|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2003 01:51:27 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Consider that war represents the ultimate failure of civilization, where we return to the law of the jungle, and abandon and the principle of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the less fortunate, and for the ultimate benefit of the species as a whole.
It is the point where we reject our reason and ability to foresee consequences of our actions which, more than the mere use of tools, separates us from the other animals. It is the point where we we lash out in frustration at our inability to solve a problem, and betray the godliness with which we are supposedly imbued.
War is a temper tantrum with rockets. |
Well said |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 02:37:16 AM · #27 |
The following is a lengthy but fascinating examination of the U.S.'s (well, Bush's) motives for going to war.
.The Empire Needs New Clothes by Thom Hartmann
It's easy to vilify George W. Bush as a cynical warmonger, anxious to attack
Iraq to repay the oil companies that funded his election campaigns. But to
do so is to make a dangerous and fundamental error, and such a myopic view
of the Bush administration's policies puts America's future at risk.
The reality is that the current administration has a clear and specific
vision for the future of America and the world, and they believe it's a
positive vision. In order to put forward an alternative vision, it's
essential to first understand the vision of America held by the New Right.
The core of the neoconservative vision was first articulated on June 3,
1997, in the Statement of Principles put forth by the Project For The New
American Century (//www.newamericancentury.org) Signed by Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett, Jeb Bush, Gary Bauer, Elliott Abrams, Paul
Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Steve Forbes and others from the Reagan/Bush
administration, it clearly stated that "the history of this century should
have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
Frankly acknowledging that America is a small portion of the world's
population but uses a large percentage of the world's oil and other natural
resources, Poppy Bush is famous for having said, "The American lifestyle is
not negotiable."
McMansions for two-person families, a transportation infrastructure based on
6,000-pound SUVs carrying single individuals, cheap Chinese goods at
Wal-Mart and cheap Mexican food in the supermarket - all of this is not
anything America intends to give up. We're king of the hill, and we intend
to stay that way, even if it means going to war to keep it.
At the core of this is oil. When the administration's people say American
involvement in Iraq is "not about oil," they're often responding to charges
that they're only going after profits for American oil companies. They
speak truth, in that context, when they say the war isn't about revenues
from oil - the profits will only be a desirable side-effect.
What the war is really about is the survival of the American lifestyle,
which, in their world-view, is both non-negotiable and based almost entirely
on access to cheap oil.
The same year Cheney, et al, wrote their papers on The New American Century,
I wrote a book about the coming end of American peace and prosperity because
of our dependence on a dwindling supply of oil. "Since the discovery of oil
in Titusville, PA, where the world's first oil well was drilled in 1859," I
wrote in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, "humans have extracted 742
billion barrels of oil from the Earth. Currently, world oil reserves are
estimated at about 1,000 billion barrels, which will last (according to the
most optimistic estimates of the oil industry) for almost 45 years at
current rates of consumption."
But that doesn't mean that we'll suck on the straw for 45 years and then
it'll suddenly stop. When about half the oil has been removed from an
underground oil field, it starts to get much harder (and thus more
expensive) to extract the remaining half. The last third to quarter can be
excruciatingly expensive to extract - so much so that wells these days that
have hit that point are usually just capped because it costs more to extract
the oil than it can be sold for, or it's more profitable to ship oil in from
the Middle East, even after accounting for the cost of shipping.
The halfway point of an oil field is referred to as "The Hubbert Peak,"
after scientist M. King Hubbert, who first pointed this out in 1956 and
projected 1970 as the year for the Hubbert Peak of US oil supplies.
Hubbert was off by four years - 1974 saw the initial decline in US oil
production and the consequent rise in price. In 1975, Hubbert, who is now
deceased, projected 2000 for a worldwide Hubbert Peak. Once that point had
been hit, he and other experts suggested, the world could expect
economy-destabilizing spikes in the price of oil, and wars to begin over
control of this vital resource.
Most of the world has now been digitally "X-rayed" using satellites, seismic
data, and computers, in the process of locating 41,000 oil fields. Over
641,000 exploratory wells have been drilled, and virtually all fields which
show any promise are well-known and factored into the one-trillion barrel
estimate the oil industry uses for world oil reserves.
And of that 1 trillion barrels, Saudi Arabia has about 259 billion barrels
and Iraq is estimated by the US Government to have 432 billion barrels,
although at the moment only about 112 billion barrels have been tapped. The
rest, virgin oil, can be pumped out for as little as $1.50 a barrel, making
Iraqi oil not only the most abundant in the world, but the most profitable.
This at a time when virtually all American oil fields (except the Alaska
North Slope) have dwindled past the Hubbert Peak into $5 to $25 per barrel
pumping costs.
Thus, we see that our "lifestyle" - our ability to maintain our auto-based
transportation systems, our demand for big, warm houses, and our appetite
for a wide variety of cheap foods and consumer goods - is currently based on
access to cheap oil. If we assume that the American people won't tolerate a
change in that lifestyle, then we can extrapolate that our very security as
a stable democracy is dependent on cheap oil.
Viewed in this context, the rush to seize control of the Middle East - where
about a third of the planet's oil is located - makes perfect sense. It's a
noble endeavor, in that view, maintaining the strength and vitality of the
American Empire.
Of course, there are a few cracks in this vision. In order to have such a
new American century, we must be willing to foul our waters and air with the
by-products of oil combustion and oil-fired power plants, and tolerate the
explosions in cancer they bring. We must be willing to gamble that raising
CO2 levels won't destabilize the atmosphere and tip us into a new ice age by
shutting down the Great Conveyor Belt warm-water currents in the Atlantic.
We must be willing to hold the rest of the world off at the point of a
bayonet, and to take on the England/Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine
type of terrorism that inevitably comes when people decide to assert
nationalism and confront empire.
And, perhaps most distressing, the third George to be President of the
United States must be willing to clamp down on his own dissident citizens
the same way that King George III of England did in 1776.
These are the requirements of empire.
The last American statesman to put forth a different vision was President
Jimmy Carter, who candidly pointed out to the American people that oil was a
dwindling domestic resource. Carter said that we mustn't find ourselves in
a position of having to fight wars to seize other people's oil, and that a
decade or two of transition to renewable energy sources would ensure the
stability and future of America without destabilizing the rest of the world.
It would even lead to a cleaner environment and a better quality of life.
Carter put in place energy tax credits and incentives that birthed an
exploding new industry based on building solar-heated homes,
windmill-powered communities, and the development of fuel alternatives to
petroleum.
Ronald Reagan's first official act of office was to remove Carter's solar
panels from the roof of the White House. He then repealed Carter's tax
incentives for renewable energy and killed off an entire industry. No
president since then has had the courage or vision to face the hard reality
that Carter shared with us.
And so now we discover these oddities. Osama bin Laden, for example,
explicitly said that he had attacked the US because we had troops stationed
on the holy soil of his homeland - a position not that different from
Northern Irish, Palestinian, Tamil, and Kashmiri terrorists. And our troops
are there to protect our access to Saudi oil, a dependence legacy we
inherited from Reagan's rejection of Carter's initiatives.
If we are to hold a vision of America that doesn't depend on foreign sources
of oil and doesn't require the enormous expenditures of money and blood to
project and protect empire, simply saying "stop the war" isn't enough. We
must clearly articulate a vision of what America could be in a world in
balance, a world at peace, and a world where the planet's vital natural
resources are protected and renewed. This is the ultimate family value, the
highest patriotism, and the most desperately needed story to guide the next
generation of Americans.
As President John F. Kennedy said in his 1961 Inaugural Address, "All this
will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the
first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps
in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."
Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including Unequal
Protection and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.
//www.thomhartmann.com
This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for
reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is
attached.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." - Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, during WWII
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 02:40:55. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 03:08:35 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I still don't see your answers.Hoogie and the rest of you. I just want to know where you stand. I am not being rude or want to fight. I am just curious and want to hear your side. |
It doesn't matter anymore where you stand, it is more important to think about how to go from here and what to do after the war. How are we going to solve all the political damage, both on politicians and street level? Will it ever be safe to travel in certain countries, how are we going to deal with the unavoidable growth in terrorism.
Also, the end of this war does not stop the development of chemical/biological agents & nuclear bombs by terrorist groups and other countries. The threath isn't gone, the current war even has sparked more anger and more threath. The people that are going to use this stuff (from jumbojets to nerve gas) don't care if you were for or against the war. You are a western and therefore a target.
At the moment however I am more concerned about the SARS virus that seems to explode. It doesn't stop suddenly like ebola, it behaves like a classic virus and seems to spread fast. And at this moment it is in the center of a region of the world where 3 billion people live. It is a biological agent from nature, but nobody seems to seriously think about avoiding that it spreads.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 05:14:27 AM · #29 |
| Malokata - thanks for posting that article. I've read a lot of stuff at the site it mentions (Project for the New American Century). Anyone who thinks there's no reason to secure Iraqi oil because of America's relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't aware of how hostile that relationship has become. Most of the WTC hijackers were Saudi, Osama is Saudi, and the Saudi regime fund Palestinian suicide bombers (yeah... the same thing Saddam does, fancy that). The Bush administration want to punish Saudi Arabia for all this by taking over Iraq and bypassing the Saudi oil. They hope it will lead to democracy, or at least regime change, in Saudi Arabia. If that doesn't happen, perhaps the war will simply carry on until they take over the whole region. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 05:39:51 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by lisae:
They hope it will lead to democracy, or at least regime change, in Saudi Arabia. If that doesn't happen, perhaps the war will simply carry on until they take over the whole region. |
Hopefully that single point explains one of the major worries about this war. Ignoring for the moment the questionable reasons for starting it, the potential for causing a regionwide (and, in it's effects, global) problem is huge. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:03:28 PM · #31 |
War is an unfortunate condition, no civilized society will argue that it is not.
But, the world is not all New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Spain, USA etc.
There are numerous Iraqs, North Korea's and it is a central dilemma of contemporary American foreign policy that the world's leading capitalist democracy must confront an environment in which a majority of nations are neither capitalist nor democratic.
As a matter of fact, a portent of this mind-set among U.S. policymakers surfaced during the earliest stages of the cold war. President Harry Truman's enunciation of the so-called Truman Doctrine in 1947 proclaimed the willingness of the United States to assist friendly governments resisting not only external aggression but also "armed minorities" in their own midst. It was an ominous passage, for the United States was arrogating the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations to help preserve regimes deemed friendly to American interests. (Iraq's war with Iran, Kuwait with Iraq and the various Israeli/mid-east conflicts to name a few pertinent examples).
Although Washington had engaged in such conduct throughout Central America and the Caribbean for several decades, those incidents were a geographical aberration in what was otherwise a noninterventionist foreign policy. The Truman Doctrine raised the specter that America's meddlesome paternalism in one region might now be applied on a global basis.
I also take exception with people saying this is a war only about oil. People who use that arguement automatically lose IQ points in a debate.
I would say that oil, as one of the major sources of energy in the free world, may be enough to start war over. We may not like it but wars have been started over less.
Anyway, my point is that this type of war is not new to American or even western world policies and people who oppose war at all costs may need to realize the world..as a whole.. has not caught up to their high ideals (being ruled by despots and warlords) and civilized nations would be very wise not to drop the Truman style doctrine that has served us so well for over 60 years.
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 12:09:18. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:05:28 PM · #32 |
Yes that's true. But because we're dealing with hearts of men who are imperfect and that war is sometimes necessary (not saying we need to for Saddam's case, but in general)
After all -- War really hasn't accomplished anything other than to end slavery, stop Nazism, stop Communism, stop fascism, and general mass murder :-) Some times war IS necessary evil. WWII was a perfect example, you get two mad countries killing a ton of people in Europe and Asia. The US tried not to get involved but in the end got pulled in it anyway as it looks like the Nazi was unstoppable and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The US tried to use strategic and diplomatic moves (such as blockading and control oil shipments to Japan and aid the Chinese to try to stop the Japanese invasion, which is what caused Japan to attack the US because their oil shipments were being slowed down) in those wars as well but in the end, the only way to end the war was to go all the way to Germany and DESTROY EVERY SINGLE CITY they have and break the Germans' will to fight. It's not really about Hitler in the end, because it was a nationalistic issue where the entire country is FOR the war in Germany and in situations like that, you will have to bomb and kill civilians to break their will to fight. I think everyone agrees that the war in WWII is a necessary evil where two countries tries to dominate the world (OK, Italy too but they were small potatoes) and inflicting a ton of atrocities in both cases. the only way to stop that is to hurt them badly (dropping of nukes on Japan was perfect, it stopped the war very quickly. Wish we could've done that to the Germans too but the bombs weren't ready at that time -- it was actually luck that Germans were persecuting the Jews, otherwise, we woudln't have all the bright German Jews who fled to the US (Einstein, etc.) that gave us the atom bomb)
Unfortunately i think we'd have to get medieval on Iraq if we want to win. The Shiites and Kurds might not like Saddam bu the Suunis will support him (the 5 million people in the Baghdad, they are different from the other groups, ethnically and religiously)
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Consider that war represents the ultimate failure of civilization, where we return to the law of the jungle, and abandon and the principle of personal sacrifice for the benefit of the less fortunate, and for the ultimate benefit of the species as a whole.
It is the point where we reject our reason and ability to foresee consequences of our actions which, more than the mere use of tools, separates us from the other animals. It is the point where we we lash out in frustration at our inability to solve a problem, and betray the godliness with which we are supposedly imbued.
War is a temper tantrum with rockets. |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:11:40 PM · #33 |
Not exactly.
Can you own a AR-15 (M16 semiautomatic) in New Zealand? I think not, at least not in Australia :) I can in the state of Texas :) Can you own a police grade rifle? I can. Can you get a FULLY automatic machine gun legally? I can (witha lot of paperwork and the gun has to be before 1986) in Texas. Now if you live in California then you might as well ive in New Zealand :)
(Though i'll agree that our rights in the US are being eroded due to the fight on terrorism unconstitutionally. The difference is if New Zealand turns to be a tyrant country, the people have no means to fight back the government. With 250 million guns in the US and about 30% gun owners, we can :))
"A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a Free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(I think we're the ONLY country in the world with that type of protection of gun rights in the Constitution. You wont' find it anywhere. A government that FEARS the people means freedom, the opposite means tyranny. So what if we have 30,000 murders per year? I'd rather have freedom, then a police state that controls the population.)
Originally posted by Hoogie:
lol chris you carry on believing that and good on ya for supporting the war....you dont know any better
I come from a democratic country that is "TRULEY" free and enjoys "REAL" freedom ...you wouldnt know about that chris ;-)
Um gee chris we export more than butter...lol wouldnt make much difference if usa stoped all our exports to you anyway...LOL
this is how we work.
//www.decisionmaker.co.nz/Guide/BigPicture/BigPicture.asp?Int_PageID=25 |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:41:13 PM · #34 |
I don't think many would argue that it's a war only over oil, but it's a lot easier to chant 'no blood for oil' than to try and sum the political motives behind the goals to restructure the region, the motivation for placation over the fiasco that is Afghanistan, the distraction from domestic affairs and other potential motives in one easily-chantable sentence. The oil issue, with its glaring conflicts in Cheney et. al., is an easy target and, in my opinion, is the critical difference in US foreign policy in the region.
Paganini, while you make some very valid points in your 'not about oil' post earlier, I think that you might be underestimating the administrations' attempts to maintain a positive political stance towards dealing with Iraq. Lifting sanctions and dealing directly with Hussein after 1991 would remove the current political stance in the region and, in effect, lay the cards on the table. This is more about controlling the oil futures there than getting cheap oil, a move that has been accomplished with the sanctions. There is evidence of the real motives in the selling of oil equipment to Iraq by US companies through foreign subsidiaries. Even though selling oil-related equipment is legal for the US and other countries like Japan, 99% of the business is done indirectly. This is good evidence that this issue was still phenomenally sensitive. The fact that oil execs in the States hold senior positions in various public offices would also suggest that political will is valued by the industry, and vice versa.
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 12:43:43. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 12:54:14 PM · #35 |
I respect folks like hoogie in their willingness to stand for what they believe.
I hope we can avoid name calling or the traditonal "My country can beat your country up" thing :-)
Many 21st century citizens that come from a relatively democratic country that has been free of war on its shores for generations are taking the policy of benign detachment.
This is a policy that has the idea that cordial, diplomatic and economic relations should be encouraged with all governments that are willing to reciprocate, be they democratic, authoritarian, royalist, or Marxist. This would require normalizing diplomatic and commercial relations with such states as Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq, etc, while curtailing aid to western allies like Britain, Spain, Mexico, Chile and emerging capitalistic democracies.
Many people would point to the relationship we developed with China in spite of their human rights records. Sort of a "don't run people over with tanks while camera's are looking and we won't keep you from shipping copied cd's around the world" kind of relationship.
The return of the USA to a 1980's mentality that says the world is still a dangerous place containing governments and societies that not only reject western political thought but actively seek to do it harm has a lot of Anti-war, "Down with imperialism" chanting folks all hot and bothered.
Many folks fail to remember the sacrifices of generations past that helped defeat the spread of nazism, facism and communism required more than a few demonstrations in the streets and 17 ignored U.N. resolutions. :-/ |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 04:44:15 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Not exactly.
Can you own a AR-15 (M16 semiautomatic) in New Zealand? I think not, at least not in Australia :) I can in the state of Texas :) Can you own a police grade rifle? I can. Can you get a FULLY automatic machine gun legally? I can (witha lot of paperwork and the gun has to be before 1986) in Texas. Now if you live in California then you might as well ive in New Zealand :)
(Though i'll agree that our rights in the US are being eroded due to the fight on terrorism unconstitutionally. The difference is if New Zealand turns to be a tyrant country, the people have no means to fight back the government. With 250 million guns in the US and about 30% gun owners, we can :))
"A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a Free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(I think we're the ONLY country in the world with that type of protection of gun rights in the Constitution. You wont' find it anywhere. A government that FEARS the people means freedom, the opposite means tyranny. So what if we have 30,000 murders per year? I'd rather have freedom, then a police state that controls the population.) |
No we dont own guns in New Zealand even our policeman dont have guns, i dont agree that by the public owning guns will stop a government turning tyrant?
our armed forces are even minimal but in saying that our SAS forces helped in afghanistan and unofficially our frigate escorted a USA ship to the gulf, but if anyone attacked us... well we could always hit them over the head with flowers. ;)
I have a very good lifestyle and am proud to be a kiwi and i do respect american people i just dont agree (as do the majority of people in the southern hemisphere) what your government is doing!
If america is truely free then why is your media censored and mine isnt?
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 16:49:35. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 07:28:49 PM · #37 |
The media censors itself -- the government does not. The only time government censors is that the reporter are not allowed to tell them the troop location, etc. Self censorship could be a problem though, as images are not transmitted from other journalists.
Also, I don't think American reporters are freely allowed to move in Baghdad -- CNN journalists in Baghdad WERE expelled.
The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government, hence the second amendment is formed (and right after the first amendment which guarantees free speech).
Censorship in the US media is done by US media, not the government. I think a lot of images are removed to prevent anguish for the POW families and it's illegal to show them anyway. In fact, CNN blurs Iraqi held by US as POW's for that reason because you are not allowed to show their faces via the Geneva convention. As far as body being blow apart, civilians, etc. there are some of those in HOSPITAL settings but not a lot in the actual location. Again, AP newswire probably doesn't use many foreign journalists, and the problem is mainly due to that Hussein has removed or restricted American journalists' access in Baghdad (i think they learned from the last gulf war that the images they show was actual BOMBING images, which gave the US accessment of bombing damages :))
Frankly if the US governments wants to censor images they wouldn't allow journalists to be embedded as part of the forces.
Originally posted by Hoogie:
[quote=paganini]Not exactly.
No we dont own guns in New Zealand even our policeman dont have guns, i dont agree that by the public owning guns will stop a government turning tyrant?
our armed forces are even minimal but in saying that our SAS forces helped in afghanistan and unofficially our frigate escorted a USA ship to the gulf, but if anyone attacked us... well we could always hit them over the head with flowers. ;)
I have a very good lifestyle and am proud to be a kiwi and i do respect american people i just dont agree (as do the majority of people in the southern hemisphere) what your government is doing!
If america is truely free then why is your media censored and mine isnt? |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 07:48:20 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government, hence the second amendment is formed (and right after the first amendment which guarantees free speech). |
I think the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to retain to the States the right to maintain their own militias to resist unacceptable encroachment by the Federal government. Many provisions in the Constitution speak to restricting the power of the Federal Government to raise and fund armed forces.
I do not believe it was the intent of the framers to encourage casual armed insurrection by the citizenry against their own (presumably) representative government.
I also think you have to take their provision in the context of the technology of the times, when the most expert marksman probably took 10-30 seconds to reload between shots -- I'm pretty sure the founding fathers could not have envisioned (nor would they support) the virtually unrestricted right of the individual (not in the militia/National Guard) to posess weapons capable of wiping out 40 restaurant patrons at once or taking out a tank.
And even if we admit an absolute right for you to possess any armaments whatever, I don't think requiring you to register (and maybe insure) them so you can be held responsible should they be mis-used amounts to more routine bureaucracy, and not an unconstitutional infringement... |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 08:12:41 PM · #39 |
Out of interest here is what our prime minister said this morning on 3zb radio station.
good valid points about war plus usa and trade.
this is streaming audio.
//xtramsn.co.nz/musicandvideo/0,,6081-2248612-25,00.html |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 08:38:12 PM · #40 |
It is exactly their intent.
In fact there is a Federal law that defines militia as men between ages of 17 and 42 I believe. Search for it on USC code and you'll find it. It is NOT the national guard, that's actually PART of the federal military (in fact there are National guard units in Iraq right now and it's activated by the federal government, not the state).
People often argue that militia doesn't mean everyone, when in fact the clause makes it very clear. The first clause states the reason, the second clause guarantee it to everyone. And the term "well regulated" doesn't mean well restricted, it means well trained. A similar clause would be:
"A well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a Free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Does this mean that only electorates are allowed to read books? No, it says "the PEOPLE", meaning everyone. Same goes with the second amendment.
Gun banners such as yourself would always argue for registration doesn't infringe on my rights. Next time you go protest against the war, why don't you register yourself and GAIN government permission first? You don't, because it is YOUR right to speak. Registration = confiscation. Ask the Australians, they registered their guns and now it's confiscated.
Gun laws have never prevented crimes, it has only restrcited the right of law abiding inviduals to own one. Criminals don't go through background checks, they steal the guns or they buy it on the black market, they dont' go through federal registry.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by paganini:
The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government, hence the second amendment is formed (and right after the first amendment which guarantees free speech). |
I think the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to retain to the States the right to maintain their own militias to resist unacceptable encroachment by the Federal government. Many provisions in the Constitution speak to restricting the power of the Federal Government to raise and fund armed forces.
I do not believe it was the intent of the framers to encourage casual armed insurrection by the citizenry against their own (presumably) representative government.
I also think you have to take their provision in the context of the technology of the times, when the most expert marksman probably took 10-30 seconds to reload between shots -- I'm pretty sure the founding fathers could not have envisioned (nor would they support) the virtually unrestricted right of the individual (not in the militia/National Guard) to posess weapons capable of wiping out 40 restaurant patrons at once or taking out a tank.
And even if we admit an absolute right for you to possess any armaments whatever, I don't think requiring you to register (and maybe insure) them so you can be held responsible should they be mis-used amounts to more routine bureaucracy, and not an unconstitutional infringement... |
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:01:21 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[... |
Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.
Why do you think this one is meant for a state militia/National Guard?
Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?
"The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government,"
Sir, I know this is EXACTLY what the framers were thinking. It is a matter of record. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:15:51 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[... |
Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.
Why do you think this one is meant for a state militia/National Guard?
Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?
"The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government,"
Sir, I know this is EXACTLY what the framers were thinking. It is a matter of record. |
The actual text reads:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See that part about how a militia is necessary (IF it's well-regulated), and that's why people shall have the right to (buy) their own arms (so the government doesn't have to)? See how the part about a Militia comes first, as the reason for the existence of the right?
I don't see anything resembling "Since in the future it may become necessary for citizens to shoot their elected representatives..."
THAT's where I got my idea of what they meant...
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 21:17:00. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:19:56 PM · #43 |
| As I said, I believe that resisting the government may be necessary, but I really think the framers were speaking to the rights of the States to actively resist the feds. I'm not opposed to gun ownership per se, just the insane way we implement it in this country... |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:21:36 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[... |
Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.
Why do you think this one is meant for a state militia/National Guard?
Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?
"The second amendment in the US Constitution was there because the framers were worried about the legislature would strip away people's rights and wanted something to allow the people to resist the government,"
Sir, I know this is EXACTLY what the framers were thinking. It is a matter of record. |
this is exactly right |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:23:48 PM · #45 |
guys, we have had this debate, and even when the world's foremost expert on English and grammar agreed with the side of gun rights advocates, people chose to ignore the facts... just like the other debates here lately.. it really is best to leave the dreamers to their dreams and naivete'... you can show them the truth and they still turn away from it....
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:25:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
guys, we have had this debate, and even when the world's foremost expert on English and grammar agreed with the side of gun rights advocates, people chose to ignore the facts... just like the other debates here lately.. it really is best to leave the dreamers to their dreams and naivete'... you can show them the truth and they still turn away from it.... |
if a terrorist sprayed some of them with mustard gas, they would still claim it was Bush's fault |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:41:12 PM · #47 |
Hmmm...on a practical level, what would happen if a civilian militia were to rise up against the feds? I can think of Branch Dividians...is it really possible to argue that civilian firepower is now capable of keeping the federal government in check? I'd argue that this is an excuse to bear arms, despite its constitutional basis, as various other civil liberties have since been curtailed; liberties which actually have impact on everyday life - smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc. On a practical level these reasons for bearing arms seem obsolete. Isn't it strange that the gun rights are defended in part because they have historical ties to the birth of the nation, and yet people are willing to accept curtailment of civil liberties (read, freedom) such as being subjected to searches etc. for the sake of threats from terrorism. This seems contradictory.
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-30 21:43:45. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:43:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
[quote=GeneralE][... |
Sir, ALL of the other amendments are written as PERSONAL rights.
Would you be willing to relenquish ALL of your other Constitutional Rights to a State ran group?
|
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:51:47 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Hmmm...on a practical level, what would happen if a civilian militia were to rise up against the feds? I can think of Branch Dividians...is it really possible to argue that civilian firepower is now capable of keeping the federal government in check? I'd argue that this is an excuse to bear arms, despite its constitutional basis, as various other civil liberties have since been curtailed; liberties which actually have impact on everyday life - smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc. On a practical level these reasons for bearing arms seem obsolete. Isn't it strange that the gun rights are defended in part because they have historical ties to the birth of the nation, and yet people are willing to accept curtailment of civil liberties (read, freedom) such as being subjected to searches etc. for the sake of threats from terrorism. This seems contradictory.
James. |
not everyone that get searched at an airport is a citizen, and some of them would like to fly planes into buildings. owning a gun may not be a part of everyday life for you, but it is really simplistic of you to claim that no one has a legitimate reason for carrying a gun in the US. plus you don't have any kind idea as to how to deal with criminals who get guns do you? maybe police should just pray criminals don't shoot them and try to explore all the diplomatic options before trying taking out a gun. comparing the actions of a cult guided by a leader who brainwashed them into thinking he was a descendant of Jesus and then taking the paranoia to insane heights is riddiculous. |
|
|
|
03/30/2003 09:52:13 PM · #50 |
| My above statements, by the way, were made from a house which indeed has a few guns. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 11:56:04 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 11:56:04 AM EDT.
|
