Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/4/06 06:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

But the fact still remains, we've allowed civilians to own and maintain firearms for personal use for decades. It's like the whole "sepration of church and state" thing... sure it's not in the Constitution, but trying telling someone different.

No, the fact doesn't remain anything. It is only recently (since the turn of the 20th century) that private gun ownership has become obsolete. Separation of Church and State is implied by the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Which means that the government can't support, oppose or prohibit you from being, creating, or praying any religion you choose, effectively separating church
and state. "The First Amendment sounds straightforward, but at times it is difficult even for American constitutional scholars to draw a distinct line between government and religion in the United States. Students in public schools may not pray publicly as part of the school day, yet sessions of the U.S. Congress regularly begin with a prayer by a minister. Cities may not display a Christmas créche on public property, but the slogan "In God We Trust" appears on U.S. currency, and money given to religious institutions can be deducted from one's income for tax purposes. Students who attend church-affiliated colleges may receive federal loans like other students, but their younger siblings may not receive federal monies specifically to attend religious elementary or secondary schools.

It may never be possible to resolve these apparent inconsistencies. They derive, in fact, from a tension built into the First Amendment itself, which tells Congress neither to establish nor to interfere with religion. Trying to steer a clear course between those two dictates is one of the most delicate exercises required of American public officials." There we go. Inconsistencies, but the idea is that the government should stay out of the way of religion (unless it's dangerous to the body public) and vice versa, though religion can COMPLAIN and PROTEST about government policy.

Best thing you can do, living outside city limits...

How much of an imbecile do you think I am?

(don't answer that, or I WILL ban you)

I intended to say that the best thing that you can do living outside of city limits is [XYZ]. My phrasing was mistaken, sorry.

Why should anyone own and maintain swords and various medevil weaponry? Why should people have access to old Military Field Manuals? Or Piano wire for that matter? All these things are potentially dangerous, and yet, easily available anyway...

Swords and various medieval weaponry has historical value. Old military field manuals are nothing like having an instructor tell you how to do something. It's totally different. Plus, it seems that most of the manuals on the site you cited were for maitnence of machenery and vehicles and survival.

Ever heard of the Marshall Plan? The US spent billions rebuilding Europe after WWII! We even offered the Soviets money, which they declined...

No, you only have the right to own something as long as the Supreme Court hasn't said you don't. The supreme court has ruled that you have NO right to own an automatic weapon without significant background checks and that you can legally be regulated (as to what you can and cannot buy). And no, a .50 cal gun and larger is not neccesarily a cannon.

Well, telling people to consume (or watch something) is non-political, but telling people not to consume (ie to boycott) is political.

This armor issue is only semi-true. I interviewed a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Connecticut Army National Guard, and he said that this was trumped up. All of his soldiers recieved their armor in the US at government expense. However, there are cases of soldiers buying their own armor and recieiving crappy armor from the government. But the shitty armored vehicle issue is totally true. The humvees are transport vehicles, not for combat, just like the striker is an infantry carrier with wheels, not an infantry fighting vehicle such as the M2 Bradley.

At 1/4/06 05:49 PM, Captn_Obvious wrote:

At 1/3/06 11:06 PM, mackid wrote: Is there a fundamental right to own weapons in the United States? Why or why not?

Certain weapons, like handguns, should be banned because the most likely implications of using a handgun is to kill another human being, which, if anybody hasn't noticed, is against the law. Weapons like rifles however have practical uses in hunting, and so are still acceptable. I realize rifles can just as easily kill a human being, but atleast the have a reason other than killing people to exist.

I concur, but who needs a lever action, semi-auto or burst firing rifle or assault rifle to hunt deer, or even a rifle that fires anything bigger than a .30-06? Bolt action .30-06, yes. Semi-auto .50 cal barret, no (and, this .50 cal, by the way, which can take down armored vehicles at 2 klicks, helocopters and airplanes, is easier to get than a handgun.)

At 1/4/06 05:49 PM, Proteas wrote: The "militia" the second amendment described at the time of it's writing reffered to an able bodied group of civilians who would own firearms and guard the town in which they lived. Why? Because there was no national guard. There was no police department. If someone broke into your house, YOU had to defend yourself, not someone else.

Well, now we do. So, there you go.

I don't know about you, but I happen to live well outside of the city limits of my town. The chances that the police would arrive here expediciously (assuming they could even find my house) if called are very slim.

I live, literally, a two minute run from the police station in a town with next to no crime. Best thing you can do, living outside city limits, is own doors with deadbolts, a telephone, an alarm system or a big dog. But why you'd need an assault rifle or a pistol is beyond me.

Besides... what do you reccomend for someone like me? I guess I could always use my dad's old wheat scythe on someone threatening my life out here... that would make quite a bit more mess though.

The US has been doing that for quite some time in Guantanamo, with so-called terrorists not at Guantanamo, though it's not legal in most cases to hold someone for long without bail due to our sixth amendment (to our Constitution).

Yeah, it's a lounge, I would assume that it would be long, considering that it's just a thread to talk about non-politics related stuff.

Actually, you seem somewhat like me, except for not liking the ACLU. But what about the ADL?

I mean that 100% of the cost is paid by the government.

TehBlue, why do you say that the ACLU supports communism? And why do you think you're a conservative?

Free trade's a good thing, probably one of the few good things in conservative ideology along with being a hard-liner on international relations.

Oh my god!!! That sucks! He's a good guy, even though he gave the Arabs land. The middle east is not looking good and especially with Palestinian terror, this might be percieved as a sign of weakness. Not good.

US and Israel are the best! They can get things done. I hate Bush as much as most people, but the united states is the ORIGINAL liberal capitalist democracy with a written constitution, and you can't beat that. Israel has had to deal with terror since before day 1 and I support how they deal with it and how they can fight terror and the Arabs effectively without compromising human rights.

Terror is a FACT! How do we deal with terror is the real question. Preemptive strikes are ok, assassinations of genocidal people and terror leaders, fine, but no no no no no to wiretapping and searching without warrants.

At 1/4/06 05:19 PM, TehBlueBullet wrote:

:I haven't heard about this.

And you're a conservative...explains a lot...

But about Krugman. There's a complete lack of medicare drug care between the spending amounts of $2,251 and $5,100, called the doughnut hole. Above this $5,100 mark, 100% of expenditures are paid, and up to $2,250, 75% are paid. This is stupid and unreasonable as over 1/4 of beneficiaries are in this range. This is just one of the moronic Republican driven plans.

BRAVO! Highly articulate argument, though I really shouldn't be judging.

Think about it this way. The second amendment refers to owning SMALL ARMS like shotguns and single shot rifles, not AK-47s, CAR-15s and .50 cal barrets, in the context of membership in an organized militia. We have such a thing. The National Guard. They're the military. Why do you or I need a gun? Pointless!

"In 2001, firearms were used to murder 6 people in New Zealand, 56 in Japan, 96 in Great
Britain, 168 in Canada, and 331 in Germany.[8] In comparison, firearms were used to
murder 11,348 in the United States."
"For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings."
"The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home"

(Quotes are from the Brady Campaign)

Moderates are wusses. As I've said many times, I take a liberal view on social issues, but a conservative view on economic issues because those are the views I agree with. I support the Democrats because they represent what's closest to my views, but I'd like a party that REALLY represents me.

So, folks, let's have another religious debate. The three Abrahamic faiths are Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Compare and contrast them, if you will.

AAAAUGH! Doughnut hole! It's evil stuff, what the Republicans are doing to our senior citizens. Read Paul Krugman's column on the Doughnut Hole and you'll know what I mean. Unless anyone wants me to explain.

Damn, I was about to post the same thread! Good going! Ok, I'm a social liberal but an economic conservative. I believe that conservatism removes essential freedoms, like the right to marriage, to speak freely and to have privacy while cutting taxes on the wealthy and jacking up military spending. When I say I'm an economic conservative, I mean that I want to cut pork-barrel spending and keep reasonable, sustainable, taxation rates and that I support free trade, seeing its benefits to society.
And I have no opposition to the millitary, they're heroes, in my opinion, but spending over $400 billion US dollars a year on defense is exacerbating the budget crisis and goes above and beyond by a huge degreee what China and Russia and what the total that the rogue states spend. Cut defense by $50 billion and have free healthcare for all children, improve public schools and such.

Recently, there's been a lot of controversy in the United States about whether evolution or intelligent design/creationism should be taught in schools. Should either be taught?

Personally, I have no opposition to creationism, but in school, why should people have to learn about creationism? Separation of religion and state is essential. Evolution, while only a theory, is well substantiated and is widely accepted scientific fact. Teach evolution only!

Yeah, but what about misreporting and how you count it? By the way, yeah, Canada's unemployment rate is officially 7.0% as of 2004 (CIA World Factbook), but I would imagine that the actual rate, say, if an independent observer counted, would be moderately higher, ranging from 9-12%.

Is there a fundamental right to own weapons in the United States? Why or why not?

Here's another way to look at it. The KKK can march in a predomenantly Jewish or African-American area, but they can't say "Kill the (insert your non-white anglo-saxon christian group)," so says the Supreme Court. Me, I just want to see a .45 ACP round in each of their bigoted heads.

Well, it's a human right that goes as far as not hurting others or inciting violence against them.

"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight."
HOMER
The Iliad

At 1/3/06 09:56 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: But despite having twice the unemployment rate of the US we dont have nearly as much murder or crime.

I'd say that's due to the abundance of social services.

1) Lincoln was elected in 1860, Kennedy in 1960, 100 years apart

2) Both men were deeply involved in civil rights for African Americans. (Though Lincon was involved by association to his party...)

3) Both men were assassinated on a Friday, in the presence of

their wives.

4) Each wife had lost a child while living at the White House.

5) Both men were killed by a bullet that entered the head from behind.

6) Lincoln was killed in Ford's Theater. Kennedy met his death while

riding in a Lincoln convertible made by the Ford Motor Company.

7) Both men were succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson who were

southern Democrats and former senators.

8) Andrew Johnson was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson was born in 1908,

exactly one hundred years later.

9) The first name of Lincoln's private secretary was John, the last

name of Kennedy's private secretary was Lincoln.

10) John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839 [according to some sources] Lee

Harvey Oswald was born in 1939, one hundred years later.

11) Both assassins were Southerners who held extremist views.

12) Both assassins were murdered before they could be brought to trial.

13) Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and fled to a warehouse. Oswald

shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theater.

14) LlNCOLN and KENNEDY each has 7 letters.

15) ANDREW JOHNSON and LYNDON JOHNSON each has 13 letters.

16) JOHN WlLKES BOOTH and LEE HARVEY OSWALD each has 15 letters.

17) A Licoln staffer Miss Kennedy told him not to go to the Theater. A Kennedy

staffer Miss Lincoln, told him not to go to Dallas.

(shamelessly copied from: http://theshadowlands.net/jfk.htm)

Weird? Yeah.

Here's some more:

Freud was a coke addict and suggested that it was a useful drug.