racketboy.com

Luke wrote:

o.pwuaioc wrote:As *should* be done in our system, even if the process if half broken.

There is no way to argue with O.Pwuaioc on this point.

Right as rain he is.

Oops, except for my typos. I meant "is half-broken" not "if half broken".

Ack wrote:168 children killed in Pakistan from US drone strikes as of August 11, 2011, according to media sources like The Telegraph, Salon.com, ABC, etc. As a nation, we are hardly innocent. And indeed, if a situation within the US proved bad enough, what is to say we wouldn't also resort to such tactics?

You think ARs are going to protect us from drone strikes?

But more importnantly, that's them. As much as I hate to see children killed by a drone strike or any sort of strike, our own people would not find that an acceptable resolution for murdering large swathes of US citizens. We've always been able to kill foreigners without getting near the moral qualms implicit in deaths of our own citizenry. Don't forget, the military, the government, they are citizens. I fully expect a coup by the military if any president was stupid enough to say "let's start murdering citizens." (The ones targeted by drone strikes are an anomaly, considering their circumstances.)

The idea of a firearm or the possibility of a firearm as a symbol for representing rising up against oppression keeping someone in a position of authority from abusing that authority has never occurred to you, has it?

Sure it has, what would make you think otherwise? I just don't think it's a very good plan.

This was more about the War on Drugs being a legitimate war that isn't going well.

It's still not the right comparison. This is more akin to the war on drug cartels, and not a war on drugs. Drug cartels don't just sell drugs. If we came in with full military gear to bust every local non-gang-related drug dealer, I'd be more akin to agree. But it's not. The majority of the time, it's gang-related, and that's why military-style

Ok, this is something I want to set straight. For many of those states, I cannot say one way or the other, but for Alabama what you say isn't actually accurate.

Southern Democrats are very different

Sorry, it's just that it irritates me to no end when people want to blame Alabama's problems on the Republicans without knowing a thing about the state's internal history. The state has only been so heavily in favor of Republicans on a national level for the last 30-40 years. Before that, it was a Democratic stronghold.

Why do you think that is? You're forgetting Strom Thurmond. After the Democratic Party voted for desegregation, the southern Democrats left, first becoming Dixiecrats, and then eventually joining the Republican Party. There is, however, a world apart form Alabama Democrats and Chicago, New York, and California Democrats. Clinton was the exception, not the rule.

Fort Hood was a terrorist action by a man who had been in touch with extremist elements in the Middle East. Aurora was...August? Still not very long ago.

OK then, how about the Northern Illinois Shooting (2008) or Virginia Tech massacre (2007)?

And a president who in four years has only once met the date when he was legally supposed to have a budget submitted to Congress.

Red herring.

o.pwuaioc wrote:

Ack wrote:168 children killed in Pakistan from US drone strikes as of August 11, 2011, according to media sources like The Telegraph, Salon.com, ABC, etc. As a nation, we are hardly innocent. And indeed, if a situation within the US proved bad enough, what is to say we wouldn't also resort to such tactics?

You think ARs are going to protect us from drone strikes?

But more importnantly, that's them. As much as I hate to see children killed by a drone strike or any sort of strike, our own people would not find that an acceptable resolution for murdering large swathes of US citizens. We've always been able to kill foreigners without getting near the moral qualms implicit in deaths of our own citizenry. Don't forget, the military, the government, they are citizens. I fully expect a coup by the military if any president was stupid enough to say "let's start murdering citizens." (The ones targeted by drone strikes are an anomaly, considering their circumstances.)

Woo, them! Everything goes when you're killing them, whoever they happen to be. If a state seceded from the union, and the US government sent in drones to combat the secessionists, would you be ok with it because suddenly those Americans were now them? If the military launched a coup, similar to what happened in Chile against President Salvador Allende, how would you feel? War is war, regardless of who is involved, and it can occur between anyone, including ourselves and our government.

The idea of a firearm or the possibility of a firearm as a symbol for representing rising up against oppression keeping someone in a position of authority from abusing that authority has never occurred to you, has it?

Sure it has, what would make you think otherwise? I just don't think it's a very good plan.[/quote]

Your response seemed to me as if you didn't think an abuse of authority might occur.

This was more about the War on Drugs being a legitimate war that isn't going well.

It's still not the right comparison. This is more akin to the war on drug cartels, and not a war on drugs. Drug cartels don't just sell drugs. If we came in with full military gear to bust every local non-gang-related drug dealer, I'd be more akin to agree. But it's not. The majority of the time, it's gang-related, and that's why military-style

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/military

Ok, this is something I want to set straight. For many of those states, I cannot say one way or the other, but for Alabama what you say isn't actually accurate.

Southern Democrats are very different

You would be surprised.

Sorry, it's just that it irritates me to no end when people want to blame Alabama's problems on the Republicans without knowing a thing about the state's internal history. The state has only been so heavily in favor of Republicans on a national level for the last 30-40 years. Before that, it was a Democratic stronghold.

Why do you think that is? You're forgetting Strom Thurmond. After the Democratic Party voted for desegregation, the southern Democrats left, first becoming Dixiecrats, and then eventually joining the Republican Party. There is, however, a world apart form Alabama Democrats and Chicago, New York, and California Democrats. Clinton was the exception, not the rule.[/quote]

I see you have never met Democrats from cities like Atlanta or Birmingham, who are just like the ones from Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles. Mostly composed of poor inner city minorities in favor of social programs, pro-choice, favor gun control despite the large amount of crime that already occurs in area where firearms have been heavily restricted. Admittedly they tend not to favor homosexual rights as much as in other areas, but from what I've seen, minorities tend to be fiercely anti-gay. Birmingham houses the Democratic machines for Alabama, the Alabama New South Coalition and the Alabama Democratic Conference. Democratic candidates do not win primaries without their blessing and are routinely labeled racist, elitist, etc., if they go against them. Plus, since they count as private organizations, they can filter money through PACs to use as a sledgehammer against opposition candidates they dislike, just as the AEA does down here. That is the sad state of affairs in Alabama.

Fort Hood was a terrorist action by a man who had been in touch with extremist elements in the Middle East. Aurora was...August? Still not very long ago.

OK then, how about the Northern Illinois Shooting (2008) or Virginia Tech massacre (2007)?

Both of which were done with handguns, not assault rifles.

And a president who in four years has only once met the date when he was legally supposed to have a budget submitted to Congress.

Red herring.

You brought it up.

To skip over Ack and Ops discussion

ninjainspandex wrote:

Luke wrote:Let's be civil.

Broken record: I'm for really long, intensive, and thorough background checks. Getting a driver's license in Germany is probably more difficult than getting a concealed license in the USA and I'm not cool with that, At all.

But I hope the government does its due diligence to ignore the media and makes its own decisions (I realize that won't happen, but I'm not completely empty of faith) and doesn't simply point fingers (that probably won't happen either).

I really hope people can react with any decision made by our government without flipping out. Even "peaceful" protestors can get violent, and violence is what we're trying to avoid.

Im cool with long extensive background checks for gun ownership as long as the license also allows for ownership of full auto weapons as well.

Luke - It is my understanding that, that is mostly because of the autobahn. If we were allowed to go whatever speed we wanted on I10 or I40, it would be the same way here.

Ninjainspandex - Same. I am fine with any amount of background checks. I have no need for fully automatic weapons, but after the NYban going through, all of the sudden pistol grip shotguns are assault weapons aswell.

ninjainspandex wrote:Depends who your protecting yourself from, personally i believe the 2nd amendment is about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, to defend yourself if the gestapo ever came knocking.

Even if they are wearing full kevler, Im taking one of them down with the only shell I have for my 4 gauge.

hey remember when this thread was about guns, and not how evil they are?

good times.

fastbilly1 wrote:Luke - It is my understanding that, that is mostly because of the autobahn. If we were allowed to go whatever speed we wanted on I10 or I40, it would be the same way here.

Nah. They're stricter about everything in Germany. You're not even allowed onto a golf course unless you qualify to play. When my friend and colleague Karsten visited from overseas he couldn't believe all the freedoms that we take for granted. He was shocked that he could walk into Enterprise and in fifteen minutes walk out with a rental car. Couldn't believe he could play golf by just paying. Couldn't believe he could wander around a college campus, and in campus buildings without being asked for ID.

Luke wrote:

fastbilly1 wrote:Luke - It is my understanding that, that is mostly because of the autobahn. If we were allowed to go whatever speed we wanted on I10 or I40, it would be the same way here.

Nah. They're stricter about everything in Germany. You're not even allowed onto a golf course unless you qualify to play. When my friend and colleague Karsten visited from overseas he couldn't believe all the freedoms that we take for granted. He was shocked that he could walk into Enterprise and in fifteen minutes walk out with a rental car. Couldn't believe he could play golf by just paying. Couldn't believe he could wander around a college campus, and in campus buildings without being asked for ID.

Heh its german tradition to ask to see someones papers

Ack wrote:

Ok, this is something I want to set straight. For many of those states, I cannot say one way or the other, but for Alabama what you say isn't actually accurate.

Southern Democrats are very different

You would be surprised.

For the most part, Democrats are Democrats wherever they are, especially if they're in urban areas. o.pwuaioc, you could make yourself quite at home in Atlanta, for example.

Ack wrote:Woo, them! Everything goes when you're killing them, whoever they happen to be. If a state seceded from the union, and the US government sent in drones to combat the secessionists, would you be ok with it because suddenly those Americans were now them?

Hey! I never said I would be OK with it. Don't put words in my mouth.

War is war, regardless of who is involved, and it can occur between anyone, including ourselves and our government.

Contexts are different. What occurred in Chile isn't going to happen here. The entire systems of government and military are different.

Your response seemed to me as if you didn't think an abuse of authority might occur.

Authority is abused all the time. I think the checks in place will keep the government from becoming the gestapo.

Southern Democrats are very different

You would be surprised.

Having grown up in the south, I think I know what I'm talking about. For example, who did the Tennessee Democrats nominate for Senate? Mark Clayton, whom many of my friends back in Tennessee absolutely loathed because he's "pro-life, believes in traditional marriage, and believes that the TSA should be shut down. He opposes national ID Cards."

Sound like your raging liberal? Didn't think so. Having lived in a variety of places in the US, including 15 years in Tennessee, I think I know what I'm saying when I say southern Democrats are different. There's a little Zell Miller inside a good many of them.

I see you have never met Democrats from cities like Atlanta or Birmingham, who are just like the ones from Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles.

See above.

OK then, how about the Northern Illinois Shooting (2008) or Virginia Tech massacre (2007)?

Semi-automatic handguns.

And a president who in four years has only once met the date when he was legally supposed to have a budget submitted to Congress.

Red herring.

You brought it up.

What does one have to do with the other is what I'm saying.

Politics Thread imo

dsheinem wrote:As a voting member of the Democratic party who will thus be issued gun confiscation orders tomorrow, I hope I get assigned to take Ack's guns.

I'd put that in my sig, but I'd feel bad about it later.