OT: Today it is 7/11 why?

Apart from the fact that you simply cannot call it "colateral damage" even under this point of view (because it was specificaly targeted, and not by US policy but by Islamist terrorists), I may ask you the following question:
Was the British policy in WWII wrong because London got bombed by the Germans?

No matter what point you take on US foreign policy - an attack on your country is not automaticly an indication of a "wrong" policy and that you have to reconsider. Instead it's an indication that you have enemies. No more, no less. And again, this is no indication either that your policy is right or wrong.

 

If we'd taken the same approach we'd have blown the shit out of Ireland years ago.

Funny how the IRA was financed by the US of A.


Malino

 

What the hell? Ireland?

Arrrrgh [deleted]

See pic below.

 

A Belfast School

.

 

Definetly not, although i dont understand to what specific part of the english policy you are reffering.
It was their right , as declared warparticipant to defend theirselves, (bloody well important they did). The cruleness of bombing Citys dispite, for both sides. Thats war.

But this is hard to put in conjunction to 9/11. Yes , It is some kind of war , and one of the warparticipant is unvisible and his anger, fear and desperation has not become a major focus in the western world.

and thats bad..Cause if we dont deal with the cause of 9/11, ....there will be a 2nd one. sadly enough.

 

Hitler was also in anger, fear and desperation. Anger on the Jews, on the British for opposing him, fear about the "jewish-bolschewist world conspiracy" and desperation concerning the future of Germany in "this" environment...
Too bad the British were not that sensible towards Hitler's feelings - hell, they even declared they're gonna slap him - and got bombed, is it not?

You seem to believe (and you are not the only one, so pls try to get rid of this resistance romance, since you are in the 80% majority at least in this country) that the goals of the Al-Quaida terrorists are somewhat decent, sane, acceptable, moderate...
You might want to listen a little bit closer next time Mr. Osama has something to say. Or did you do that already and are comfortable with it? Fair enough.

Poor terrorists and their friends. And now they are getting their asses handed to them! Damn world, huh? Payback's a bitch, didn't anyone tell them?

 

hi heartc,

so, and you are referencing to d.t. hardy?
the "president of the tucson rod and gun club", which is offering safety training for children and primary focussed on "a safe shooting range for tucson area". hardy, who is mainly writing stuff like "rifleman in no man's land" or "gun control: the nonsense goes on and on" , who is a self-claimed descendant of bill hickman ("between seventy killings and twenty wives, he did much to make the west wild!") and shows his "warped humour" by dedicating a page to "william jefferson 'bill' clinton" or writing stuff like "this plane is a gun-free crime zone" and "skyjackers use knives! let's ban guns!" for the texas state rifle association

"where, then, did anyone get the idea that the right to arms was linked only to militia duty, and not to the individual right of self defense? this mistake is a modern one." (david t. hardy)

cure yourself, don't get involved with such references...

 

Besides this site is not the only one debunking Mr. Moore - he is debunking him. But since he happens to be pro-gun ownership (surprise, surprise) his points are invalid. I see. You would like to have a Michael Moore debunking Michael Moore? Well, quite a challenge.

Wooh. I like the man.
Too bad the Jewish dad in Berlin of the 40s and before didn't have firearms in the house when the Gestapo came for him and his family. Or when his neighbours srewed his shop. Maybe there would have been little effect on the outcome, but at least he could have send some of those sobs to hell and would have died in a firefight rather than being gassed while naked somewhere far in the east after a long horrific trip.
And the citizen who plans to engage in criminal action will be able to get fire-arms, as he has always been. So, why should the honest citizen fight with his fists when he faces them?

 

"...where, then, did anyone get the idea that the right to arms was linked only to militia duty, and not to the individual right of self defense? this mistake is a modern one. ..." (david t. hardy)

Jeez
The right of a people not a person to keep and bear arms is old English Common Law from way back before there were Europeans in North America even.
Jeez.

He is satisfied enterpreting his rights without reference to their foundation, their intent their context. No duh context in what he recited so simply and stupidly.
Folly.

From Second Ammendment Bill Of Rights:
"...A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State[!], the right of the people [not the right of a person] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ..."
See the context?

"...A well-regulated militia." Back then think they were called "Minutemen" kind of like Boers way back. They would march to a rallying assemble and then be regulated, by elected officers.

a people

 

Al-Quaida is NOT the enemy of the US-foreign politic.
Its the consequense.

and hereґs something for your resitance romantic blabla
http://zena.secureforum.com/interac...display_frame.cfm?itemID=308&displayType=song

 

Gangs or

butter?

 

Not quite, because England is and has almost always been a monarchy (except for Oliver Cromwell who decided Sex was a sin and didn't last long as a result)

The structure of the system was that each area of the country had a ruling "lord" or "baron" the baron was responsible to the king and in times of war or civil unrest had the responsibility of raising and equipping an army to fight for the crown, as time developed and the power of the lords waned this became each counties responsibility to again in times of war recruit and equip an army for service.

Look at the British Army units:

http://www.1914-1918.net/regiments.htm

It was always illegal for an inidividual to bear arms (increased the chances of revolution against the ruling lords).


I think the writers of the constitution had a similar idea in mind but expected that in times of war each individual would muster bearing there own equipment, they couldn't have forseen the problems this would have led to today, because if they did I doubt they would have sanctioned it.

Malino

 

Hi Gallen

Well, actually the situation is not so clear. There is a reason for the tremendous legal debate running in the US about the 2nd Amendment . And quite frankly, I was actually not interested in a discussion about guns law in the US. I don?t care about it very much. I was only to state that I found the quote which ledada selected, maybe he considered it to have a shock effect or something, not very shocking. It was simply the pro-gun ownership position in this legal debate. I don?t find the debate shocking, nor do I find either of the positions shocking. Because, this is not a fight of good against evil, as it is preferably portrayed in Europe, but in fact it?s simply one face of one the most controversial problems in any free state: Security (i.e. state authority) vs. individual freedom. State vs. the individual. Taking the specific history of the US into account, it doesn?t surprise or shock me in the least that gun ownership is very much involved in this (never ending) debate. (And it's also more difficult and leads to a more emotional debate when a people always had arms, and then suddenly the state needs to explain why they are no longer allowed to have them, than with a people which never had them in such a way, where the debate would focus on "handing out" arms to them, instead of taking away.)

A balance between state power and individual freedom is the objective of this debate for any state, which is actually only reached in a imaginary point ? in reality, it?s either too less or too much. The smaller this ?violation? is, the better.

The point is also that the exterior view which ?dooms? the pro gun ownership position and tries to utilize this debate as a reason for outrage on inner-US law, reminded me on a situation I witnessed in the IL-2 Forum recently: There was a debate about something else, game-related, when someone with a sig saying ?Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership? posted something. Then, out of nowhere, a German jumped on this particular individual, saying ?How can a JEW, whose people have been almost eradicated in history, have such a sig? Get rid of it.? I was pretty astonished by this statement. It showed the very simplistic thinking many (especially youngsters) suffer from: weapon=violence=bad=evil=no world peace etc. He failed to look into the message of this sig any closer for a second, as he also fails to understand complex problems in general with such a simplistic thinking structure. This was also why I did pick this particular example in my above posting. Just to show that the arms monopoly in state hands is not necessarily a good thing, and the right of gun ownership for the citizen not necessarily bad.
As I indicated, I do not take a hardened stand on either position ? nor do I doom one of them. I?m quite curious how it will develop in the States.

However, I usually tend to agree with a position when I made my mind up myself at first, and then note points where I agree with a position after that. The things which were going through my mind were:

1. Why would the amendment outline the right of ?the people? to keep arms, and not just leave this last phrase away, dealing only with the right for a militia? I mean, it?s clear that a militia is under arms, there is no necessity to point it out specifically.

2. The US law has always been very much focused on individual rights against a state authority. Thus, an arms monopoly of the state would highly contradict.

The question about the second amendment is whether the introduction of the militia in this phrase limits the ownership of arms to only that, and what exactly this militia is meant to be. So, you can easily understand the second amendment as

1. the right of forming a militia

2. the right for ?the people?, which would then mean every individual, to keep arms. There is no difference if you say ?every person? or ?the people?. Aside from that, the term "the people" is also used in other amendments, where individual rights are meant, without debate (this particular point was not based on my thoughts now, but is high-lighted in the beneath link).

And, further more, chances are that this is in fact meant to be very much off from the English Common Law. I don?t think I need to explain why.

Here is a link where I found some of my thoughts met (so, more of a pro gun ownership position than not) - written in a decent style, without the typical "You are a fascist!" "No, you are Cowboy!" rhetoric :


http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/embarassing_2nd.html

Regards
heartc

P.S. As far as I'm concerned, we can settle this point. I'm not completely convinced of either side, but understand the pro gun ownership position not as some kind of violent bastard view, but as a valid one. As valid as the view which is concerned about it.

 

do you think 200 years ago there were less criminals and murders?

we often preexponate our own understanding on the people of the past.


in those times death and murder were not so special. besides people didnt expect the state has "duty" to prevent it. 250 years ago the state did not have duties other then collecting the taxes for the ruling class and guarantiing the status quo. in fact the state was serial killer No1.

in those times to bear arms usually was the sign of rebel against the authorities. arms were not banned because you may decide to shoot your neibhour. noone was that much annoyed by the fact of someones murder.

I guess the writers of US consitution did it with the idea that if all are rebels (bear arms) there could be no oppression by the state. that anyone on the street could kill you at will was not a problem for anyone. as it was not a problem just 20 years ago, that Iraq could have nukes (and is still not a problem for many outside of US).

ie people were less paranoic. they trusted more in other man`s common sense.

 

today in Europe the state is considered better husband than the individual for certain activities like the use of force.
Similarly, I as an East European, cannot accept the fact that to private enterprise could be handed such important for state/society or dangerous or moral-requiring activities as Education, Energetics, Railroads, Healthcare, Nuclear power facilities, Forests and Wildlands.
However this is practised in Western Europe. Moreover our government is introducing some of it here too (halfway measures usually because they are very unpopular).

 

[all the way to:]

GASP
APPLAUSE!
WELL SAID!!!

 

As an Eastern European i don't agree with you Grobar.

What is so bad about private schools?
Best high school in my city is private (some of private high schools are among the worst too), one of Lublins 2 Universities is private, which doesn't prevent it from taking high places in national rankings. Not the ownership, but the level of managment makes a school good or bad.

Energetics?
Since energetic lines were privatised here, there are less power downs and faster service.

Healthcare?
Sure it is state financed here... but the best doctors and best service you will get in private clinics. I've changed from state owned doctor's practice to family doctor practice (owned by 4 doctors in my neighbourhood, financed from national health fund so it's charge free)- previously i had to wake up at 6 o clock, spend hours in lines, waiting to see a doctor, now all i have to do is take my telephone, dial my doctor and arrange a visit when i want it (i've been there twice in 3 years but my sister was visiting him more frequent- sharing the same good experiences). Do i miss state owned healthcare institutions? -NOT A BIT!

Nuclear power?
AFAIK both incidents in which nuclear power plants polluted the outer enviroment were caused by state owned reactors:
Windscale in GB
Tschernobyl in Ukraine

Forrests and Wildlands?
And why shouldn't they be private? Can you name me a reason?

As for railroads i can partially agree- benefits of having a state controlled railways are seen all along Europe, and experiments with privatisation usually fail (like in GB).

 

You say private services are better quality than state services.
But for private services you have to pay. Sometimes alot.
I do think that a person living in a civilized country, must be guaranteed certain basic rights.
Irrespective of his wealth

The right to get education, including university, the right to receive medical treatment, the right to have food. Even if he is not rich. So if I have no money, I will have my teeth to ache all my life, fall off...

Also parts of the infrastructure of strategical importance for the state should not be trusted to third party, which will look after its own interests. Same goes about dangerous things.
Tchernobil happened because of the wrongs of communist system - "lets beat the norm" on expense of safety - however exactly the same a private owner would do - but "lets make more money" instead.

The natural/cultural/historical treasures of a people must belong to the state for a wise husbandry and preservation.
Give a forest to a owner. What is going to do with it? Cut it off and sell the wood. there is no more forest.
Or put a fence around his property (like in England - it is alsmost impossible to have a walk in the nature there - except for certain well regulated and indicated footpaths). The forest is to everyone and to noone.

About good/bad quality I agree. But it is really a question of good management as you say.

I guess we have fundamental philosophical diferences with you. I think the whole complex machine of capitalism, which is taking most of our lives, is the least important and most pointless achievement of Humanity.

 

Hmm really?
The private University i was talking about is the Catholic University of Lublin (KUL)- it's totaly free to study there, the only requirements- you must be a baptised person and pass examinations. A private fund pays the bills (proffesors pensions are paid by the state, rest off employed stuff is financed by Catholic Church). Anyway- state run education isn't free too- it's paid in our taxes.

About private healthcare- i don't pay for my visits in private practice, they are paid by National Healthcare Fund, difference is that the Doctor i'm visiting isn't state employed- he is a private enterpreneur, who established a small company and won a state contract... hence he is more interested in keeping his services at better level, because in 2 years he could not get his contract renewed if he fails to satisfy me and others. That's why i can easily arrange my visit and get to a doctor without having to wait even a minute. State run practices don't care, they treat a patient like a problem to get rid of... they don't have proper motivation to care.

About private forrests:
Thousands of polish farmers fight to have their fields changed into forrests... state is clever enough to pay them for private forrest conservation... in fact, it's more profitable today to have 100 Hectar of forrest than 100 Hectar of grain. Effects: from 1990 to 2002 forested area grow some 10% in our country (and you are talking bout forrests beeing cut down by private owners- lmao). No national parks were sold of course, and they shouldn't be (that's the only point in which i agree with you), but more and more forrests are private now and still accesable for public.

Reassuming:
The public money is beeing wasted by state run organisations, cause they don't care- they are not dependant on clients but on political circumstances. Private contractors of public services do care, cause they know, that if they fail there will be another small/medium/or big company waiting to take their contract just around the curb. That is what the market economy is best in- eliminating the bad and skill- lacking, rewarding the good, skilled and willing to work properly.