Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

There have been studies that have shown that guard animals are less effective than a security system on your doors and windows. Not to mention that the owner of such guard animals are introduced to increase liabilities. I've personally witnessed videos of thieves breaking into someones house and petting/playing with the "guard" dog. As far as being capable with a gun, it's called going to the shooting range and learning how to use the tool properly. If people take the time to understand the weapon they won't have delusions of being Rambo.

This is all beside the point as the bottom line is; rights exist free from arbitrary standards such as "intelligence". Either you believe people have inalienable rights or they have no rights at all. Trying to pick a middle ground eliminates the "rights" in question and reduces them to minor a privilege.

Oh and for the "especially civilians" part. I trust Ma and Pa civilian with a firearm more than I trust law enforcement or the military. Ma and Pa want to be left alone. The increasing power gap between the citizens and government is cause for concern for anybody who truly embraces freedom. There is a reason dictatorships always ban weapons from the hands of the populace. Think about it.

Why would we "let them be more dangerous by giving them guns"? The rights of human beings are not subject to arbitrary standards for their utilization. Those rights are absolute (especially when you step into a discussion of natural rights). In the United States the rights granted to the populace is absolute and shall not be infringed!

How would you feel if I proposed to violate your right to free speech (or privacy) simply because I don't think you're "intelligent" enough to be responsible. Get my point?

Studies have proven that guns have no coloration with crime. "Gun crime" yes but, that's a arbitrary category. Obviously gun crime would reduce if guns were banned but "Gun Crime" is just crime committed with the presence/possession of a firearm.

Crime comes from social conditions. If someone wants to rob a store they will try with a gun, knife ,axe, Stick, palm tree or whatever they can get their hands on.

Want to reduce crime? Improve societal conditions rather than ban a tool.

Step 1: Find a reference picture. Each pixel is one MC block.

Step 2: Laid a dirt line the width of the widest part (so you don't lay down too much at the beginning)

Step 3: Acquire all the required dye. Dye the sheep before sheering them for best results.

Step 4: I personally use dirt as a placeholder if I am short for black wool (I don't use obsidian)

Step 5: Use dirt scaffolding to reach high areas.

We so need to chill again in the future. 5/5

Also, you should visit zig and I in the near future.

P.s I need the recipe for the garlic bread you made the first night.

@neko: chipotle burritos are godly. Clearly superior to taco bell or similar establishments.

Alas, I can't remain here much longer so I propose a few questions to spur the debate back in the right direction.

Why should the United States involve itself in Lybia (or for that matter any other sovereign nation)?

Why can't the European Union handle the events in Lybia?

Are we going to ignore the people who support Qaddafi in Trippoli? Is it simply because the threat of civilians being killed that we should intervene? Should we do the same for other dictators who are accused of "violating human rights"?

If so, that would include Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and North Korea, should we interfere with their affairs by military action?

What if the rebels are worse than Qaddafi and they try to purge Qaddafi supporters. Should we try to stop that as well?

Why are we mandated to involve ourselves in the concerns of another Sovereign nation?

Do we have the right to invade another sovereign nation?

If so, do other nations have this right?


If we can invade another country to remove elements that we do not like, is another nation allowed to invade us for the same reasons?

If not, then why the double standard?

Ugh, I'm out of time. Tsurayu and others can add to the list of questions.

That's adorable that you still cling to the idea that Americans have controlled the Government in any conceivable fashion since the 1800's. Enjoy your bread and circuses then.



You're knee jerk reaction earlier implied I would send the Navy out in row boats armed with harshly worded letters and rubber ducks.



No, cease or leave Serious Discussion as a whole. I don't tolerate emotions clouding the argument. So what if some citizens under a dictatorship are dying? Some people want Qaddafi to stay in power (mainly those in Tripoli and the western half of Lybia). So are we going to trample what they want because others want a different system? What makes America so special as to use military force on other sovereign nations yet, if N. Korea invaded S. Korea we'd be tripping over ourselves to stop them. It's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

Are we the only nation in the world who can invade a country? You tried justifying military action because people were being killed in Lybia. Would you also try to justify military action in Darfur during that conflict? What about the conflict in south Ossetia/Georgia?



I'm not sitting and theorizing this with my thumb up my ass. These are actual connections that experts have found after studying the events. These people have spent careers analyzing the events that occurred prior, during and after WW1 and how they lead to the events of WW2 then how events that occurred during WW2 caused events that happened after wards. History is pretty black and white about this kind of stuff.

For example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria sparked a chain of events that triggered WW1. That is solid fact, A lead to B which lead to C. calling this "armchair theory" is a simple cop out.

I honestly don't feel like quoting each individual piece.

Switzerland's mentality is due to the geographical locations isolating them for many years and have to deal with repeated invasions from foreign powers that has lead to their unity and mentality of national defense.

The United States citizen hasn't controlled the government since the 1800's when corporations were formed. Money bought politicians back then as it does now. Unplug from the matrix Trinity.

Federal law mandates that legal immigrants must learn English in order to obtain a green card. If they can not speak English, they will be taught. Anyways, this was a concept I came up with in ten minutes. If you wish to continue discussing this, make a thread as it's derailing this one.


It was a concept I came up with in 10 minutes. Forgive me, if a rough draft has a few flaws. Mandatory or volunteer forces, the point remains the same. U.S. citizens should be armed and trained for the defense of the nation and ONLY the defense of the nation from a direct and immediate threat to the United States. We should not engage in "proactive" strikes against a nation without a declaration of War.

Military Reservists make about $250 a month for two Saturdays worth of training. Every militia member would be paid roughly this amount. The money to equip and train the new recruits would come from the money saved from closing the bases abroad which was totaled at 48.8 billion dollars annually by Donald Rumsfeld in 2005.

Regardless of who goes in first whether it is the Navy and Air Force or the Army/Marine Grunts there will be casualties. Don't get all emotional over casualties considering your position has been for the advocacy of military action in another sovereign nation. As for the "token force" It's not merely a "token force" it's half of the U.S. Navy (considering half would be in the Atlantic while the other half is in the Pacific). Regardless, we spend far too much money trying to police the world and we're earning a bad reputation with it which is straining our international ties. It's time to pull back and mind our own business. Pay down our debt, get back on the path of an economic recovery. Not investing soldiers abroad and getting paid in body bags.

This is beside the original topic. If you wish to discuss this, make another thread.

Doesn't matter if China wants to fight with us. Again, this is besides the original topic. Create one if you wish to discuss it.

You are free to feel insulted but, I don't really care about your emotional state to begin with. Non-intervention is not the same as Isolationism. Tokugawa Japan was Isolationist. I am merely advocating for the abstaining of military force in a nation that is not a direct and immediate threat to the United States. You're failure to understand this concept is becoming tiresome. Either learn the difference or stop wasting my time.

Switzerland, New Zealand and Sweden are neutral/non-interventionist states. It's working for them. I'm suggesting we emulate them in foreign policy. Rather than investing our bodies and getting body bags in return. You criticize me for being inhuman for not sending more people to die. I criticize you for wanting to send more people to die.



You lost all credibility right here. Dragging an emotional argument into this rather than arguing facts. Cease or leave.


Ma'am, "Armchair theory". is an unofficial term for the approach which economists are perceived to mostly use for coming up with a new economic theory. If you are going to use a term, use it properly. Also the Alliances BEFORE the war drug a minor conflict into a major conflict. The resulting treaties occurred due to the Alliances that existed before the war. Seriously, the concept is not difficult to grasp. A lead to B which lead to C and D.

@Dos: The United States supreme court has rules that it is constitutional for the U.S. Government to draft it's citizens.

Link

No clue my friend, no clue.

OT: Neko-chan Allow me to rephrase my earlier statement to clarify.


To put my philosophy in simple terms, The United State would withdrawal from any mutual protection packs, N.A.T.O and the United Nations. The United States would withdraw it's navy from patrols near Japan (while allowing Japan to rebuild and maintain a standing military officially) and the Middle East while recalling all troops and material stationed abroad in Japan, Guam, Germany, and other countries then selling the bases to the nation they reside in.

We as the United States would begin a program to train every citizen in the operation and maintenance of the m4 carbine. Every citizen will be required to serve two years on active duty and upon completion of their "active duty" they would then be required to act as a reservist with the same training schedule. The system will draw heavily off the Swiss Militia system.

Economically, we would continue free trade with "economic punishments" towards countries that are unfair in their dealings (such as china manipulation of it's currency). For China I would add a 10% tax for all goods coming from China and add an additional 10% every year until China honestly evaluates it's currency. Other than that, we would not take military or economic actions against any country unless they are a direct and immediate threat to the United States.


I admit that "isolationism" was probably the wrong term to use but, a better term eluded me.

As for "We've been isolationist" before argument, Neko-chan you forget your history lessons. The myriad of Alliances and mutual protection pacts were the reason for America's (and Germany's) involvement in WW1. The results of Central Powers defeat lead to the economic conditions for Facism to rise in Western Europe. Lenin/Stalin rose to power after the Russian Revolution in 1917 which you can research on your own.

So while our Isolationism had lead to the near defeat of the "Allies" it was because of our inability to follow a non-isolationist policy that lead to our involvement in WW1 and the outbreak of WW2.

To answer your question first I must ask you a question. "What is a nation?" A Nation can summed up in 3 words; boarders, language, culture. those three aspects are what create a nation. These three aspects give people an identity. removing these three aspects eliminates facets of individuality from a people. If you wish to discuss this concept more. Create a thread.

On topic:

I'm with Tsurayu on this. This is a Lybian problem and it should be the Lybians who solve it. If an external power must intervene then it should be another Arab state. The middle east is undergoing a paradigm shift towards Democracy. It may not be a full fledged Democracy (indirect or direct) now but, they are moving in the right direction.

I'm in lines with the L/libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and isolationism. The U.S. military should only be used for our own defense. For example, enemy ships are nearing out shores, the U.S. Navy will sink them. If the enemy gets through our navy then the militia's would take up arms and repel the invading force.

Note: I said militia not Army or National guard. Why? Because I don't believe we should have a standing army as we do. I wish to model the U.S. military after the Swiss.

In addition, I think the U.N. is a waste of time and a bloody hypocrisy of the highest caliber. Countries with military Junta's and Dictatorships on the human rights council? Not to mention the whole system locks up because Russia or China says "No". Don't get me started on the laundry list of other bullshit this organization is guilty of. If I had my way, I would evict the U.N. from the United States. Stop all funding, tear down the building and establish a new organization. The requirements for joining would be the acceptance and enforcement of a Bill of Rights modeled after the one in the U.S. affording the citizens of all member states the same rights we enjoy here in the states. Though, I had specific rewordings I would use to afford people more protections and fewer restrictions.

Anyways, I'll cheer the Lybians on in their struggle for a more Democratic state but, I do not support the idea of using military force on another sovereign nation. Especially, a nation that has not declared war or similar military action.

Flaser and others have pretty much said all I had to say on the subject but, I feel the need to add in a couple studies to further aid the argument.

Study 1

Study 2

Just a couple of studies that show that torture as a method of gathering information is pretty much a waste of time. An article a couple years back from Newsweek has stated that torture can actually hinder the subjects ability to tell the truth.

Unless we correct mistakes people will continue to make them. We do respect the opinions of others for what they are, opinions.

Anyways, I'll throw my lot in with Flaser with his criteria for a terrorist to be a terrorist. Not much I can add that he hasn't already said.

Gabrielle Giffords is a 'Blue Dog" centrist who supported immigration controls and gun rights (oh the irony).

I'm a bit cut off from the information feed nowadays (I'm just too damn lazy to check news sites every morning).

While the motive is unknown at the moment since the suspect has turtles up with his fifth amendment rights I can't help but suspect that there will certainly be a wave calling for gun bans.

Not to mention that every anti-government individual and organization will now be under increased scrutiny do to this twits actions.

I suspect more than anything this was just a way for him to get his political message heard by a larger population or he plans on using his court trial as a platform for his pontificating.

In the purest, simplest form.

Democrat= Social Liberalism

Republican= Classical Liberalism

Once you read into those ideologies you'll have a greater understanding of our politics.

libertarians are there simply to muck the whole system up as they can't be as easily explained at the Left/Right Red/Blue system.

In philosophically, I am a Classical Liberal as defined by wiki



More specificly I am an Anarchist/Minarchist. The Government should be kept at the minimalist state possible for the function of a free society. I differ from other Minarchists is that I do not believe the state should have arms outside of the local police carrying what is deemed necessary for them to perform their duties.

I believe all citizens of the U.S. (save for conscientious objectors) should be issued a standard firearm either Sub Machine Gun or Assault Rifle then required to undergo army training upon reaching 18 and lasting until they are 20. From then they should be kept on a reservist level of training once or twice a month. This model mimics the Finnish and Swiss Models for national Defense. Exceptions would be those who join the Air Force, Coast Guard or Navy as they will be left exactly how they are now with our current military.

Also all American Military doctrine should dictate that all wars should be defensive in nature otherwise we maintain a strict neutrality (our armed forces do not leave our nation under any circumstance). In other words, Americans don't bear arms until the enemy is within sight of our shores (if they made it that far through the Navy/Air Force)

I believe in a Government that is as transparent as glass with few exceptions for highly sensitive information such as CIA operatives locations, missions,etc.


Economically I am a leftist-libertarian. I was formerly a Laisse-faire Libertarian but, I only agree with the Libertarian party in rhetoric rather than function. I believe Laisse-faire capitalism leads to corporate monopolies and monopolies are always, always bad. While I agree with free markets as opposed to mixed economies or market socialism. I believe government does have a role in the market to enforce our laws and to protect consumers/employees from the abuses of companies.

Market fundamentalism only works if society is full of well informed and intelligent people which sadly, the majority of the human species is not well informed nor intelligent.


On a side note; Consent is a huge factor for me. Anything that occurs with the consent of those involved should be legal otherwise it should be illegal and a punishable offense.

I'm with shaggs on this one. Natural selection. I'm all for those willingly voting themselves out of the genepool.

Though Sam brings up a point about how over the counter options can be used as a murder tool. So a tiny bit of regulation could be used to ensure those who purchase the pill are the ones who swallow it. Possibly going to a hospital to take such a pill in front of a doctor or R.N.

While suicide is a horrible and selfish thing, I don't believe it's the responsibility of any person or organization to stop a person from doing something with their own body. To me, it's all about consent whether it be drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, or whatever poison you can imagine.

"Laws off the body" I say.

Do not pity those who are selfish enough to end their own lives.

Personal philosophies are worth keeping if they are productive or give you a set of principles that are beneficial for you.

My personal philosophy is



It reflects my respect for physical labor and craftsmanship. I respect welders, masons, mechanics, pipe fitters,etc more than a respect a pencil pusher in some air conditioned office. Why? Because that welder, mason, carpenter or pipe fitter has built more than that pencil pusher. The welder or mason is the reason that a building stands so the pencil pusher can do his job.

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):


USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

(First column is homicides, second is suicides, third is accidental.)

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

Also some info from Nation Master.com about the crime in 4 select countries

Swiss Crime Statistics

United States Crime statistics

United Kingdom Crime Statistics

Canadian Crime statistics

You'll notice that the U.S. has a higher crime rate in general. This is because the poverty in the States. While the uneducated claim we are the richest country in the world, we are in fact one of the poorest in physical wealth. Why that is will be saved for an entirely different thread for another time. Point of the matter is, we are rife with poverty and guns are simply a tool. Ban guns entirely and you won't prevent gun crime nor will you prevent crime itself. No, instead of preventing law abiding citizens from carrying personal protection. One should evaluate how to counter the reasons for gun crime itself. Banning firearms is merely a band-aid on a severed limb when it comes to the real problem at hand.

Gun bans simply remove the guns from the law abiding citizen while not affecting the non-abiding citizen. Look how well prohibition and the war on drugs have worked. I suspect that a gun ban within the United States would face equal success.

PDF

the IANSA website is down so you'll have to settle for a pretty picture instead



Oh, one final example is the District of Columbia's handgun ban

D.C. gun crime statistics

The ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there is only one year (1985) when D.C.'s murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. But the murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years we have data after the ban, D.C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth.

For Instance, D.C.'s murder rate fell from 3.5 to 3 times more than Maryland and Virginia's during the five years before the handgun ban went into effect in 1977, but rose to 3.8 times more in the five years after it.

I believe all these statistics and studies pretty much close the thread.

Side note; I believe Macross knows of FBI estimates (or possibly ATF?) of how many crimes are prevented by the open display of a fire arm.

Thank you lion, you framed my thoughts better than I could have. Also thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

Also It's nice to know that you are well.



Fine, fine. I retract my statement of disappointment of Neko-chan. It was unprofessional, and uncalled for.