Kennedy 0 #251 November 20, 2003 QuoteYes, but m point was that those exemptions are not being made in Iraq, now are they? Yes, but like PhillyKev told you, situations here and there are a little different.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #252 November 20, 2003 QuoteYes, but like PhillyKev told you, situations here and there are a little different. So, you are saying that Iraqis should not have the same rights as Americans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #253 November 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteshow me one shred of evidence There is none! We're talking about 132 years ago No evidence from 132 years ago? Wow, and here I was discussing the history of kilts and the intrigues of Edward I and II just the other day. All sides found significant evidence to back their assertions, and that discussion went as far back as, oh, about 1,320 years ago. So is there no evidence of your claims because it's SO old, or is there evidence to the contrary and none to your own viewpoint?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #254 November 20, 2003 QuoteSo, you are saying that Iraqis should not have the same rights as Americans? I'm not saying the choice is mine to make at all, or President Bush's. Who said I was for the US policy in Iraq at all? And are you saying the Iraqis had it better under Hussein before the US and allied forces removed him?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #255 November 20, 2003 QuoteAnd are you saying the Iraqis had it better under Hussein before the US and allied forces removed him? Not at all. Though they certainly don't seem to be as happy as the US thought they would be. But if something is a fundamental right in your country and you then invade a country and try and shape it to your likeness. I would think it appropriate to give its citizens the same freedoms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #256 November 20, 2003 QuoteHow come so many more Americans are killed (in %)by guns even if you compare to the kind of countries that have a lot of guns, too (say Canada or some European states (in%))? - There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders. - There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders. - There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders. - There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders. Thus, the number of guns in the society is not a common denominator for high gun crime rates. It's all about culture, demographics, economics, and other factors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #257 November 20, 2003 QuoteGuns do not guarantee freedom though. When I said "freedom", I wasn't referring only to guns. Guns are but one of many things that constitute freedom , along with freedom of speech, religion, search and seizure, and so on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kramer 0 #258 November 20, 2003 Does anyone else buy into the suggestion that the media 'causes violence in America with their byast, sensationalized stories? The scene with Barry Glasner about the Culture of Fear is one that doesn't stick out in the movie, but I think it offers some good points...America's media does spend a disproportionate amount of time covering murders...whatever sells I guess... -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #259 November 20, 2003 QuoteThere is a such thing as a Federal law. Set a federal law and let the individual states work around it. The Constitution specifies what areas the federal government is allowed to regulate. Gun laws aren't one of them - that's left up to the states. The only thing the Feds can do is regulate interstate transport issues. For example, I can buy a handgun in my home state with just the usual background check. But it is against the law for me to buy a handgun in another state in which I don't reside. Go figure... These are the kinds of stupid laws that gun owner's hate. If we're visiting another state and see something nice we would like to have, we can't just take it home with us. We have to go through a complicated set of procedures whereby the out-of-state gun dealer sends it to a home-state gun dealer, where we then pick up the gun. And all that bullshit costs extra money and time. Every once in a while they get slapped down for exceeding their authority like this. For example, a few years ago the Feds banned possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The courts ruled they had no business doing that, since schools were state-funded institutions, and not involved in interstate commerce, the Feds had no jurisdiction there. But then, much of what the Feds do these days is outside the confines of what is authorized by the Constutition. That doesn't seem to mean much any more... And they often justify what they do with vague claims of impact upon interstate commerce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #260 November 20, 2003 Quote They are? What do you know about gun laws? Tell me what restrictions they have that are more stringent than New Jersey, or NYC, or Illinois, or California. Do some research before making claims. COALITION ESTABLISHES IRAQ WEAPONS POLICY "Small arms -- including automatic rifles firing ammunition up to 7.62mm, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols -- may be possessed in homes and in a place of business. Small arms must remain at these sites and may not be taken out in public." I would say that's a little different than in New Jersey, NYC, Illinois or California where you can get carry permits and take 'em wherever you want wouldn't you? They also say: "Only authorized persons may possess small arms in public places and those authorized persons will be issued a temporary weapons card (TWC) by Coalition Commanders." However: U.S.-trained Iraqi guards lack guns After blast at U.N., officers complain they're vulnerable This is one of my favorite parts: "Police Inspector Hasan Ziedan, 37, who had come to visit an injured guard at the hospital, said none of the 30 or so security officers working outside the U.N. headquarters has been given weapons. When a reporter pointed to the pistol jammed in his holster, he said: "This is my own personal pistol. I inherited it from my grandfather. It was made in 1939." That poor shield My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #261 November 20, 2003 QuoteDoes anyone else buy into the suggestion that the media 'causes violence in America with their byast, sensationalized stories? It desensitizes people to violence, and makes it seem "normal". That, in turn, may play upon certain personality types which incorporate that idea, leading to more violence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #262 November 20, 2003 on a lighter note, am I the only one that looks at the title of this thread and thinks, oh goody, Bowling For Concubines!??I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #263 November 20, 2003 QuoteCOALITION ESTABLISHES IRAQ WEAPONS POLICY "Small arms -- including automatic rifles firing ammunition up to 7.62mm, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols -- may be possessed in homes and in a place of business. Small arms must remain at these sites and may not be taken out in public." I would say that's a little different than in New Jersey, NYC, Illinois or California where you can get carry permits and take 'em wherever you want wouldn't you? None of those places you mention has "shall issue" concealed carry laws. "Shall Issue" means that if you meet the criteria and apply, the state *has* to give you the license. Of the places you mention, I'm not sure all of them have provisions for permits at all. But, for example, while California allows it, they don't give them to hardly anyone. California law is a "discretionary" issue state. They reserve the right to refuse to issue, for no reason at all. And they exercise that right. If you are a politician, a millionaire, or a movie star, you can get a carry permit. But the average citizen can't. Thus, the policy in Iraq isn't much different than those places you mention. As a matter of fact, it's actually probably more lenientl than those places. Because owning handguns in places like NYC or Chicago is extremely difficult, automatic weapons are forbidden, as are also the so-called "assault weapons". So ironically, the Iraqiis actually have more gun rights than many of the liberal -controlled places in America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #264 November 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteSh*t Tom, show me one shred of evidence that a copious amount of disbanded KKK members didn't join the NRA in an attempt to secure their weapons and a 'reasonable' excuse to have them. (i.e. the "promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis" [sniker]) There is none! We're talking about 132 years ago and you show me "a brief history" of the NRA (FROM THE NRA WEBPAGE) to prove that they had honnerable intentions? Well, I show you evidence, and your rebuttal is "sniker." Not a valid criticism of the source, not a source with contradictory results, but "sniker." Now you ask me to prove a negative. Is that a cop out or what? And we agreed they were not disbanded, so stop using that word. I snicker because you claim that the Organizashion's oryginal mision statment is proof enuf that it wasn't full of Klan members. Like if the NRA was full of clan members as I'm presenting, the missinon statment would have been "to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis... and the hangin' o' niggaz too" Telling me why they came about in the first place does not explain that they were not full of Klan members. Quote (ps - it's honorable. Like I said, that little 'check spelling' button is real handy.) were iz the buttun? Take a comic releif moment ... see attachment. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #265 November 20, 2003 QuoteLike if the NRA was full of clan members as I'm presenting... You have no basis for this statement! You are propogating unsubstantiated lies! Prove it or stop rewriting history! mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #266 November 20, 2003 QuoteQuoteLike if the NRA was full of clan members as I'm presenting... You have no basis for this statement! You are propogating unsubstantiated lies! Prove it or stop rewriting history! There is no proof! Just like there's no proof that the NRA wasn't full of Mechanics or Artists or Ballerinas for that matter. I'm simply stating that because the KKK was outlawed in 1871 and that NRA was founded the same year, that members of the Klan would have joined in large numbers. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #267 November 20, 2003 >There is no proof! Just like there's no proof that the NRA wasn't full >of Mechanics or Artists or Ballerinas for that matter. This thread is getting pretty wierd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #268 November 20, 2003 Well, that's not the story I heard. I hear from a very reliable source that when the Klan disbanded in 1871, they all moved to Toronto. In fact, I heard that Toronto had only a few people living there till the Klan showed up, and now look at the place!!!! mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #269 November 20, 2003 QuoteWell, that's not the story I heard. I hear from a very reliable source that when the Klan disbanded in 1871, they all moved to Toronto. In fact, I heard that Toronto had only a few people living there till the Klan showed up, and now look at the place!!!! [looks around nervously] really? Is that what you heard? I guess I'd better fess up and admit that I'm only suggesting many of them joined the NRA to distract DZ.com from this. Anyhoo... My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #270 November 20, 2003 QuoteThere is no proof! I'm simply stating that because the KKK was outlawed in 1871 and that NRA was founded the same year, that members of the Klan would have joined in large numbers. You sure are spending a lot of time on a subject for which you can offer no evidence. I don't see any reason why Klan members would have flocked to the NRA, since the NRA goals had nothing to do with Klan goals. You're running on pure conjecture here. The great Chicago fire also happened in 1871 - are you gonna blame that on the NRA too, just because they happened in the same year? How about the Franco-Prussian War - the NRA's fault? Maybe the Indian Appropriation Act, which revoked the sovereignty of Indian nations and made Native Americans wards of the government - an NRA action? And the Marines landed in Korea for a punitive expedition - the doing of the NRA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #271 November 20, 2003 This is worth a read My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #272 November 20, 2003 From that site: QuoteHe is a mainstream filmmaker who is trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. If you took out all the humour and dramatic flare, BFC (along with Moore's other work) wouldn't be nearly as popular, and therefore his message would reach less people. Isn't that the exact criteria for a documentary? So, according to this website, the fictional parts of this movie are just little white lies. I always thought a lie was a lie. Then again... QuoteDoes Moore carefully choose what you see and what you don't? Of course he does! Do you think the government doesn't do the same thing? Do you think politicians don't do the same thing? Do you think tobacco industries don't do the same thing? Of course it's justified... mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #273 November 20, 2003 QuoteOf the places you mention, I'm not sure all of them have provisions for permits at all. But, for example, while California allows it, they don't give them to hardly anyone. California law is a "discretionary" issue state. They reserve the right to refuse to issue, for no reason at all. And they exercise that right. If you are a politician, a millionaire, or a movie star, you can get a carry permit. But the average citizen can't. Thus, the policy in Iraq isn't much different than those places you mention. As a matter of fact, it's actually probably more lenientl than those places. Because owning handguns in places like NYC or Chicago is extremely difficult, automatic weapons are forbidden, as are also the so-called "assault weapons". So ironically, the Iraqiis actually have more gun rights than many of the liberal -controlled places in America. Also, in NJ, it is illegal to have hollow point bullets, or to posess magazines exceeding 15 round capacities. Permits are generally only issued to those who are employed as armed security guards. In California they recently confiscated thousands of weapons from otherwise law abiding citizens. Why? Because they used to legally own them, then they passed laws requiring registration of them, then they passed laws outlawing them. They were given a choice of turning in, sometimes antique or collectible, weapons for a tiny fraction of their value, or going to jail. Several people went to jail. Getting back to the media argument of this thread, I think that's the main reason for anti-gun people. The portrayal that everyone is walking around with machine pistols shooting each other. If people would bother to learn the facts before screaming for a ban, they'd probably find out the laws they think we need are already in place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kramer 0 #274 November 20, 2003 Quote This is worth a read Nice find goose. It's sad that this movie has enough exagerrated truths, and lies...that we have to sift through all the bullshit to try to figure out what we should believe or not. -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #275 November 20, 2003 >It's sad that this movie has enough exagerrated truths, and > lies...that we have to sift through all the bullshit to try to figure out > what we should believe or not. That applies to your entire life, not just movies. I think it's an important lesson to learn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
