of life. I am PARTICULARLY grateful to the men who fought WWII, since I believe that was the definition of a just and righteous war. (And I actually THANK men who fought in WWII when I meet them.)
Number One: If it were a Just and Righteous War, then the United States would have entered that war at its outset. The fact remains, the United States stayed out of the war until attacked. Now, if you're saying that it was just and right to attack only Japan and leave Germany and Italy alone, then yes, you have a point, not a very good one but a point.
Number Two: "Military mind?" I've a military mind, my father has one, my brother has one, a good number of the posters on this board are on active duty with the military, retired from the military, or have served in the military.
Number Three: So do you ask those veterans who've served and lost limbs or sustained other injuries, "Hey, did you serve in World War Two or did you get that injury by being unjust and immoral?"
Number Four: Here's "what the military does:"
- Stands ever ready to prevent an attack by countries hostile to this nation and our way of life.
- Patrols the open seas to ensure all countries may have free and open access to conduct commerce without the hindrance from countries who would deny this.
- (& this one is from my Oath of Enlistment) "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What do you dislike about "what the military does?"
Freedom has a flavor that those who have been through boot camp can never know.
------------------
If I had a nickel for every time I was right, I'd be bankrupt.
I, on the other hand, think it's a far better thing to prevent the "immediate threat" from happening. What? You don't recall the Missiles of October?
Actually no. I was 4. But I take your point.
Number One: If it were a Just and Righteous War, then the United States would
have entered that war at its outset. The fact remains, the United States stayedout of the war until attacked. Now, if you're saying that it was just and right to attack only Japan and leave Germany and Italy alone, then yes, you have a point, not a very good one but a point.
Pardon? Because we didn't enter it immediately, it wasn't just? America is the ultimate arbiter of just and righteous war? (And though I do not have the details ready to give you, the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan's attack. We didn't to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)
But it was a just and righteous war because Hitler was, in case you hadn't heard, a seriously evil person, doing diabolically evil things to innocent people. It was right and just to stop him.
What do you dislike about "what the military does?"
Goes to war. Trains people to kill. Trains people not to think, but to obey.
I've already said that I respect the choice, and I even appreciate it, since I understand that it is necessary. That still doesn't mean I have to get chummy with the people who want to do it, does it?
------------------
Stoidela
Freedom has a flavor that those who have been through boot camp can never know.
Bullshit. Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry.
Thanks Eris! I was about to reply to the thread and you pretty much took the words out of my mouth. If you're ever in southeast NE, stop by for that venison (or free range chicken or non-antibiotic dosed beefsteak).
PR (off to go water the chickens)
Stoidela
Member posted 06-08-99 08:17 PM
quote:
---------------------------
I, on the other hand, think it's a far better thing to prevent the "immediate threat" from happening. What? You don't recall the Missiles of October?
---------------------------
Actually no. I was 4. But I take your point.
Too bad you still show no evidence of taking that point.
quote:
---------------------------
Number One: If it were a Just and Righteous War, then the United States would
have entered that war at its outset. The fact remains, the United States stayed out of the war until attacked. Now, if you're saying that it was just and right to attack only Japan and leave Germany and Italy alone, then yes, you have a point, not a very good one but a point.
---------------------------
Pardon? Because we didn't enter it immediately, it wasn't just?
It shows that just and righteousness really had nothing to do with this nation's entry into that war. Unless, of course, you consider it okay to compromise justice and righteousness. The fact remains that this country entered the war only after its territory was attacked. And, by all accounts of lawful action by nations at the time, that made it quite reasonable to wage war in return.
America is the ultimate arbiter of just and righteous war?
No, but it certainly appears that YOU think YOU are that arbiter.
(And though I do not have the details ready to give you, the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan's attack.
Shouldn't be too hard to dredge up a copy of that movie "Tora, Tora, Tora." Who's to say that by preventing the attack on Pearl Harbor that the attack on our forces in the Phiiippines would not have happened? Or that the Imperial Fleet would've just canceled the battle? Since you evidently get your facts only from popular movies, you might want to expand your sources.
We didn't to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)
My mistake; I didn't realize we were going to be debating from a fantasy world. Let me guess: your next posting will be about either the Illuminati or the New World Order.
But it was a just and righteous war because Hitler was, in case you hadn't heard, a seriously evil person, doing diabolically evil things to innocent people.
Oh, now you're using 20/20 hindsight here. On what date did the government, and the populace, of the United States come to the knowledge of what Hitler and his cohorts were doing? And on what date did the United States decide to enter the war? And what was the reason given for entering that war?
It was right and just to stop him.
Would that be a religious opinion or one based on the society in which you were raised.
I, personally, am quite grateful the United States entered the war and defeated Japan and her allies. Many of my cousins would have been killed most likely had they remained in the German military much longer back in the 1940s.
quote:
---------------------------
What do you dislike about "what the military does?"
---------------------------
Goes to war. Trains people to kill. Trains people not to think, but to obey.
Now here's an interesting concept; in the United States, Congress (group of civilians) declares war. The Congress has also passed what's known as the War Powers Act, which authorizes the President (another civilian) to wage war to some degree. That means, in the world of Logic--not your fantasy land--that the military, who act on the orders of the civilian establishment, should be trained in the art of war. That is, unless you think our mission is to stand up and die just for the fun of it.
Your assertion that folks in the military are trained not to think is beyond stupid. As I alluded above, you really shouldn't get your "facts" only from movies. If your assertion were true, then there would be no such charge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as "Disobeying a Lawful Order." You see, in the United States military, at least, it is incumbent on the individual to determine the legality and validity of an order. Ask some folks who know what they're talking about to explain why there was court-martial after the My-Lai incident.
I've already said that I respect the choice, and I even appreciate it, since I understand that it is necessary.
The question I have is, "Do you really respect that choice?" Evidently not--and the evidence is your own statements above.
That still doesn't mean I have to get chummy with the people who want to do it, does it?
What do you mean by "want to do it?" Do what? Defend the country? Sure, why not be polite and decent to them. As to folks who want to kill humans just for killing...well, the military does try to weed them out. They're dangerous. As I mentioned above, it's a far better thing to prevent the immediate threat from occurring.
There's really not that much difference between the military and the law enforcement agencies. Do you feel the same way about cops? What about the Coast Guard? After all, the Coast Guard is both a branch of the military and a law enforcement agency.
And you have yet to answer the question--do you ask veterans of World War Two if they fought in Europe or in the Pacific? I mean, if they were not fighting against Hitler, then they weren't fighting a just and righteous fight, were they? At least not according to you.
In the play Marat/Sade, the Marquis De Sade, makes the point that it is dangerous to dissociate the result of killing from the means. He argued that since the guillotine was allowing the aristocracy to be killed quickly and and relatively cleanly, that the people were becoming isolated from the cruelty involved in the act, and it was devolving into a form of entertainment. He said that if a person was to be executed, that person should be executed in the cruelest way imaginable, so the population would understand exactly it was they were doing. I think Eris's argument in favor of hunting is similar. If you really would be a vegetarian if you had to be involved in the actual killing of animals, then maybe you should be a vegetarian anyway.
In The Mikado, the positions of judge and executioner were rolled into one, because, as they said, there is no moral difference between the judge that passes a sentence and the executioner who carries it out. It is purely hypocritical to respect one, yet revile the other.
Monty:
No, but it certainly appears that YOU think YOU are that arbiter.
For the purposes of my own opinions, certainly.
Since you evidently get your facts only from popular movies, you might want to expand your sources.
Never seen it, have no interest. I get my facts from:
Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Utne Reader, Mother Jones, American History Mag, The Nation, LA Times, NY Times, Brill's Content, Business Week, Smart Money, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Smithsonian, The New Yorker, PBS, The Discovery, History, and Learning channels, Animal Planet, 60 Minutes, CNN, Wired, Wired News, CNET news, and anywhere from 2 to 6 non-fiction books monthly, ranging from financial advice to technical manuals, spirtuality and gossip. I also read alot of light entertainment periodicals. Plus a whole bunch of other sources that are not regular. These are my regular sources.
I have alot of time on my hands, and one of my favorite ways to spend it is to take in information. Lots and lots of information. The huge variety of input sources explains why I can rarely state off the top of my head where I read or learned something. It also explains why I have way too much information in my head, much of it conflicting. But it is a source of great pleasure to me to keep taking it in and sorting it out.
I claim no expertise on WWII, and my comment about it being a just and righteous war was my opinion, (casually remarked upon) and remains so. Why do you have a problem with that?
Sure, why not be polite and decent to them.
Jesus, people! I am not HOSTILE to people in the military! They just aren't my best friends, ok? I don't hang out with golf freaks, either - we have nothing in common! Chill!
------------------
Stoidela
pldennison -
Ummmm... you might want to read what I posted one more time.
My words:
Freedom has a flavor that those who have been through boot camp can never know.
Yours:
Bullshit. Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry.
Usually, people who call bullshit on me are disagreeing with what I said.
------------------
If I had a nickel for every time I was right, I'd be bankrupt.
No, Stoidela; you have said, essentially:
- Those of us in the military are immoral.
- Those of us in the military are unjust.
- Those of us in the military do not think.
You've also made a ridiculous assumption/declaration as to why the United States entered one particular war. Now, since that war happens to be you "definition of a just and righteous war," I can see why you want to paint the history with your rose-coloured glasses.
However, the facts are still known and the facts of history prove you know not of what you speak.
And yet, when queried on this, you now backpedal.
The problem I have is that you did not present it as an opinion. You stated, flatly, that our government allowed the murder of many people in Hawaii just to create some kind of patriotic frenzy.
This will probably get me censored, but I must ask: "Do you really believe this bullshit you've spouted?"
Monty;
No, Stoidela; you have said, essentially:
- Those of us in the military are immoral.
I did? Where?
- Those of us in the military are unjust.
I did? Where?
- Those of us in the military do not think.
I did? Where?
Actually, I did not say these things. You jumped to the general conclusions from what I actually DID say.
Well, I guess my only defense will be to find and quote my sources.
[quote] This will probably get me censored, but I must ask: "Do you really believe this bullshit you've spouted?"
Well, I spout alot of bullshit, shit, not-so-bullshit, horseshit, and more. Which do you refer to particularly? Generally speaking, though, I don't say things I don't believe in. Although often, as we've seen here, people go on to interpret, add, and redefine what I've said to mean or include things I never said. SO the accurate answer to your question would be: "Yes, I believe what *I* say. I dont' necessarily believe what others CLAIM I've said."
------------------
Stoidela
Stoi:
No, illogical one, you stated above that the only war you agreed that should have been fought was World War Two. So, you see, the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those other wars (such as the one which created this nation) were not just and righteous, and thus immoral. That would make those of us who have served in combat in those other wars immoral by your so called standards.
You also stated that the military trains people not to think. So the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those of us in the military do not think. I submit it is you who has failed to practice that fine art (thinking).
Oh, and good luck on finding a credible source for your ridiculous assumption that the United States government allowed a mass murder in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. You may have read that statement in one of those publications you mentioned above; however, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it was in an interview with an unreliable source.
And I'm not claiming that you've said what you didn't say--I quoted you.
Nice of you to admit that you spout bullshit. How about retracting it?
Oh, you still haven't answered the question--what do you ask those veterans of World War Two before you deem they're worthy of your thanks and respect? What answer must they give to you? QUIT EVADING THE QUESTION!
Actually, Stoidella; I'll be happy to make this easier for you. Just answer this question:
What will your response be if the WWII veteran answered, "I herded American citizens who were not charged with any crime into a prison camp without trial and guarded them for the duration?"
As I said elsewhere on this board, that "moral highground" was lost when that event happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pldennison -
Ummmm... you might want to read what I posted one more time.
My words:
Freedom has a flavor that those who have been through boot camp can never know.
Yours:
Bullshit. Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry.
Usually, people who call bullshit on me are disagreeing with what I said.
Uh . . .what? Did you think I was agreeing with you? Do I need to somehow state it more explicitly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pldennison -
Ummmm... you might want to read what I posted one more time.
My words:
Freedom has a flavor that those who have been through boot camp can never know.
Yours:
Bullshit. Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry.
Usually, people who call bullshit on me are disagreeing with what I said.
Whoops . . . for whatever reason, I read that as " . . .that those who have not been through boot camp can never know." Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy on my part.
Monty, Monty, Monty....sigh.
Ya know, if you wanna attack me on unassailable fact, fine.
You wanna attack my opinions for what they are, great.
You wanna bust me for things I've actually said, go for it.
You wanna pick apart my posts, sentence by sentence? Fab - just make sure you keep them in context.
But it's incredibly tiresome to have a discussion/debate/argument with someone who invents things to argue with. Especially since it is so easy to go back and see exactly what I said, and what the context was.
So allow me to lead you back to reality....
you stated above that the only war you agreed that should have been fought was World War Two
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, I'm so sorry, Monty! But with assertions like that you won't be going on to our bonus round!
Here's the real answer:
I am very grateful for the sacrifices men (and a few women) much more courageous than I have made in order to preserve freedom and the American way of life. I am PARTICULARLY grateful to the men who fought WWII, since I believe that was the definition of a just and righteous war.
Note the initial generalization, followed by the word "particularly", not "exclusively", not "singularly", not "only". It means only what it plainly seems to mean: "especially".
Note also the the words: "the definition of", which again, does not mean "the only definition of" the only instance of" "the single occurance" or anything of the kind. It is merely held up as a particularly (see definition above) good example.
These are the kinds of details that can trip you up and keep you from winning the grand prize! Let's see how you did on the next question:
So, you see, the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those other wars (such as the one which created this nation)
were not just and righteous, and thus immoral. That would make those of us who have served in combat in those other wars immoral by your so called standards.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh no! Too bad... but as you can see, if your starting assertion is false, the conclusions which follow will ALSO be false! Double whammy! That's really gonna hurt in the final scoring!
Let's move on:
You also stated that the military trains people not to think.
Ding Ding Ding! Nice recovery, Monty! However, we can only give you half points on this one, since it is a matter of some interpretation. Let's look at the original statement:
Trains people not to think, but to obey.
The syntax is correct, buttricky: The meaning of the statement is not "The military trains people to not think" but this: "The military does not train people to think, it trains them to obey". Which, stated differently again, means that the military does not do training of people's thinking either way. Instead, it trains people to obey orders. Which, by implication, means not thinking for yourself, or at least, you can think all you want, but when it comes to acting, you act only on orders. Which is why you get half points for the round.
Next:
Oh, and good luck on finding a credible source for your ridiculous assumption that the United States government allowed a mass murder in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. You may have read that statement in one of those publications you mentioned above; however, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it was in an interview with an unreliable source.
This is an incomplete, so we're throwing it out of competition. First of all, because you havent' cited your sources, and secondly, because you are already ramping up to discredit any source I might cite. And on what authority would you be doing that? Are you the final decision on what authority is credible? If so, it makes it kinda hard to debate anything, doesn't it?
And I'm not claiming that you've said what you didn't say--I quoted you.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz We've demonstrated that this is not the case. You have paraphrased and interpreted. Zero points again!
Nice of you to admit that you spout bullshit. How about retracting it?
Retract what?
Oh, you still haven't answered the question--what do you ask those veterans of World War Two before you deem they're worthy of your thanks and respect? What answer must they give to you? QUIT EVADING THE QUESTION!
Monty! It's only a game - please try to calm down or you may be disqualified.
As we've seen, this question sprang from a false assumption, so it doesn't really call for an answer.
What will your response be if the WWII veteran answered, "I herded American citizens who were not charged with any crime into a prison camp without trial and guarded them for the duration?"
Well, despite the fact that my father-in-law was born in a camp, I wouldn't hold it against anyone who was involved, except the bigoted idiots at the top that came up with the policy. As we've seen, the military trains its people to obey, not follow their own code of morality. To fail to obey would have likely resulted in court-martial.
So what would I actually say? "Wow, what a bummer that you had such shitty duty! Must have made you feel kinda bad, huh? I bet you would rather have been shooting real Japs in the Pacific than guarding your fellow Americans. My sympathies."
Let's see, your final score appears to be half a point. Ouch. But thanks for playing!
------------------
Stoidela
Monty, Monty, Monty....sigh.
Ya know, if you wanna attack me on unassailable fact, fine.
You wanna attack my opinions for what they are, great.
You wanna bust me for things I've actually said, go for it.
You wanna pick apart my posts, sentence by sentence? Fab - just make sure you keep them in context.
But it's incredibly tiresome to have a discussion/debate/argument with someone who invents things to argue with. Especially since it is so easy to go back and see exactly what I said, and what the context was.
So allow me to lead you back to reality....
you stated above that the only war you agreed that should have been fought was World War Two
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, I'm so sorry, Monty! But with assertions like that you won't be going on to our bonus round!
Here's the real answer:
I am very grateful for the sacrifices men (and a few women) much more courageous than I have made in order to preserve freedom and the American way of life. I am PARTICULARLY grateful to the men who fought WWII, since I believe that was the definition of a just and righteous war.
Note the initial generalization, followed by the word "particularly", not "exclusively", not "singularly", not "only". It means only what it plainly seems to mean: "especially".
Note also the the words: "the definition of", which again, does not mean "the only definition of" the only instance of" "the single occurance" or anything of the kind. It is merely held up as a particularly (see definition above) good example.
These are the kinds of details that can trip you up and keep you from winning the grand prize! Let's see how you did on the next question:
So, you see, the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those other wars (such as the one which created this nation)
were not just and righteous, and thus immoral. That would make those of us who have served in combat in those other wars immoral by your so called standards.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh no! Too bad... but as you can see, if your starting assertion is false, the conclusions which follow will ALSO be false! Double whammy! That's really gonna hurt in the final scoring!
Let's move on:
You also stated that the military trains people not to think.
Ding Ding Ding! Nice recovery, Monty! However, we can only give you half points on this one, since it is a matter of some interpretation. Let's look at the original statement:
Trains people not to think, but to obey.
The syntax is correct, buttricky: The meaning of the statement is not "The military trains people to not think" but this: "The military does not train people to think, it trains them to obey". Which, stated differently again, means that the military does not do training of people's thinking either way. Instead, it trains people to obey orders. Which, by implication, means not thinking for yourself, or at least, you can think all you want, but when it comes to acting, you act only on orders. Which is why you get half points for the round.
Next:
Oh, and good luck on finding a credible source for your ridiculous assumption that the United States government allowed a mass murder in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. You may have read that statement in one of those publications you mentioned above; however, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that it was in an interview with an unreliable source.
This is an incomplete, so we're throwing it out of competition. First of all, because you havent' cited your sources, and secondly, because you are already ramping up to discredit any source I might cite. And on what authority would you be doing that? Are you the final decision on what authority is credible? If so, it makes it kinda hard to debate anything, doesn't it?
And I'm not claiming that you've said what you didn't say--I quoted you.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz We've demonstrated that this is not the case. You have paraphrased and interpreted. Zero points again!
Nice of you to admit that you spout bullshit. How about retracting it?
Retract what?
Oh, you still haven't answered the question--what do you ask those veterans of World War Two before you deem they're worthy of your thanks and respect? What answer must they give to you? QUIT EVADING THE QUESTION!
Monty! It's only a game - please try to calm down or you may be disqualified.
As we've seen, this question sprang from a false assumption, so it doesn't really call for an answer.
What will your response be if the WWII veteran answered, "I herded American citizens who were not charged with any crime into a prison camp without trial and guarded them for the duration?"
Well, despite the fact that my father-in-law was born in a camp, I wouldn't hold it against anyone who was involved, except the bigoted idiots at the top that came up with the policy. As we've seen, the military trains its people to obey, not follow their own code of morality. To fail to obey would have likely resulted in court-martial.
So what would I actually say? "Wow, what a bummer that you had such shitty duty! Must have made you feel kinda bad, huh? I bet you would rather have been shooting real Japs in the Pacific than guarding your fellow Americans. My sympathies."
Let's see, your final score appears to be half a point. Ouch. But thanks for playing!
------------------
Stoidela
pldennison:
You admitted:
"Whoops . . . for whatever reason, I read that as " . . .that those who have not been through boot camp can never know." Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy on my part."
Great! Now I can agree with you when you stated:
"Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry."
I'd feel better about our alliance if you paid more attention to detail ;)
Even with a mere half point, I'm way ahead of you in the Reality Arena, Stoiee. Here's exactly what you said (scroll up if you don't believe me):
Goes to war. Trains people to kill. Trains people not to think, but to obey.
Here's the way folks with an understanding of both English and Logic glean from that remark before the parentheses and my comments on that within the parentheses):
1) You don't like folks going to war. Yet you've stated there's a war you liked. Hmmm...so you'd rather have folks with no training whatsoever just up and get killed? You also indicated that we're not good enough for you but we're good enough to do your killing. That's one hell of a moral stance, isn't it?)
2) You dislike folks learning how to kill. (Too bad. As I said just above, you seem to think we're good enough to do your killing for you. Why shouldn't I be trained how to kill to preserve both my life and the lives of my fellows?)
3) You seem to think that obeying and thinking are mutually exclusive. (I, on the other hand, have proven on this board and the previous incarnation of the SDMB that those of us in the United States military are not only expected to think but are punished by a code of law passed by CONGRESS and signed by the PRESIDENT if we obey unlawful and immoral orders. Of course that law was passed in the 1960s so don't bring it up in a discussion of the WW2 camps.)
"Retract what?" you ask? Why, the bullshit you've posted here, of course. You may have noticed I'm not the only one who's challenged you here. At least you attempted to answer the question. And with one single word in that "answer," you showed the world what kind of racist bigot you are. Now that you've shown that, the presumption arises that you called the 2nd World War a just and righteous war because it was waged, in part, against a country which is mostly of one race.
To the rest of the lurkers and posters on this board: I'm taking bets as to how long before Stoidela posts "some of my best friends..."
Monty:
What obvious to anyone with any kind of understanding is that you are deeply offended by the fact that I feel no kinship with people who choose the military for a career or a job. You are determined to make me wrong because of my own personal feelings, which I am certainly entitled to have. But you case is no stronger now than when you first made it. Feel free to be offended.. But stick to being offended for what is real, not what you invent.
You also indicated that we're not good enough for you but we're good enough to do your killing. That's one hell of a moral stance, isn't it?
Again, Monty, you are making things up as you go along.
Let's start with what I said at the very beginning
I have no objection to killing animals for food. Obviously, since I happily pay others to do it on my behalf. And I am pleased that others are willing to do it for me, in a way not dissimilar to my gratitude that others are willing to join the military and protect me.
3) However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
Now, anyone who understands both English and logic, and who also has no personal investment in being offended by what I'm saying, understands that I am drawing a comparison here. And what I'm saying is this:
Butchering animals for food and butchering people for war are both distasteful jobs. Jobs that I (as stated above, very clearly) appreciate having done for me, so that I do not have to do it for myself. Why? Because I find both things disturbing, distasteful, and disgusting. I could never do either of them. I also clearly state that I know I am benefitting from other people's willingness to do these things. I also clearly state that I am grateful for it.
Now, because I find these things foreign, disturbing and virtually impossible to do myself, I don't understand or relate to people who DO do them, of their own volition. I don't feel I have common ground with such people.
Therefore, I do not choose to have these people in my circle of friends.
I do not say here, (nor do I mean, much as you want me to) or in any other post:
I hate them
They are beneath me.
They are not good enough.
I am better than they are.
Now, perhaps in your world, everyone is divided up into people who are "as good as me" and "Better than me" "worse than me", and that's it. And anyone who fits into these categories is either your friend, your dream, or your doormat. Great. That's your way of running your life. It's not mine.
In my world view, for the purposes of personal relationships, people are "similar to me" and "different from me" and "extremely different from me" . They are also many other things, but these are pertinent to the discussion. My true friends are exclusively from category one and two. Military people fall into category three.
You apparantly do two things I don't do:
1) Compare everyone you meet to yourself to determine who is better or worse
and interestingly,
2) are willing to take as your friend anyone who is judged "worthy".
I'm a little pickier than that. I don't hang out with just anybody. I need to relate to people I'm going to spend my time with.
And with one single word in that "answer," you showed the world what kind of racist bigot you are. Now that you've shown that, the presumption arises that you called the 2nd World War a just and righteous war because it was waged, in part, against a country which is mostly of one race. To the rest of the lurkers and posters on this board: I'm taking bets as to how long before Stoidela posts "some of my best friends..."
No, not "some" of my best friends, Monty, my very best friend, my husband. Which, if you'd bothered to read carefully, you would have realized.
Well, despite the fact that my father-in-law was born in a camp,
I guess my racism doesn't extend to the man I sleep with, live with and will be spending the rest of my life with.
And with that single remark, you have revealed exactly how cursory and shallow your reading is, and exactly why you keep going into reaction without really considering what it is you are reacting to.
So, unless and until you choose to attack me for things I have actually said and positions I have actually taken, I am not going to keep taking time to correct you - especially when you persist in deciding you know what I "meant". Take it at face value and fight with that, or don't bother me.
------------------
Stoidela
Whew!!! Well, I'm glad that's all over with. Can we return to the topic, folks? I get a little uncomfortable when I see personal attacks with the content of recent posts on this thread. I understand this is the BBQ Pit, but some of the stuff here is "over the top". I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, due to the controversial topic, but I have this rather naive idea that we should be able to talk rationally about something without being overly confrontational. Small doses of ire do have a place in debate, but long, drawn-out rants do little to advance the discussion. 'Nuff said.....I await the wrath of all concerned.
No, not "some" of my best friends, Monty, my very best friend, my husband. Which, if you'd bothered to read carefully, you would have realized.
Does he know about your fiancé?
FWIIW - If the misquoting of your words bother you so much, you may want to choose your words a bit more careful next time. Monty may not have quoted you exact, but you sure came across the way he interpreted.
------------------
>^,,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Radar:
No prob!
Machine guns suck.
;)
S
------------------
Stoidela
Diane:
Thanks; however, I'm not all that concerned anyone really believes Stoi's statements. I rank her latest aspersions right down there with her assertions that the US government was an accomplice to mass murder in 1941 and that we in the military are out to butcher people as a way of life.
BTW, I bet she's a real riot at family gatherings, what with the bandying about of racial slurs.
Mayb my mistake was expecting a logical response from an illogical person.
Stoidela:
I'm more than willing to concede that you don't feel that you are a better person than people in the military; that was just an unfortunate choice of words that were easy for anyone else to misconstrue.
However, your next group of statements contains this gem, concerning what the military does:
"Goes to war. Trains people to kill. Trains people not to think, but to obey."
Once again you have left yourself wide open to flames.
Yes, the military goes to war. As a last resort, yes. If you think that those of us down at the sharp end are some kind of homocidal psychos with sick grins and a hard-on for human misery, then you're wrong; in fact, the military does a damned fine job at weeding those types out and seeing them off.
Yes, it trains people to kill. On the general assumption that wars are won by detroying your enemy's ability to make war and/or their will to wage war. To do so, you have to kill. This has been true since the first primitive men defended their waterholes from other tribes; you are not going to change two million years of evolution with a half a century of "enlightened" social thought.
BTW, the military also trains people how to cook, clean, organize, heal (never heard of medics or corpsman? or even nurses and doctors?) fly, drive, auto mechanics, jet mechanics, demolitions, hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, plumbing, carpentry, electrical wiring, communications, and a whole host of other jobs abd skills that have routine civillian applications.
Also: our military is just as involved in and as good at humanitarian relief as it is in waging war. It comes from the logistical organization necessary to move a combat-ready force any where in the world on twenty-four hours notice with the necessary materials and firepower to effectively wage war.
And your last one's a truly disingenuous piece of work: !!NO!! The military does NOT train you NOT to think; au contraire, you silly little granola-munching fruitcake.
The best advice I ever got in the military was along the lines of "Think about what you are doing", "Put your brain in gear before you run your mouth" (I personally think you could benefit from this), and "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performane" Gee, the 5P's as we called 'em; wouldn't "prior planning" indicate some general ability to think?
The only thing even close to remotely true about the last statement is that, at fifth and last, when the shit hits the fan, and you're given a lawfull order to carry out, you DO IT! Quibble, bitch, moan and complain about it later, after your mission is complete.
If you feel that the order is unlawfull and don't obey, then you are going to get your ass court-martialed; if found guilty, your're in deeeeep shit.
If found not guilty, you are exonerated, restored to active duty with no loss of rank or pay, and the person that gave you the illegal order in the first place takes over the hot seat from you.
Why don't you join the military and know of which you speak from first hand experience, as opposed to getting your info about it second-hand from Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Utne Reader, Mother Jones, American History Mag, The Nation, LA Times, NY Times, Brill's Content, Business Week, Smart Money, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Smithsonian, The New Yorker, PBS, The Discovery, History, and Learning channels, Animal Planet, 60 Minutes, CNN, Wired, Wired News, CNET news, and anywhere from 2 to 6 non-fiction books monthly, ranging from financial advice to technical manuals, spirtuality and gossip.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
Here's some spiritual advice for you:
"My driver once said to me 'Sarge, I got a case of the Ass!'. I told him 'Don't sweat the small shit, Bubba. You had the ass before you had teeth.'"
For those who may be interested....
Here's a tantalizing tidbit. Retrieved from Purdue University website, it appears for all the world to be an excerpt from a declassified Top Secret memorandum of hearings conducted back in 1944 on Pearl Harbor.
Check it out:
[1] 1. General. Information from informers and other means as to the
activities of our potential enemy and their intentions in the
negotiations between the United States and Japan was in possession of
the State, War and Navy Departments in November and December of 1941.
Such agencies had a reasonably complete disclosure of the Japanese plans
and intentions, and were in a position to know what were the Japanese
potential moves that were scheduled by them against the United States.
Therefore, Washington was in possession of essential facts as to the
enemy's intentions.
(Well fancy that!)
This information showed clearly that war was inevitable and late in
November absolutely imminent. It clearly demonstrated the necessity for
resorting to every trading act possible to defer the ultimate day of
breach of relations to give the Army and Navy time to prepare for the
eventualities of war.
The messages actually sent to Hawaii by either the Army or Navy gave
only a small fraction on this information. No direction was given the
Hawaiian Department based upon this information except the "Do-Don't"
message of November 27, 1941. It would have been possible to have sent
safely information, ample for the purpose of orienting the commanders in
Hawaii, or positive directives could have been formulated to put the
Department on Alert Number 3.
This was not done.
Under the circumstances, where information has a vital bearing upon
actions to be taken by field commanders and this information cannot be
disclosed by the War Department to its field commanders, it is incumbent
upon the War Department the [2] to assume the responsibility for
specific directions to the theater commanders. This is an exception to
the admirable policy of the War Department of decentralized and complete
responsibility upon the competent field commanders.
Short got neither form of assistance from the War Department. The
disaster of Pearl Harbor would have been eliminated to the extent that
its defenses were available on December 7 if alerted in time. The
difference between alerting those defenses in time by a directive from
the War Department based upon this information and the failure to alert
them is a difference for which the War Department is responsible, wholly
aside from Short's responsibility in not himself having selected the
right alert.
America knwing all about the Japanese attack and doing nothing to prevent the casualties? Whoda thunk it!
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Extank:
I'm more than willing to concede that you don't feel that you are a better person than people in the military; that was just an unfortunate choice of words that were easy for anyone else to misconstrue.
THANK YOU!
If you think that those of us down at the sharp end are some kind of homocidal psychos with sick grins and a hard-on for human misery, then you're wrong;
Okay. I'll buy that for a dollar. Though I think you must agree that to choose the military one's attitude towards the dirty details of war are probably a little more relaxed than mine, yes?
BTW, the military also trains people how to cook, clean, organize, heal (never heard of medics or corpsman? or even nurses and doctors?) fly, drive, auto mechanics, jet mechanics, demolitions, hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, plumbing, carpentry, electrical wiring, communications, and a whole host of other jobs abd skills that have routine civillian applications.
Also our military is just as involved in and as good at humanitarian relief as it is in waging war. It comes from the logistical organization necessary to move a combat-ready force any where in the world on twenty-four hours notice with the necessary materials and firepower to effectively wage war
Excellent points, sir! And I applaud your making them! Rather than simply screaming at me for my feelings, you have done the clever, classy and cool thing: countered my negatives with the positives, which I confess I hadn't been thinking of.
!!NO!! The military does NOT train you NOT to think;
I believe I covered this.
you silly little granola-munching fruitcake.
Awww, Ex! Here you had to go and disappoint me by descending the general level around here. And you were doing so well!
Why don't you join the military and know of which you speak from first hand experience,
I'd last about 10 seconds. Remember Private Benjamin? I TOTALLY relate...at least until she get her shit together. I couldn't BELIEVE she didn't run home with her parents! (Well, not really...her parents were so condescending it was nauseating. Better the Army, indeed!)
In fact, it struck me last night how funny it is that so many leapt to the conclusion that I thought myself "better" than military types, given that I said somewhere early on that "others, more courageous than me" - thereby indicating at least one admirable characteristic, courage, that military people have boatloads more of than me. So it would seem that if anything, I was saying they were better than me, wouldn't it? At least in one regard.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. (And gosh, please...space your paragraphs!)
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
ExTank:Yes, it trains people to kill. On the general assumption that wars are won by detroying
your enemy's ability to make war and/or their will to wage war. To do so, you have to kill.
This has been true since the first primitive men defended their waterholes from other
tribes;
Yeah, but some of them had the help of that giant black monolith. And then they just spent their time killing all those tapirs or boars or whatever.
"Appears to be," huh? As I said above, "Good luck on finding a credible source."
Ah, Monty, you are a source of endless amusement...NOW you decide to get literal.
It IS, ya yutz.
You wanna read all hundred-some pages?
ftp://ftp.purdue.edu/pub/Liberal-Arts/History/pha/pearl.harbor/
Looks like my suspicion regarding your assessment of credible sources proved true.
If in your book the Congress of the United States does not qualify as a credible source for facts regarding the conduct and knowledge of the United States , well, then...(Shrugs hopelessly and exits)
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
You're the one who claims a web page from Purdue University is the Congress of the United States of America and I'm the yutz?
Well, Yeah, Monty. Purdue is providing a transcript...are you suggesting they made it up?
So Monty...what happens if you admit you are in error? Your skin falls off? Your testicles shrivel up and cease to function? You develop some incurable disease? It must be something like that to make it so utterly impossible for you to say you didn't know something.
Lemme clue ya: if you are never willing to admit you didn't know something, you'll never really know anything.
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Stoi, I threw that pointed jab in there to get your attention.
It has come to my attention that there are people on this board that completely disregard, or at best selectively disregard, any post by anyone with a dissenting opinion.
Note the word "opinion", and not "fact".
I haven't had the chance to look up your cite; but considering that it came from Purdue's Liberal Arts History Dept., I would venture a guess that its information might be a little.....skewed?
Unless they cite the actual documents and their general availability to the internet browsing public, your cite might (not "does", though :)) have the weight of opinion, not fact.
But, on the other hand, thanks for having the conviction to actually look up a cite and provide it for us; it shows the beginning of the ability to emotionally divest oneself from their position and approach it from a logical, debateable angle.
Remember, your words are your sole representative on this board; choose them with care.
Stoi, you did bring up one good point in responding to my post.
Those of us in the trenches do tend to try to develop a protective disassociation from our enemy. The classic "them and "us" mentality. Normal mentally well-adjusted people do not lightly take another person's life; if anyone doubt's that, go to your local Police Dept. and talk to a Dept. Psychologist about how cops react after taking a person's life, even when deadly force was justified.
Fighter pilots and Tankers and like used to think that we were somewhat more fortunate than an Infantryman, in that we are destroying the enemy's machines, and that we didn't have to look upon the human results of our handiwork. We replaced a human enemy with their "machine", and thereby de-humanized our human adversaries.
This false armor was shattered in Desert Storm; not only did we see the human results of war, first hand and in technicolor with surround sound that'd make George Lucas sick with envy, but worse, we smelled it as well.
CNN couldn't even begin to touch what we saw and experienced.
War is a terrible necessity of the human condition; often brought about by leaders like Slobodan Milosivek, who are too far removed from the reality they invoke through aggressive, expansionist nationalistic policies.
Or in the case of people like Saddam Hussein, violent thugs who don't bat an eye at sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people to achieve personal power and glory.
Someone, sooner or later, has to stand up to them. These people are just grown up versions of schoolyard bullies, applied to a national scale.
History has decided, for now at least, that it will be us.
So to try and bring us back around to the OP, yes the Machinegun is a strictly military weapon, and always has been.
It has one purpose: to "spew hot lead" at an alarming rate and kill the enemy faster than the enemy can replace those casualties, thereby destroying both the enemy's ability and will to wage war.
But the machinegun has always been an "implement of war"; and not a weapon that would have been considered by our Founding Fathers, had it been around, the type of firearm that "the people" could "keep and bear".
This is why I reject the notion that the Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be abolished as a social anachronism; we are more than capable, at all levels of society and government, of looking realistically at new types of firearms and ballistic technology, and arriving at informed and reasonable gun-control laws that allow people to keep and bear without jeopardizing public safety or compromising the Second Amendment
The BATF strictly regulates all fully automatic weapons, from sub-machimeguns like the Uzi through assault rifles like the M-16 family of weapons, with very stiff penalties for unlawfull possession, transfer, transportation, modification and import/export.
It costs an arm and a leg to obtain the ClassIII license to own, sell, and ship full-auto weponry, after rigorous and lengthy background checks.
Then the BATF regularly drops in, often unannounced, to inventory and check up on the licensed owners. That's a lot of governmental oversight. There are very, very few individuals in America with ClassIII licenses for fully-automatic weaponry.
And despite misinformation to the contrary, The NRA believes that this is rightly so; that there is no Constitutional infringement in it being so.
But the semi-auto variants, and even the 5- or 10-shot civillian rifles shooting similar caliber bullets are not machineguns by the classifications of Law, precedent or practice.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"And that's The Straight Dope."
ExTank:
Stoi, I threw that pointed jab in there to get your attention.
That's cool...but for future reference, jabs and snipes are a a great way to lose my attention. I like to debate, not trash people and be trashed. (not that I'm saying you trashed me, but you know what I'm referring to.)
I haven't had the chance to look up your cite; but considering that it came from Purdue's Liberal Arts History Dept., I would venture a guess that its information might be a little.....skewed? Unless they cite the actual documents and their general availability to the internet browsing public, your cite might (not "does", though ) have the weight of opinion, not fact.
They aren't just citing the actual documents, the complete documents are right there, in gray and black, beginning to end. My quote was straight from something called the Roberts Commission.
The header from the page reads as follows:
PEARL HARBOR ATTACK
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION
OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Con. Res. 27
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL
HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, AND
EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
RELATING THERETO
PART 39
REPORTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF ROBERTS
COMMISSION, ARMY PEARL HARBOR BOARD, NAVY
COURT OF INQUIRY, AND HEWITT INQUIRY, WITH
ENDORSEMENTS
Printed for the use of the
Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1946
Looks like fact to me!
In my search for a cite, I was amused to see that the net is jam-packed with references to this, most of them web pages devoted to calling FDR a traitor and a maniac.
Which points to why, if the info WERE skewed, it would likely be skewed in the OPPOSITE direction, since FDR, the definitive bleeding-heart president, is portrayed as the bad guy in this mess.
Don't confuse the term "Liberal Arts" with liberal politics. LA refers to things like English and History as opposed to Fine Arts like art and music.
Remember, your words are your sole representative on this board; choose them with care.
Being the fan of words that I am, it is my habit to be careful with them. (Usually) Which is not to say that I care to shy away from strong positions that may piss people off, only that I make sure to say what I mean and mean what I say.
Normal mentally well-adjusted people do not lightly take another person's life; if anyone doubt's that, go to your local Police Dept. and talk to a Dept. Psychologist about how cops react after taking a person's life, even when deadly force was justified.
I dont' doubt it for a moment! Which is my problem with the military. Not the US Military, EVERYBODYS. War is sick, twisted, cruel, nightmarish. Asking young men (any young men, from any country) to go and blow apart other young men for political reasons is, to my girly mind, just flat out perverse. I fully recognize that if very bad people are asking their young men to do it, we have no choice but to ask ours. But the whole thing just makes me crazy. War blows.
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Which is why we have internatinal laws such as The Geneva-Hague Convention, to try an minimize the cruelty and depravity of war and its leaders.
If you think War blows now, read up a bit on Military History and see how it used to be conducted (and still is, to some extent, despite international law):
mass executions of prisoners, looting and burning of cities, raping, torturing and mass executions of civillian non-combatants, and such stuff.
Sounds like Hussein, Khomeini and Milosivek, eh?
I guess, in the modern context (WWII and forward), most wars/conflicts/actions have at their foundation what some believe to be a moral imperitive.
Whether they are right are not is usually decided in hindsight, which we all know to be the only perfect science.
<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
"History is a harsh teacher, and an even harsher critic."
Stoidela
Member posted 06-08-99 08:17 PM (however, the bolding is mine)
Pardon? Because we didn't enter it immediately, it wasn't just? America is the ultimate arbiter of just and righteous war? (And though I do not have the details ready to give you, the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan's attack. We didn't to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)
Now, Stoidela; do you deny that you have here accused the government of the United States as an accomplice to a mass murder and that you also stated a motive for that murder?
And it's truly amusing that you're equating Japan's attack as part of Hitler's serious evil.
This is just a portion of the bullshit you've posted in this thread. Retract it or admit you're just posting bullshit.
Monty, you slay me! Your mad scramble to salvage something out of your ignorance is truly breathtaking.
Much as you wish it, I won't be retracting something that I have provided such yummy backup for. The Army itself accepted the facts 53 years ago, and you won't accept them even now.
As to the motive, I could post material backing all that up as well, but what's the point? You've demonstrated pretty forcefull that I could introduce you to FDR's ghost and have him tell you himself and you wouldn't accept it. (Besides which, now that we know the facts, what motive would *you* assume there was? FDR wanted us in the war, and had been doing everything in his power to make it happen for 2 years prior to PH.)
And it's truly amusing that you're equating Japan's attack as part of Hitler's serious evil.
Well, as usual, Monty, I did not do that. You are doing it.
But as long as you are doing it, the facts (they keep biting you on the ass, dont' they, Monty? Them facts are a real bitch!) speak for themselves.
Ever heard of the Axis alliance formed by the Tripartite Pact? Have a looksee:
The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace
that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate
with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein
it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual
prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned.
Furthermore, it is the desire of the three governments to extend co-operation to such nations in other
spheres of the world as may be inclined to put forth endeavours along lines similar to their own, in order
that their ultimate aspirations for world peace may thus be realized.
Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in
Europe.
ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in
greater East Asia.
ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to
assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers
is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
Now the exact equation you gave was yours, not mine. I never made such an equation. But as far as Japan being part of Hitler's evil? You HAVE heard about WWII being a war between the Allies and the Axis powers, have you not??
Now, I'm really done with being your history teacher, ok? I would be perfectly happy if you showed any evidence of wanting to learn, but you don't. You want to be right, and you aren't.
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Okay, Teach; let's see if I have this right:
(1) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States allowed the mass murder of American citizens and the near destruction of the Pacific Fleet.
(2) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States did not have all the facts as to the horrors Hitler and his cohorts were perpetrating on their own people.
(3) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States, instead of using the "real reason" for getting involved in the war, just went ahead and allowed a mass murder, basically because it would get folks fired up in favour of the government.
(4) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States imprisoned American citizens (whom you so nicelely referred to with a racial slur most thinking people this day and age don't use) with no charge, no trial, and no regard for the document which directs that government.
(5) You're not interested in historical portrayals of events but use comical fiction (yes, I recall Private Benjamin) as a source for what military life is.
Does that about sum it up? You can't be done doing something until you've begun it.
And FYI, I perused documents concerning the war on the National Archives page. But as that's part of the government, I doubt seriously you'll believe a word of it.
You know, Monty, you keeping hacking away at that hole you're in and you're going to find yourself in China.
I can't even imagine what it is at this point you are hoping to accomplish.
So allow ME to sum it up for you, and then we are done:
Anyone interested (at this point I can't imagine who that might be) can see for themselves exactly what I've said, since you've forced me to say it 8 different ways so far. I've backed up my assertions of fact with pretty excellent proof which you have in no minuscule way even attempted to refute. And it's all right here, Monty, where anyone can read it.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you exactly how and when (egregiously and constantly, as it happens) you have misstated and distorted my actual words and my meaning, in ever more desperate attempts to make yourself look smart, and in the course of doing so actually acheiving the exact opposite.
I've also stated and restated my opinions and feelings about all of the topics we've covered, in many different ways, clarifying them in detail. Again, anyone can read it all right here for themselves.
Because you evidently find it absolutely intolerable to the point of madness to back down, no matter how obvious it is you have nothing left to fight with, you continue to just make stuff up.
And you have now been reduced to nearly incoherent babbling.
So, as much as I try to avoid, in a debate forum, telling people what they are as opposed to what their ideas are, you have backed me into a wall and forced my hand, mostly because you don't really have any ideas: you are simply pathetic, Monty. And to continue this with you would constitute cruel and unusual punishment on my part.
So I'm not gonna.
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Ex-Tank: Thank goodness we're finally back on track! You are right about a Class III license to buy, sell, and trade NFA weapons, but ownership is granted to any citizen that can fulfull the obligations as set forth by federal law. Instead of repeating myself and invoking the wrath of the thread Gestapos (you know who you are), please look at the post I made at 02:29 P.M. on 06-02-99.
Make stuff up? That's rich. Here's a quick rundown for you, Stoi.
Stoi on some of her fellow humans:
However, I do not like the military mind, I do not like what the military does, and it is unimaginable to me how anyone, not faced with immediate threat, would choose to serve in the military. And those people who do make that choice, much as I respect it, are not people with whom I would choose to hang.
You are clearly telling a lie here. You do not like what the military does. Then you say you respect the choice of people who choose to serve in the military.
Stoi on tolerance:
So what would I actually say? "Wow, what a bummer that you had such shitty duty! Must have made you feel kinda bad, huh? I bet you would rather have been shooting real Japs in the Pacific than guarding your fellow Americans. My sympathies."
There are only two interpretations of this utterance: (1) Either you are a racist yourself, or (2) You think those in the military are racists. It doesn't matter at all which is true--if (1), you're a bigot; if (2), you're a bigot. That's called Logical Conclusion. Look it up.
Stoi on history (part I):
Pardon? Because we didn't enter it immediately, it wasn't just? America is the ultimate arbiter of just and righteous war? (And though I do not have the details ready to give you, the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan's attack. We didn't to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)[/b]
This clearly shows that you STATED that your inane view of the reason the attack on Pearl Harbor actually happened is that you view it a fact that the United States government actually wanted Americans to be killed; thus being an accomplice to mass murder.
Stoi on history (part IIa):
[quote]Ever heard of the Axis alliance formed by the Tripartite Pact?[quote]
(& part IIb)
[quote]Accordingly, the governments of Germany, Italy and Japan have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE ONE
Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in
Europe.
ARTICLE TWO
Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in
greater East Asia.
ARTICLE THREE
Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to
assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers
is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.
Now this is interesting. For some odd reason you are declaring that Japan's unprovoked military action against the United States was a reason for the United States to go and save folks from Hitler. But what you've quoted was basically a defense agreement which said that Germany and Italy would come to Japan's aid if another country attacked Japan.
When I summed it up for you, I listed the points you were arguing. Yet, your answer follows:
Stoi shows her debating skill when confronted with fact:
Anyone interested (at this point I can't imagine who that might be) can see for themselves exactly what I've said, since you've forced me to say it 8 different ways so far. I've backed up my assertions of fact with pretty excellent proof which you have in no minuscule way even attempted to refute. And it's all right here, Monty, where anyone can read it.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you exactly how and when (egregiously and constantly, as it happens) you have misstated and distorted my actual words and my meaning, in ever more desperate attempts to make yourself look smart, and in the course of doing so actually acheiving the exact opposite.
I've also stated and restated my opinions and feelings about all of the topics we've covered, in many different ways, clarifying them in detail. Again, anyone can read it all right here for themselves.
Because you evidently find it absolutely intolerable to the point of madness to back down, no matter how obvious it is you have nothing left to fight with, you continue to just make stuff up.
And you have now been reduced to nearly incoherent babbling.
So, as much as I try to avoid, in a debate forum, telling people what they are as opposed to what their ideas are, you have backed me into a wall and forced my hand, mostly because you don't really have any ideas: you are simply pathetic, Monty. And to continue this with you would constitute cruel and unusual punishment on my part.
So I'm not gonna.
Now, if you'd followed that last line with "troll any more" you might've gained a few fans.
You said something "8 different ways" and, yet, all 8 ways were the same bigoted preconceived lies about history and the military. And you're pissed that someone has the guts to say to you, "Hey! The military back in 1941 might've been incompetent but where do you come off saying the US was out to kill Americans in Hawaii?!"
You want to debate? Fine, I'm all for debate. You backpedalled immediately after I called you on the accusation of mass murder (Oh, you don't recall saying "the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan's attack. We didn't to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)?"). Then you decided that it was only an opinion. Then you've decided that it was a fact again.
Tell you what: I'm all for debate. Advance a supposition AS SUCH and we'll discuss it. Advance a false accusation with minimal support, and we'll laugh at it.
BTW, when I'm wrong, I admit it and it doesn't even hurt. In this case, however, I'm not wrong. And there's no way you saying that I am when I quoted your words just shows you for the troll you are.
Drat! I left a few words out of that last paragraph. It should be as follows:
BTW, when I'm wrong, I admit it and it doesn't even hurt. In this case, however, I'm not wrong. And there's no way you saying that I am will make it so when I quoted your words. And when I quoted you, your ricocheting around just showed you for the troll you are.
(To the rest of the board's readers & lurkers: sorry about leaving the quote separation line out in the previous posting; however, it's pretty clear where it should be.)
Well as much as we hate to admit it, the founding fathers included the 2nd Ammendment knowing full well the consequences. All though I have quite a few gripes with our government, I don't think that any current policy warrants a rebelion, you have to admit, there's a clear and definite reason that the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution of the United States.
Howdy all,
I didnt know that there was so many people who disliked hunting and/or guns. Somthing for all yall gun hating types to consider would be that you would still under the rule of England if it wasnt for guns. We would probably be speaking German or Jappaniese if it wasnt for guns.
Hunting inst just about killing animals....Hunters enjoy spending time in the wild, tracking game, putting there witts aginst that of a wild animal, and killing it with as little pain as possible. Sure, you get a big adrelalin rush from killing a buck, any hunter can tell you that. but there have been plenty of hunters who have passed up the oppotunity of killing an animal, so that someone younger, or less experenced could have the chance---hunting is somthing that brings people together, makes lifelong freinds.
ps. about the semi autos and machine guns---the speed limit is 55 yet everyone wants a sports car that goes 120....its the same thing......
Justin
------------------
"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"
I don't want a sports car that goes 120.
------------------
Stoidela
Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you're crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
I can't help but wonder... If Americans had spent all that spare change on Education instead of Firearms... would Justin have learned to spell?
Sorry about the spelling, It was never one of my strong points-------
Still, I think its better for kids to learn how to hunt than it is for them to be on the streets doing drugs, comiting crimes, and the like.
------------------
"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself", though actions can always kill...
------
Indeed, the forefathers placed protections where they percieved a threat. Thus, to block hugonaught (aristocratic) domination, and to prevent forceful subjucation of a small but stubborn populace, they bestowed the gift of small arms, to give the masses teath to rend, and they fanned the flames of indipendence.
And too well they worked...
There is no more a threat such as they percieved. They vanquished their enemies too well, for now we face unknown chalenges, and unknown fears.
Yet, as Big Brother was mainly a face to comfort, now we seek a face to fear.
We place frightening images in our own heads, violent criminals, a rampant and rapacious populace of lesser folk, come to take what's ours. Fear them!
Or not.
Find another way. Perhaps you fear those others who fear. You fear the gun collecters themselves, or the milita. (Which was also supported by the forefathers, --Washinton and Jefferson, come to mind, though I could be wrong...)
And even so, though our best attempt is made, all we fight is shadows. For government learned too.
The tyrants no longer come with brigands to steal our goods. They come with words, and numbness. Apathy. They steal our lives, and we thank them for it.
Or not...
And so it has been writen: Fight fire with fire. Arm yourself with words and honour, trust yourself and others -- as much as is desirved.
Know your own limits, and take a little time. Victory is not insured until the battle is fought.
And this works both ways...
C3:
The right to "bear arms" to me doesn't specifically refer to just guns.
How do you know?Maybe we have the right to bear "guns invented before 1800". How would they guess what "arms" were to develop later?
Allan and the rest of them spelled so many words so badly ("teath") that I thought for sure they must be quoting some historical figure. As there was, however, no credit given for the quote, I am compelled to beg for clarification of one minor detail:
"hugonaught (aristocratic)"
Should this maybe be "Huguenot (protestant)"?
If we have the right to bear arms in order to go after the protestants, I'd like to talk to my Senator about croakin' them darned catholics who gave me so much trouble in the eighth grade...
NOW we're talking "indipendence"!
I didnt know that there was so many people who disliked hunting and/or guns. Somthing for all yall gun hating types to consider would be that you would still under the rule of England if it wasnt for guns. We would probably be speaking German or Jappaniese if it wasnt for guns.
You do realize that if guns had not existed at the time of the American Revolution, the English wouldn't have had them either. And if guns had not existed at the time of WW2, the Germans and the Japanese wouldn't have had them, either.
If guns had not been invented, who's to say WW2 would have happened, who's to say England would have had control of the colonies in 1775, who's to say Columbus would have been trying to reach India in 1492?
------------------
"We're gonna have lawyers here. It'll be a fun time."
--R.R.S.
Well, for those still of the deluded persuasion that "Washington knew all about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened," here's a portion of a letter to the Navy Times written by Nomran Polmar, Naval historian and author, said letter published in the June 28, 1999 edition on page 52:
Further, the code-breaking intelligence available in Washington was diplomatic - it gave no indication where the attack would take place, and only an indirect indication of when.
Rational responses only, please (yeah, right!)
The quote above was from Norman Polmar.
No wonder Thor's english improved, the "leifur" part is gone. Maybe the other Thor would improve too, if he shortened his name to ThorIce.
When I said all that stuff about not having guns, Was not talking about what it would be like if they never existed...BUT if we (American Citizens) did not have guns in the 1770's to fight the british army with, we would still be saluting the british flag and drinking tea at noon.....consequently, The allies would have had a much greater chance of losing WW2 to the germans, and Jappan, if it had ever decided to attack the american contient, would have an easier time of taking the west coast with our british overlords more conserned with there home country (england)-------
"those who live by the sword get shot by those who dont"--lol
------------------
"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"
Tha's right, Sunbear. This Thor is from the good ole U S of A, and not Iceland.
BTW, the recent posts of BjOrk (whom I suspect is Thorleiflur in disguise) has made me think that maybe there should be a people hunting season in Iceland.
The SDMB's award for slowest-loading, least rewarding thread goes to.. Lynn, the envelope, please!?
Arguments about the Constitution, statistics on gun-related deaths, and the ethics of hunting aside; it should be obvious to all that guns are such an intrinsic part of the culture of the U.S.A. that any attempt to ban them would cause more harm than good. We are familiar with the comparison to Prohibition. But does anyone argue that there should be NO regulation whatsoever on the sale or consumption of alcohol? Picture IDs and DUI laws do not solve all the ills associated with alcohol...but they are still pretty good ideas. I am not anti-gun, but it concerns me that the pro-gun folks get so hysterical at ANY hint of regulation.
"The SDMB's award for slowest-loading, least rewarding thread goes to.. Lynn, the envelope, please!? "
OK. If anyone wants to continue this, make a new thread. I'm not going to.
------------------
Lynn the Packrat
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.