Gun Control

[Superman]

Some of you know I'm a flaming liberal and quite proud of it, but that I also do not support some popular liberal platforms such as gun control. I do not believe that an attempt to make guns illegal or hard to acquire will improve public safety. Some folks do believe that removing guns from the community will increase safety.

Like George W. Bush, for example. We're ripping metal doors off people's homes and businesses (while they're away from Fallujah, probably on Christmas vacation) looking for bad guys and weapons. In about a month they're going to have peaceful, legitimate elections in Iraq, and we're setting the stage for that. Right? So once we've completed our search and then allowed Fallujah's quarter-million inhabitants return to that city, then it will be secure because we've denied the bad guys their weapons. Right? And isn't that the opposite of the theory we apply here at home? That trying to take the weapons away from the bad guys is futile?

Oh, and I'm sure we've made housing provisions for all those (like I say, quarter-million) Fallujah inhabitants. So, they're comfortable while we're ripping the doors off their homes and businesses. Right? And when they return and see our handiwork, they'll thank us. Right?

Gosh it's nice to spread the Good News of Jesus' teachings to the savages of the Middle East.

[tabs]

Let's not mix issues...like apples and oranges.

I was a Democrat until I started listening to the Democrats position on Gun Control...Then I found them to be disingenous, and not really looking at the caues for violence in our society. Democrats use Gun Control as a political football, and have lied about it's effectivness. Unfortunately weapons in the hands of the people is necessary for a government to stay a Democracy/Repblic. It's all too easy for a Liberal to say in this day and age that doesn't apply...

[Superman]

That's exactly right. And I'm wondering if anyone is going to take the bait. Is anyone going to take the position that gun control does not work here to reduce violence, but it will work in Fallujah?

[uncleadolf]

Guns don't kill people.

People with guns in their hot little hands kill people.

Gun violence in Fallujah will stop when those ignorant savages all come to Jesus.

[widebody911]

I don't even bother arguing gun control any more. It's senseless trying to argue with people whose masturbatory fantasies involve shooting eveything that moves within a 200 yard radius with ammunition the diameter of a coke can, and their justification is 'if someone broke into my house...'

But you do bring up a tasty dichotomy there, Supe. Gunz is good, so long as deyz only in the hands of 'Merkins!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by uncleadolf
Gun violence in Fallujah will stop when those ignorant savages all come to Jesus.

That's half the problem - they want nothing to do with Jesus, despite GWB's insistence that it's the best thing for them.
(I'll bet you didn't expect the American Inquisition!)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

"uncleadolf", you're in direct violation of most, if not all, of the forum rules. Please refer to the sticky at the top of the main OT Forum and amend your behavior appropriately.

[tabs]

Somehow in Iraq I don't think we are trying to practice Gun Control, but rather Insurgent control...the only good insurgent is a dead insurgent...

But lets examine our Miltary atempt at controling a insurgencey....let us suppose the US govternment suddenly became autocratic for some reason....with arms in the hands of the people it would be very dificult for the armed forces to control the country as shown by whats happening in Iraq, and then there is the added conumdrum our military would be called on to control it's own populace...

[Superman]

My point is more along the lines of whether trying to remove the guns in Fallujah is effective, whereas removing guns here is ineffective. You see, I suspect that no matter how hard we look, the bad guys are going to have some guns left over for Election Day. But, we've completely screwed the pooch already, and there is little hope of legitimate elections any time soon, so even jousting with windmills seems wise comparatively. It's foolish, but it might be slighly less foolish than we look right now. At least we're taking on that Dubya mantle and grinning and pretending like we're sure we're doing the right thing, even though we can easily see that things are coming unravelled quickly.

Adolf. I'm glad you spoke up. You think we'll accomplish the task of killing all Muslims? That would certainly be a difficult trick to pull off. In the meantime, if you kill some but not all, then have you made my country more secure? Or more hated? Are we going to kill all the Muslims? If not, are we hoping to scare them into not attacking us again?

Think before you reply.

[uncleadolf]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
"uncleadolf", you're in direct violation of most, if not all, of the forum rules. Please refer to the sticky at the top of the main OT Forum and amend your behavior appropriately.

What? Which behavior? Are you a new moderator?

[widebody911]

As an interesting exercise, replace the words "insurgent" with "gang" and "military" with "police"

Originally posted by tabs
Somehow in Iraq I don't think we are trying to practice Gun Control, but rather Insurgent control...the only good insurgent is a dead insurgent...

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by uncleadolf
What? Which behavior? Are you a new moderator?

No, I'm the friendly neighborhood masked avenger, giving you a friendly warning before Z-man bans your ass(es).

[tabs]

Thirty years ago my view point about Islam, was that it was an unstable religion that from time to time went nuts and tried to spread the faith through force of arms...they call it Jihad...

I wish I had followed up and given the subject more thought.

Also 30 years ago I felt that there would be a Nuclear exchange between countries....but not between the US and USSR or whoever has a large stockpile....but by 2 Third World Countries trying to resolve somekind of conflict between them. I suppose the addendum would be a Terrorist or supernational organization would use one against the USA or West.

[Superman]

A very plausible scenario.

There has been a lot of scoffing at the notion that Al Gore may have been President at the time of 9/11. Many assume he'd be a weak leader, and that vision is a mantra and a comic for them. but they don't know what he would have done. Some of the most resolute and unswerving leaders I have known, have been peaceniks. Right up to the point where that option closes, at which point they become fearsome enemies.

But anyway, here's a vision: How would you like to have Dubya at the wheel when an atomic bomb goes off in NYC? I've never had a more frightening thought, frankly.

[tabs]

Super you allready know what Bushy will do if a WMD goes off in NYC... 2 airliners filled with fuel are a WMD...

[beepbeep]

Hmm...I dunno about US situation but here in Europe gun laws are much more strict and we aren't expiriencing any violence-boom yet.

[gaijindabe]

There is not much of a violence-boom in the US either, in fact look at the numbers killed in the last 100 years. Europe has had WWI and WWII during that time. Millions and millions and millions killed. Many with guns, all with violence. Makes Al Capone, inner city gangs and the FBI most wanted list (since inception) look like pikers.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by gaijindabe
There is not much of a violence-boom in the US either, in fact look at the numbers killed in the last 100 years. Europe has had WWI and WWII during that time. Millions and millions and millions killed. Many with guns, all with violence. Makes Al Capone, inner city gangs and the FBI most wanted list (since inception) look like pikers.

Yeah, but I don't think WWII was caused by gun laws, no?

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by Superman
That's exactly right. And I'm wondering if anyone is going to take the bait. Is anyone going to take the position that gun control does not work here to reduce violence, but it will work in Fallujah?

I am opposed to "gun control" in virually every form, everywhere.

It doesn't make anyone "safer" or reduce violence.

Guns are inanimate objects (even when given animate descriptors like "assault") and they require someone to use them. Removing the guns from Iraq will not make us safer, but removing the terrorist (or as you guys like to call them "insurgents") will. If we can't specifically identify the terrorist, but we find a cache of AK's we can temporarily disarm them which only makes them temporarily less dangerous.

As a proponent of "gun control" you fear the gun, you should fear the man holding it.

We did little or nothing to disarm the average Iraqi and that is as it should be. The best thing we can do is to arm (or allow them to arm themselves) the average Iraqi so that they can defend themselves and their families from those terrorists who quite obviously want to murder them as well as us.

Perhaps you should look at the roots of our current "gun control" policies and see who they were intended to disarm and by whom.

Pete

[pbs911]

I don't think that gun control is the correct term in this situation. Technically Iraq is a nation in war. In war, you disarm you enemy. Searching the homes to remove weapons is a means of disarming your war time enemy.

"Gun control" also assumes an individual right found in nature to bear arms. The difference between gun control in Christian based nations versus Muslim based countries must be established before you can consider whether takeing guns from the Muslim population in violative of an inalienvbe right found in nature.

In the US belief system the right to bear arms was determined to be a right in nature given to man by God. This right is inalienable, cannot be infringed upon by government and is a protected right within in the Bill of Rights. I don't know, but I would be interested to know the philosophy within the Muslim religion. Did Mohammad preach that man has an inalienable right to bear arms for self protection from others and government?

I believe that you must answer "yes" to whether Mulsoms have an inalienbe right given by their god to conclude that taqking guns away is gun control. An individual must have a natural right to do someothing before a counter action can be deemed to "control" that right. Otherwise it is a right created by man than can just as easily be taken away in time of need.