Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/12/04 09:29 PM, H-Dawg wrote: In other words, even if Japan takes over world dominance (which it looks like it will), the way global economics/politics/military systems are set up right now, they will do it by reproducing a western capitalist/ideological system, but better than the US. And once this is achieved, this system will probably fall out of vogue, and will change itself into something else. I think US foreign policy, the way it stands, merely accelerates this inevitable outcome by making itself the big target of terrorists - not the global policeman but the global concentration camp commendant - and while it does this it is depleating its resources through EXTREMELY costly wars, like the one with Iraq!! (maybe that's the REAL reason Rumsfeldt had to cut the military budget!!). So, any ideas on other possible "utopias" that don't play that boring catch-22 game of political realism that always ends up in West is good, the rest are bad results?

First off, I doubt that Japan will be able to take over world dominance. Japan may be an economic power house but it is limited by its geography. It has to rely upon imports to provide just about anything (ie-oil, beef, etc). For an industrializied nation, it has a very weak military looking to the US to provide most of its defense.
Secondly, my position comes not from a strict adherence to political realism but from history. World politics has always been about playing "king of the hill" whether it is France and Britian in Europe or China and Japan in Asia. Someone is always trying to push the king off his hill.
Personally I think we have made a mess out of the Middle East in our foreign policy going back to Carter. In large part this is because our government 1) from 1979-c. 1990 only saw the world as bi-polar (US vs. USSR) and 2) a lack of understanding of the region.
However, sometimes you have to take tough action to right mistakes. Read Caleb Carr's The Lessons of Terror. People like bin-Laden are not going to listen to talk (ie-Neville Chamberlain & Adolf Hitler) regardless of East/West orientation. Bin-Laden forced us into a corner between 1993-2001. Either do something about Iraq or leave the region. Had we left the region bin-Laden would have continued hammering us until we submitted to his view on Isreal. Instead we broke with status quo and finally invaded.
Terrorists will always be with us, so does that mean we give into them? Do we give into mob rule, and discard justice?

At 1/12/04 08:34 PM, TheMason wrote: In terms of N. Korea... ...Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?

Now before I get a bunch of Marxist/Class warfare arguments from this statement about how this is true in the US let me remind you that in 2002 the budget was as follows:
21% Social programs.
38% Social Security & Medicare.
10% Physical, human & community development.
------
69% of the budget went to Social-type programs.

21% Went to National defense which was lumped in the same category with Veteran's affairs and Foreign policy.
Got this information from www.irs.gov.

I also heard a figure that if you have a refidgerator in your home you are already more wealthy than 66% of the world's population.

That is not at all what I'm say H-Dawg. My point is that we have all these little morons out here talking about how arrogant the US as if their countries are morally superior to the US when in fact the problems of today are inherited from their failed colonialism.
Does this give us the right to rape and pillage the world? Of course not. Let's face it, France and Russia did not want the US to go to war with Iraq not out of some sense of moral righteousness. They did it because they were economic allies with Saddam selling him military equipment. Yes we did aid Saddam in his war against Iran but if we sold him that much equipment we would have faced M-16s instead of AK-47s, M-1 Abrams instead of T-72 tanks, and F-16s instead of MiGs and Mirages.
In terms of N. Korea when we learned of their re-initializing their nuke program we put diplomatic pressure on them. We have not significantly increased our presence there, a sure sign that we do not have any immediate plans of going to war. Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?
SecDef Rumsfeld is currently talking about decreasing our military. Does this sound like a move to solve all our problems through military instead of diplomatic means?
Are we perfect? Hell no, we make mistakes and have made bad foreign policy decisions. In fact I do not like our current stance in Isreal, I believe Sharon is a war criminal who is interested in war instead of peace.
Just in Iraq and Afghanistan there were no peaceful solutions. Saddam was not going to willingly let go of power and stop being a brutal dictator just because some diplomat told him it was right to do so. The Taliban was not going to stop their oppressive theocracy just because the world was putting pressure on them.

I'm just tired of a bunch of young, uneducated, preachy Europeans constantly pointing out the bad of US foreign policy as if the problems of the world today was caused BY the US instead of being INHERITED from them.

I'm getting real tired of some of these damn European leftists in here criticizing US foreign policy over the past 50 years. Lets look at the centuries leading up to 1914. Spurred on by colonial interests countries like the UK, France and Germany began involving themselves in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire, Africa, N & S America and Asia. These three countries along with several others (Spain, Portugal, the Dutch etc) set up colonies displacing local cultures and traditions (set up the slave trade in Africa, introduced Smallpox [intentionally in some cases] to the Native Americans, India, Vietnam, and caused division between Jew and Arab). During WWI France and Germany made contradictory promises to the Arabs to destroy the Ottoman Empire that was aligned with Germany.
Following the war, these promises were not followed through and these foreign powers set up governments in these lands that were subservient not to the native's intrests but their own colonial interests. In fact England helped the Zionist movement in Palestine without caring much what happened to the Palestinians.
Then in WWII the resources of Europe were all but destroyed by your own damn internal squabbling and colonial ambitions. You were left with little ability to control your expansive and oppressive empires. The US, by virtue of geographical location, did not suffer the same loss of ability to produce so we stayed strong. We occupied Germany and Japan and once these messes were cleaned up we left these countries to govern themselves.
We have division in most of the world as a result of EUROPEAN colonialism. Once the dust of WWII settled we were left to clean-up YOUR mess. Yes we have made mistakes, we have at times been arrogant. We should have put pressure on the French instead of the N. Vietnamese. But we have had some success, governance of Afghanistan has largely been returned to the Afghani's as it will in Iraq. We will not control these governments for centuries as the European model dictates. You do not like our methods or the strife in the world, guess what too damn bad you Europeans created much of this fucked up shit. No please sit down and let us do our job if you are not going to help.
________________________________
God bless Tony Blair! And fuck the French!

I think that the "Under God" line should be taken out of the Pledge. The author INTENTIONALLY left God out of the pledge because he was excomunicated from the church for his POLITICAL beliefs.

I think that the "Under God" line should be taken out of the Pledge. The author INTENTIONALLY left God out of the pledge because he was excomunicated from the church for his POLITICAL beliefs.

I think that the "Under God" line should be taken out of the Pledge. The author INTENTIONALLY left God out of the pledge because he was excomunicated from the church for his POLITICAL beliefs.

Personally I think that there should be as little connection between religion and politics as possible. Throughout history, contrary to the thoughts of an ill-informed poster, religion has been bad when associated too closely with politics. Europe suffered under the dark ages because the church controlled things such as education and literacy.

I do not have a problem with little things such as prayer in school or other government venues. However, I have a problem with making laws out of religious beliefs (ie-prohibition and not being able to purchase alcohol on Sunday). I was raised Catholic and we drink during mass. As an adult I'm no longer Catholic, and I believe that the real Sabbath is on Saturday and those who worship on Sunday are heretics.

It goes further than mild annoyances though. The Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) decision on Roe v. Wade is fought in theocracies such as SC. And let's face it, Pro-lifers' motivations are mostly religious in origin. It is hard to get an abortion in this state, something SCOTUS has said is a woman's right, like it or not. So here we have a case of religion butting heads with what is supposed to be the final say in issues of the law.

Thanks for the heads up on K-mart Skunk. Personally I don't think I'll shop there anymore. It is obvious that K-mart is not a responsible seller of ammo. You have to be 18 to purchase rifle ammo and 21 to purchase handgun ammo. Those kids in Columbine broke the law with the aid of an adult. I hope that adult is in jail, wasn't it a girlfriend or aqaintance of one of the kids?

As for the quantity of ammo purchased, this seems as if it is a publicity stunt by Moore. On the one hand, many people will purchase a 1,000 rounds or more at a time because it is cheaper in quantity. Furthermore, if you are a serious shooter it is easy to go through 500-1,000 rounds a day at the range. When I was competing in air rifle I would shoot about 300 rounds M-F for practice.

However, walking in and asking for "all the ammo you have" (not a direct quote) would seem to me to be highly suspicious. As a clerk I would have sold them the ammo, but called the cops as soon as they left my counter. Why? Because K-mart is not a retailer that would give a quantity discount on ammo. Stores such as Wal-Mart and K-mart, their prices are not really negotiable.

The one thing that scares me every time I do it is purchasing ammo over the internet. Its cheaper and easier, all you have to do is wait and all you need is a credit card and an IP. I think that this is proof that Micheal Moore is more after publicity and making a name for himself than addressing real problems. K-mart is inconsequential compared to other ways of obtaining ammo.

Red_Skunk,

I must say I enjoy reading your posts more than others. You at least present coherent arguments from, maybe not the other side, but a third side. I guess we've just had different experiences. Most of the rural places I've lived in, if someone was going to rape/murder/assault outside of city limits one was on their own because the police forces just couldn't get to many places in time to stop violent crime. Most of the occurences of violent crime that do not end with the victim raped or murdered was because they had a firearm. Those who were not so lucky usally did not.

My point is most modern gun control seems to be based upon a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. Ppl see pics of AK-47s, M-16s & UZIs (most of the time fired at full-auto) and think that they are the problem and do not understand that these are not the weapons used in crimes and furthermore the variants of these guns the see on the news are not legal for people who do not have thousands of disposable dollars to spend on the liscensing and guns. In fact most ppl seem to not understand that the AKs, M-16s & UZIs on the civilian market do not meet the Dept. Of Defense's definition of an assault rifle. I hate laws made out of emotion, no matter what the topic this leads to an erosion of freedom.

I am for enforcement of pre-Clinton gun laws. In fact in some ways I think Clinton made buying guns too easier. Now all it takes is a 15 minute wait for a background check to buy any gun. I can remember when it took seven days to buy a handgun and you had to go through the sheriff. So I'm in favor of the background check as well as a waiting period for handguns.

I would also like to see stricter enforcement of laws in regards to violent crime (no matter what weapon is used).

When did this turn into a topic about vegetarianism?

If it was true it would make sense, but if there really are US soldiers getting court marshalled, then why don't I ever read about it on any anti-war websites or stuff like that? I mean, it would be nice anti-war propaganda to show how those soldiers are misbehaving and how they piss of the Iraqi people.

I'm sorry that I cannot let this issue drop. I keep thinking of examples and things you are just not reading out there. When we go into other countries we are subject to those countries' laws when we are off-base. We are trained to respect local custom and cultures.

If we deviate from these cultural norms then we are turned over to local authorities for trial. This has happened in a few high profile cases in Japan and Korea.

Again if you set your information filter to only let you read information that conforms to what you have already predetermined to be right, you lose sight of the big picture and the answers you seek will slip between your fingers.

At 1/8/04 09:22 PM, swallowing_shit wrote:

At 1/8/04 07:12 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: You are just some "don't have a military, I like dictators conquering my country and oppressign me" sack of shit.

Dictatorships don't have an army?

You know swallows, for someone who writes alot of posts you cannot read worth shit can you? The point Wraith is making anti-war people do not want an army. This in turn makes a country vulnerable to invasion and oppression from a tyrannical power, probably a dictatorship. Anything else I can help you understand?

If it was true it would make sense, but if there really are US soldiers getting court marshalled, then why don't I ever read about it on any anti-war websites or stuff like that? I mean, it would be nice anti-war propaganda to show how those soldiers are misbehaving and how they piss of the Iraqi people.

Think about it critically, if US soldiers ARE getting punished that would UNDERMINE the anti-war/military presupposition that the military does not care about war crimes and that US soldiers do get away with everything.

What these sites want to see is servicemen misbehaving and NOT getting punished, anything else works against their propaganda. Do not just question the other sides information, but your side's as well.

At 1/9/04 12:52 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: I think people are focussing to much about that shit about the car here. That was just an example okay? Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but hey, errare humanum est. All I was saying that I found it akward that I have never heard of a US soldier getting arrested, wich I thought of when I heard of a Dutch soldier getting arrested. And I indeed show no respect for the US because I think it's a agressive and arrogant country. And I show no respect for the "brave soldiers" because the co-operate with this.

Okay Veggiemeal, I'm not going to call you stupid. However, I dothink that you are probably less informed than you think you are. As a member of the US military, I can tell you there is a lot of restraint put on the men and women in the military. People get courtmartialed for making mistakes and breaking the rules almost daily. There is alot of training on discipline and about following the Law Of Armed Combat (LOAC) even for those who will probably never see combat. However, we have not always been perfect and we have lost this discpline at times (stories of US atrocities in Vietnam).

Did you know that in the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia some Somali gunmen would have a woman stand in front and behind him (shooting between her legs) and then have children sit on top of him? Why? Because they knew that US soldier would NOT fire on unarmed women and children. I now people who have beendemoted because they shot an ARMED gunman in the back as the gunman fled after KILLING the Marine's buddy! My point is you are making an argument based not upon a preponderance of facts, instead you are making an argument when you should be asking questions and doing research.

Lastly, I am Patriotic but this Patriotism is not blind. The US has made mistakes. I agree with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and disagree with policy with Isreal. I do not want to go to war with N. Korea.

However, I also understand that historically alot of the problems the US deals with internationally TODAY (as in the last 50-70 years) are the result of centuries of European colonialism and interference (mainly England, France and Germany). For example Jews and Muslims mostly lived in peace in Palestine until European/Christian intervention caused schism. Thus we have the problems in Isreal & Palestine, as well as the rest of the Arab world. We went into Vietnam to help the French with their colony.

After WWII we helped Germany and Japan get back on their feet and become productive first world countries. Deviating from the centuries old model given to us by the Europeans, we have turned the governing of these lands back to their respective nationals just as we have in afghanistan and we will do in Iraq.

You seem to be a preceptive young man, the first sign of intelligence. Educate yourself, and realize that at 17, 28, 50, 0r 100 you will not know everything nor will you have all the answers. However, there will always be someone to learn from.

At 1/7/04 03:48 PM, Quiche wrote: Why didn't the American soldiers just shoot the tires?

Do you know how hard it is to shoot out tires on a moving vehicle? This isn't Hollywood here!

Wha? Ok, I need to check your profile, because your making rural america out to be like the fucking wild west or something. We live in the country, 10 miles away from the nearest town, which then only has a population of a thousand (at the most, prolly high hundreds). We have completely adequate police protection. We don't need to fend for ourselves...!

Okay Red_Skunk here's a little more to my profile. I grew up about 1.5 hours from St. Louis, Missouri in a town of 1,100. My soon to be ex-wife lived about 2 miles from Arkansas and about 20 miles from the nearest settlement. In her class of 6 there is 1 MD, then my ex who will be a MD in 2 yrs, and a pharmacist. Then 2 of the remaining 3 have gone to college. I have lived far out in the country where there was basically no police protection. I have a BA and have taken some Masters classes in Strategic Intelligence/Counter-Terrorism.

I have shot a variety of firearms from high-powered hunting rifles to assault rifles such as the M-16, AK-47 and Uzi. I have also shot handguns and competitve air-rifle.

Now I am not saying that the country/rural America is the Wild West and we're just a bunch of rednecks. What I am saying is that in these areas almost everyone has a gun and that this is a deterent to violent crime. Conversely, if you look at Urban areas I bet you would see a higher per-capita rate of violent crime (sexual assault, murder, etc.) than in rural areas. The point I'm making is a area with more guns has a smaller crime rate than a area with less guns.

Heres a few thoughts on the magazine size, magazines are easily made. If these kids could make pipe bombs (even ones that did not go off) they could easily make a magazine to hold 30 rounds of hunting ammo. All they need is some sheet metal, a spring and 5 round hunting mag (remember the Tec9 they modified).

Furthermore, the faster someone shoots the better. The M-16 we use today only fires in bursts of 3 because the faster the rate of fire the gun will pull up and the kids would have only shot the ceiling, so in a sense if accuracy and being able to hit a target is a issue maybe legalizing full-auto guns is the way to go?

Furthermore, if they are using high-cap mags and just shooting wildly chances are they will run out of ammo at either the same rate or faster than a hunting rifle and they'll probably only really hit that many more ppl only if they are firing into a large crowd of ppl standing real close to one another.

To me the question really comes down to whether you want less severe wounds/more deaths or more severe wounds/more deaths. For example, if they are not just firing wildly (making the argument about hi-cap mags mute) a full metal jacket round will do a hell of alot LESS damage than a hi-powered hunting cartridge at close range. The kids at Columbine were probably lucky that the trench coat mafia used what they did instead of something worse.

By the way, a Uzi shoots either a 9mm or .45 cal bullet and it doesn't matter if it is a pre-/post-ban in terms of calibur.

At 1/3/04 04:16 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/2/04 06:52 PM, TheMason wrote: What is Micheal Moore's actual qualifications to speak on gun control (although he seems to be awfuly opininated for a guy withOUT experience in what he talks about). How many times has he shot a gun?

well.. he is a member of the NRA........

My wife is a medical student so I could join the American Medical Association, but that would not make me a Doctor.

hmm, true. Clinton did not lead the military adequetely IMHO, instead wholly handing it over to high-ranking generals

He let the generals handle the mundane day-to-day stuff, but he DID intervene on some major points AGAINST his generals (if he did as you said we would have had AC-130s and AH-64s in Somalia).

every president has sung, danced and pranced for the polls (in recent memory). This was nothing new.

True, but Clinton did not make a move without consulting a focus group. He had no sense of leadership, just manipulation by following. Something remarkable just to him.

:: strange, because they were funding him(bin-Laden). You mean they didn't know who they were supplying with money and ammunition during the eighties (seventies even(?))?

Yes I mean exactly that. We gave money to Pakistan to train the Mujahideen. They in turn used the money to build camps like we specified, however they bred a group of Mujahideen to fight a Jihad against India. Most of these were Anti-American/West as well as Anti-Soviet, so the Pakistanis hid them from American observers to keep the money coming in. In fact bin-Laden was just a logistics specialist working for someone else during the eighties.

Lastly about the military funding. The military budget will always increase no matter who is in power, why? This is called inflation. However, under Clinton his increases in the budget were not enough to keep the spear sharp.

Why do you want us fighting on two fronts? Two fronts are horrible stuff, contributing to Germany's fall in both aforementioned world wars.

Furthermore I don't see the need for such a military, ever single other country in the world is able to "keep their spears sharp"
Maybe we don't need so many spears?

The Two Fronts strategy is based upon sound military doctrine. The idea is to be able to fight a war and still be able to defend the homefront so of course we want two fronts. Secondly, we did just fine on two fronts during WWII, doing the vast majority of the fighting in the Pacific and a large part of the fighting in Europe.

As for needing so many spears, the US has a larger commitment to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). Peace keeping, training, alliances, etc. we do more than our fair share. No other nation really has the global reach to put troops in remote places on the globe. In a sense the world looks to us to provide troops/resoruces for hot spots. Why buy spears when you can use someone elses?

However you must also see his point. 21 or so top notch soliders kille din one incident. A figure unheard of since probally Vietnam (maybe IM wrong). Now if he continued to persue this campaign more lives would undoubtedly been lost. This misson had little impact on national security so rather isking lives of well trained soliders which probally didnt come cheap (the training) on what the US deemed a non-esential mission, they just left the UN to clean up.

Just a few points, Somalia was the first major firefight the US had been involved in on the ground (Including Desert Storm) since Vietnam. The casualty rate (roughly 20%) was probably lower than any other firefight we have been involved in. The military was given a mission (which we carried out) and we would have rather seen it through than just left in disgrace.

Secondly, Clinton did not support the General in charge when he asked for some different types of support aircraft. Things were denied to our troops not on military expediency, but out of political concerns. Clinton, not Bush Sr. sent in Task Force Ranger to capture Adid. As such he should have been willing to give them what they needed or not sent them in at all.

But he did send them in and as President he could have come before the American people and swayed public opinion, especially with his Vietnam record. Instead he cut and ran.

Lastly, as for National Security: there has been huge consequences. Somalia embolded bin-Laden. He has pointed to Somalia on several occassions as proof that America is weak and that he doubts we have the intestinal fortitude to conduct a protracted war against his Jihad and/or do what it takes to win. Furthermore, we have confiscated from al-Qaida troops in Afghanistan military equipment belonging to Task Force Ranger.

Under Clinton military members en masse started qualifying for welfare.

Lastly Clinton did not give a rat's ass about the military. If he did following the Battle of Mogadishu, he would have sent MORE troops into the country instead of pulling out even though we won. His actions here showed more disdain for the lives of the American Servicemen and women more than anything else. Instead following a battle WHICH WE WON he pulled us out in defeat negating ALL the lives lost in the conflict. THIS weakened our military might because it showed our current and potential enemies that we are NOT a force to be reckoned with because our President has no backbone and will fold at the US casualty. Bill Clinton was a coward that did far more damage to this country than what little good.

I don't know where you got your information Anthrex, but it is inadaquate. You speak with authority on that which you do not really understand. Read more so you stop sucking,

Your intellectual lord and master,
The Mason.

Well looking back at the military that was built under the Clinton administration, Bush was able to take it and do what the British and Soviets could not do and that was take over Afghanistan, Bush did not add any more funding or implement any new programs to change the army that Clinton built (clinton did increase the military's budget from Bush Sr. not cut it) up to defeat the Taliban.

As for bin Laden and terrorists Clinton had a better anti terror record than lets say Reagon who had more Americans killed by Radical Islamic terrorists than in either Bush Sr. or Clinton combined. Under Bush Sr. radical Islamic terrorists were planning the world trade center bombing (Clinton was only president for 38 days) Clinton thwarted terrorist attacks including plots to blow up 12 US jetliners simultaneously, attacks against the UN headquarters, FBI Building and many more. He double counterterrorism budget for the FBi over previous administations also. ( there is a lot more)

Also the Clinton adminstration submitted a proposal to the Bush Jr. Administration that outlined things such as break up al Qaeda cells, freeze its assets, give aid to countries having problems iwth al Qaeda, and most importantly significantly scale up covert action against Afghanistan to eliminate al Qaeda training camps (Time magazine August 12, 2002). These suggestions were ignored until 9/11 occured.

Oh yea I almost forgot that Clinton put out a hit on Osama bin Laden to be killed (also remember that Clinton is not going to kill bin Laden himself) by any people or person

I am not quite sure where you are getting the idea that our military was weak or ineffective (that was not the case)

First off, I'm speaking as a member of the US military and someone who has given this issue extensive study. The simple fact that things were being planned under Reagan & both Bushes does not really prove anything. Radical groups will be planning terrorist act no matter who is the President.

What is important is that Clinton did not pay adequate attention to anything that related to National Defense or foreign policy especially during the early stages of his Presidency. His base of support was liberals who were fundamentaly against taking any type of para- or full-scale military action. Furthermore, it was not a priority in the polls something Clinton built his administration around. Clinton had several opportunities to stop bin-Laden as early as 1993 but did nothing. Until 1993 bin-Laden was unknown to US intelligence agencies.

As for the order to execute bin-Laden that came later (1998) and with so many restrictions on how, when and where he could be killed that it made carrying out this order largely unfeasible. In effect it was only more smoke and mirrors from Clinton that really did not do anything.

Lastly about the military funding. The military budget will always increase no matter who is in power, why? This is called inflation. However, under Clinton his increases in the budget were not enough to keep the spear sharp. Commanders are faced with the issue of "doing more with less" (a concept that came about as result of Clinton's policies) and lacked the resources to fight a FULL-scale war on two fronts (fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count, what counts would be two significant theaters such as we fought in WWII). CONT.

Hitler, ESPECIALLY by your definition was liberal. His domestic agenda was on a progressive level that even FDR can barely compete with! He built an interstate system (the autobahn) and promoted the idea of building a car that the common man could own and travel. Furthermore, his regime favored establishing hostels and cultural attractions all over Germany to foster a growth of the common.

So when has liberals ever been wrong? Hitler: the Jewish question?

FDR: Social Security is a big fraud to fund big government.

Today: Political correctness is threating the advancements made by classical liberalism.

Gibberish,

I couldn't agree with you more! Even as early as '48 Bengurion (Isreal's first PM) is quoted as saying the only good Arab is a dead Arab.

Is it any wonder people are willing to give their lives to fight the Isreali government? France and the Soviet Union stopped supporting the country. Why don't we?

Again I think that it comes down to the issue, what is safety?

People who have left tendancies see many of the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policies as contrary to civil liberties.

People who have right tendancies see gun control laws as a violation of civil liberties (people on the left would too if they only knew how historically civillian arms control laws have been a tool of economic/racial oppression).

So really I don't think you'll ever be able to pass a law or govern WITHOUT offending someone's sense of civil liberty.

As for the issue of staying alive, would life be worth living if the government were in complete control of making sure everyone is perfectly safe from 100% of the dangers out there? Remember we're not discussing the arbitrary extermination of a people by a tyrannt.

I'm originally from Missouri (the gateway to the West and firmly located in the Mid-West) transplanted in the South by the Military.
One of the main things I've noticed about the South is 1) their education systems for K-12 suck and need re-doing. 2) the Christian community has WAY too much political power. 3) Southern hospitality is a mask. 4) once one gets past the Mason-Dixon Line people's ability to drive turns to absolute shit.

Aw man, did you ever miss the target!

Well, Micheal Moore seems to disagree with you in his book "Stupid White Men". From what mister Moore is saying (and wich I have reason to believe in more than you), if you own a handgun, a memeber of your family is 22, yes TWENTY TWO more times likely to die from gunfire if you keep it in the house. And owning a gun for home protection is a big no no. Only 1 in 4 violent crimes are committed while the owner is at home. Another interesting fact, and you'll have to agree that this one is quite interesting, is that in all the instances where hanguns are used in a break in, only 2% are guns who are used ti shoot the intruder, if you can do the math you'll notice that there's 98% left for residents to accidentally shoot their loved ones or for the burglar to steal the gun and use it on the resident.

So, by using simple logic, hanguns are a BAD idea for protecting your home. You have a hangun and don't use it for defense you say? Then tell me, what other things can you do with a handgun, the only thing I can think of is using it offensively, in other words using it for crimes.

What is Micheal Moore's actual qualifications to speak on gun control (although he seems to be awfuly opininated for a guy withOUT experience in what he talks about). How many times has he shot a gun? What does he know about the science of ballistics? What does he know about the proper way to defend one's home (hint: its not about property)? Probably very little, all he can do is receit statistics and slant them to his opinion that people who already agree with him nod their heads in pavlovian agreement.

Your first point about crime outside the home makes a point for concealed carry. There has been shown to be a significant decrease in crime in areas with concealed carry than those without.

Lastly, your point that you think is most interesting, is that organizations such as the NRA promote barricading yourself in say a bedroom while the intruder loots the house because what is of paramount importance is one's life NOT one's property. Insurance will pay for a computer, jewelry, TV, etc. Nothing can bring a person back alive. Thus the best way to use a handgun (or any firearm) for home defense is to load the magazine but not chamber a round. When the criminal touches the locked door, chamber a round making a lound and distinct noise and warn the crook that you will shoot him. Statistics have shown about 9 out of 10 times the perp will flee.

This kind of use of a firearm is not included in the statistics you mentioned because the firearm was not fired. If such uses were considered in your "interesting statistic" the % would be much higher.

Why don't you gain some experience by getting some training and actually know what you're talking about.

I never claimed that guns, manson or The Matrix made them shoot up the school. I work with youth for a living, I know that it is mroe caused by home life and the youth class tructure they deal with. However, would more or less people have died at Columbine if they did not have access to automatic weapons and a shitload of ammo? If all they could have gotten was even you standard hunting rifle or shot gun they would have inflicted far less casualties, since they would a have to reload far more often and b could not fire off as many rounds at a time. The point of gun control isnt to stop the crime, although in some cases it will, but to bring down the death/violence involved. Instead of 12 people dying maybe only 8 would have died. Now that may not seem like a huge deal, but it would have been for the families of those four people that didnt die.

How about this, with your reasoning MORE people could have died. The type of ammo used for hunting and in shotguns is MORE deadly than in most military firearms (for example, shotguns are banned under the Geneva Convention). The idea with military weapons is to wound rather than kill. If you kill a person most likely his buddies will not stop fighting. However, if you wound an enemy about two of his comrades will stop fighting to tend to each wounded.

This is one of my points about gun control is that you've got a lot of people out there who do not know the technical side of guns trying to legislate on it. They argue from a "common sense" perspective which does not reflect the reality of the issue. Most people look at the terms "military" or "high-capacity" and think this equals more death. What they don't understand when they argue about "only hunting guns" is they are arguing in favor of MORE powerful weapons.

However, I do commend you on your work with kids and of course agree that it is the home and youth class kids belong to above all other factors that contribute to violence.

Er... have you seen the men in white coats because you bloody well should. I know a person that had an idea like that. He was an evil, fashist, right-wing dictator. Normally, I would let you have your say, but as you seen to be an evil, fashist, right-wing dictator then please fuck off.

Some would say that Hitler's social/economic stance would make him a LEFT-wing dictator.