"At any rate, if we're just on a "get the crazy fucks out of power" kick then lets hit N. Korea, Iran too."

North Korea is a different situation, but in the Islamic countries you're just trading one brand of religion-inspired lunacy for another. We should get out, watch them to beat each other over the heads with their stupid biblical fairy tales, then go back in and take their oil after they've killed each other and no one is left.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson"

Jefferson owned and had sex with his own slaves. So not everything he did or said translates well to the current day.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson"

Jefferson owned and had sex with his own slaves. So not everything he did or said translates well to the current day.

Slaves...interns.  Is there really much of a difference?

"Slaves...interns.  Is there really much of a difference?"

Freedom? Consent? Chains? Whips? Unless, of course, the intern is partial to BDSM.

"You apparently skipped the sexual harassment seminar where they explained that subordinates are powerless to reject the demands of their supervisors.'

There's really no one to subordinate here. I suppose I could go downstairs and kick around the Brazilian guys who collate the paper, but they only speak Portuguese and I'm not risking the possibility of anything even remotely defined as sexual harassment getting lost in translation.

What this truly seems to be is a kangaroo court. The UN supported coalition has two group fighting, and is doing everything possible to ensure the outcome favor one side.

I just don't agree that the world has a right to tell a head of state he can't use military force to keep the government in place. If a communist group within the US came out, and started marching for washington, we certainly would.

After the Iraqi war, I cannot trust the goverment or the media to tell me the truth regarding military actions overseas. The media would tell you Lybia is being liberated from the tyranny of a crazy man (truth), while leaving out the fact that the majority of the people do indeed want a purely Islamic state (Taliban).

Bush was well informed honestly and accurately by the director of the CIA of the WMD situation in Iraq before going to Congress. He ignored the intelligence as propoganda from France, from Saddam, and rubbish. Instead, he got a permission slip, and obliterated a country and government. We went to war to "Stop Saddam from using WMD's". When the line wouldn't work anymore, it became a "crimes against humanity trial". In the end, the sad result is that we invaded a nation, toppled a government, killed 100K-600K Iraqi's (depending on the count you believe), and have put 9 years of assistance/occuptation for this shit on our taxpayers. We did all this so a new court could try Saddam for the deaths of 150 Shiite Muslims in 1982, and kill him.

Anyway, this has caused me to have a difficult time believing shit that the media or the white house has to say... It's illegal to lie to a grand jury, but lying to the american people who elected you is totally okay, it even got Bush re-elected.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson"

Jefferson owned and had sex with his own slaves. So not everything he did or said translates well to the current day.

Last edited by APRTW (3/24/2011 5:57 pm)

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

As long as we're tossing around quotes, can we address "well-regulated militia?"

You mean like the national gaurd?

Yes. I mean like the National Guard. Whether the term applies to a bunch of racists playing dress-up in camouflage gathering an arsenal because they object to paying the same taxes everyone else has to pay is the point I'm contending.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

As long as we're tossing around quotes, can we address "well-regulated militia?"

You mean like the national gaurd?

Yes. I mean like the National Guard. Whether the term applies to a bunch of racists playing dress-up in camouflage gathering an arsenal because they object to paying the same taxes everyone else has to pay is the point I'm contending.

I think they fall out of favor due to the first two words, "well-regulated ".

"Jefferson has been quoted as being against slavery."

A statement that would have a lot more validity if he hadn't actually owned them.
On the whole, I like Jefferson. He was a brilliant inventor, statesman and author. Where I depart is with the so-called Constitutionalists who say things like "Jefferson would have thought this way about this ...," apply it to their own political philosophy and call it Patriotism.
The genius of the Constitution is Jefferson and the rest knew enough to write it as a framework that could be amended as events warranted, rather than taken as scripture.

"First off Americans fought both wars themself."

Well, we had a little help from France, back when that was a good thing. 

"Sure the general population cant over throw a modern military but they still need to take some ownership in it."

I'd suggest the military is made up OF the populace.

"I like guns and I believe you are not fond of them."

I've never owned a real gun, and I don't think I've never even held one, so don't have an opinion about them either way. What I do believe is there are too many gun-related deaths in this country from weapons that are too easily accessed because people rely on a broad interpretation that tends to suit their needs.

APRTW wrote:

I live in a pretty stricked gun state.  there is a 3 day waiting period on buying handguns.  I can live with that even though I think it is BS.  If it makes Chicago feel better then that helps me sleep at night.  I wont tell them that nobody legally buys a weapon and then goes kill someone with it.  Rather they would buy it off the street or steal it.  Plus we have a FOID card (firearm Identification) that you have to have to buy a gun or ammo.  One one hand it is good to have some hoops to jump through to do something important like become a gun owner but it is also stupid because the good guy is the only one who will jump threw them.  Me and Fors debated conceal and carry on the other board.  At that time I disagreed with it.  For some reason I now see his point.

I confess to having very little idea what the gun laws are in Massachusetts. I'm pretty sure the police chief in the town in which you live has to personally sign off on your FID application, because I see people coming in when I'm copying down police reports, and I think there's a 5-day waiting period for a gun purchase. There used to be an exemption if you wanted to buy a gun at a gun show, but a couple of years ago, an 8-year-old kid ruined that for everyone when he blew his head off trying to fire an Uzi at a gun show in Springfield. At least he won't do that again.