Split From Gun Thread

[JLP]

we've actually amended the constitution 15 times in the last 200 years.

and Bush has ignored the constitution about that many times in the last eight years . . .

[KoZed]

and Bush has ignored the constitution about that many times in the last eight years . . .

OH SNAP!

[Doktor Kosmos]

we've actually amended the constitution 15 times in the last 200 years.

So you mean it's not likely the King of England will knock on your door and demand back taxes?

* lets out sigh of relief *

[simonus]

Well its all down to words.

Its rather funny the fight comes down to where commas are placed in the sentence and sentence structure. Blame the geniuses who wrote the paper. Stupid commas.

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.

There's a lot of crux's about the U.S. one of them is guns and gun laws.

No, we can't have gun control because that is against the constitution. lol

that's actually not what Scalia said. Scalia did acknowledge that the gun ownership could be regulated, but it could not be completely prohibited. He explicitly left the door open for most gun regulation laws.

I do not completely agree with the Court's reversal of Miller, but it is not an irrational opinion. There was some concern among us liberals that the court was set to completely destroy gun regulation law. That did not happen. The Court came up with a pretty narrow opinion that basically said what most liberal and libertarian scholars have been saying for years. The idea that there was not an individual right expressed in an amendment of the Bill of Rights is kinda reaching.

You want an expansively read Bill of Rights. About 9 times out of 10 it is very good for you. You want us to read the first amendment to create a barrier between church and state - I think it is implicit in the language, but it is not explicit. You want a right to privacy - I think it is in the 4th, 8th and 9th amendments, but it is also not explicit. Now, the 2nd amendment is the only one that has that kind of "prefatory clause" (as Scalia put it), so it is natural to read it more narrowly than the others, but the operative clause is not that confusing.

You want to open the Bill of Rights to constitutional amendments? You want to push your anti-gun amendment (which would fail)? How about a flag-burning amendment? A DOMA amendment? A prayer in school amendment? A habeas corpus amendment? Right now, I think it is best to leave the Bill of Rights alone - it is not a perfect or divinely inspired document, but it is better than what we would likely put together today.

BTW - plural of crux is cruxes (and your use of the term is somewhat suspect)

and Bush has ignored the constitution about that many times in the last eight years . . .

and he will be gone soon.

So you mean it's not likely the King of England will knock on your door and demand back taxes?

* lets out sigh of relief *

what?

[JLP]

and he [bush] will be gone soon.

yup (and nothing personal here simonus) but that is what my american friends here in japan are always telling everyone. i don't like the air of absolution to it, because the million dead iraqis will not return.

[simonus]

yup (and nothing personal here simonus) but that is what my american friends here in japan are always telling everyone. i don't like the air of absolution to it, because the million dead iraqis will not return.

there is no absolution to it and certainly the people of the United States will pay for his sins for years to come.

Bush has been an embarassment and a travesty, but I do not see a way that he will be punished per se for what he has done. Many in his administration will suffer for the sins of the last 8 years, but those punishments will undoubtedly be insufficient. Many will be discredited in the public eye and some might even end up in jail (although Bush has already shown that he will commute sentences if able). Bush himself will go down as a failure, but he will live out the remainder of his life as an incredibly rich and privileged pariah. It is a sad chapter for the United States and the world and the best part about it is that it is soon to be over.

EDIT: I am also not sure that the iraqi dead are the fault of Bush's flouting of the constitution. That is the result of horrific and stupid international policy, which is for the most part completely permitted under the constitution.

[Fanpuck33]

Yeah, let's not blame ANY of the dead Iraqis on terrorists and Saddam loyalists who:

- Disguise themselves as civilians and make it impossible to tell friend from foe

- Hide in civilian buildings to ensure collateral damage when they are attacked

- Blow themselves up in populated areas

- Place roadside bombs all over the place

I'm not gonna sit here and debate the merits of the war, this thread isn't even about the Iraq was. But to put the blood of a million people squarely on one man's hands is short-sighted, narrow minded, and asinine. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[simonus]

Yeah, let's not blame ANY of the dead Iraqis on terrorists and Saddam loyalists who:

- Disguise themselves as civilians and make it impossible to tell friend from foe

- Hide in civilian buildings to ensure collateral damage when they are attacked

- Blow themselves up in populated areas

- Place roadside bombs all over the place

I'm not gonna sit here and debate the merits of the war, this thread isn't even about the Iraq was. But to put the blood of a million people squarely on one man's hands is short-sighted, narrow minded, and asinine. There is plenty of blame to go around.

I agree that this is not the right thread for this conversation, but I want to make it clear that much of the blame I place on Bush as far as the Iraqi dead has to do with the shortsightedness of not seeing that there would inevitably be post-invasion violence and also not doing what was necessary to limit it. Knowing that an occupation would lead to horrible violence should have led Bush to either avoid war or do more after the initial invasion. I also think it is unproductive to dismiss most Iraqi dissidents as Saddam loyalists and terrorists.

[Fanpuck33]

I also think it is unproductive to dismiss most Iraqi dissidents as Saddam loyalists and terrorists.

How did I lump dissidents in with people who are actively fighting the US forces? If dissidents are doing the things I listed, then they are more than mere dissidents.

[simonus]

How did I lump dissidents in with people who are actively fighting the US forces? If dissidents are doing the things I listed, then they are more than mere dissidents.

P.S. I just noticed Pierre said "amen" to a group of statements, including: "The criminals already have the guns, so law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves."

I guess it comes to an issue of classification. I worry that there are Iraqis who like neither Hussein nor Al-Qaeda, but simply reject the American occupation. Regardless of the tactics they use to impel an American evacuation, I am hesitant to call them terrorists, which generally (although perhaps not in your construction) is a term used to dismiss people as outside the debate. I am definitely disturbed by any attack on American troops, but I think this is a separate class of anti-American forces that should be recognized and considered when determining US policy in Iraq. I am not so wise as to know what that policy ought be, but I know that this delineation should be a factor in any decision making.

[Fanpuck33]

I guess it comes to an issue of classification. I worry that there are Iraqis who like neither Hussein nor Al-Qaeda, but simply reject the American occupation. Regardless of the tactics they use to impel an American evacuation, I am hesitant to call them terrorists, which generally (although perhaps not in your construction) is a term used to dismiss people as outside the debate. I am definitely disturbed by any attack on American troops, but I think this is a separate class of anti-American forces that should be recognized and considered when determining US policy in Iraq. I am not so wise as to know what that policy ought be, but I know that this delineation should be a factor in any decision making.

Of course there are dissidents who are neither pro-Saddam nor terrorists. But as I said, once they do the things I listed, that makes them terrorists. Fighting from a civilian location so as to encourage collateral damage to influence public opinion - terrorism. Suicide bombing - terrorism. Roadside bombs - terrorism.

[simonus]

Of course there are dissidents who are neither pro-Saddam nor terrorists. But as I said, once they do the things I listed, that makes them terrorists. Fighting from a civilian location so as to encourage collateral damage to influence public opinion - terrorism. Suicide bombing - terrorism. Roadside bombs - terrorism.

that's not really what I'm talking about. Terrorism is most accurately described as a tactic, but you have to separate out the different terrorists rather than lump them all together. This is not because terrorism is right or justifiable, but because it is the only way to stop it. It will be easier to dissuade certain terrorists than others. The term "terrorist" has a dispositive connotation in the American discussion such that once someone is labeled a terrorist, we cease trying to understand them or try to find ways to stop them other than direct physical attack. Now, I am not against "going after the terrorists" when that is the most efficient and effective strategy, but it often is not and we should be loathe to use the term against people with whom we might want to negotiate or dissuade through non-violent means.

[Fanpuck33]

that's not really what I'm talking about. Terrorism is most accurately described as a tactic, but you have to separate out the different terrorists rather than lump them all together. This is not because terrorism is right or justifiable, but because it is the only way to stop it. It will be easier to dissuade certain terrorists than others. The term "terrorist" has a dispositive connotation in the American discussion such that once someone is labeled a terrorist, we cease trying to understand them or try to find ways to stop them other than direct physical attack. Now, I am not against "going after the terrorists" when that is the most efficient and effective strategy, but it often is not and we should be loathe to use the term against people with whom we might want to negotiate or dissuade through non-violent means.

Sorry, but people who do those types of things are not the type of people who are just gonna come to the bargaining table and work things out. They're the type who would come to the bargaining table so they could blow it and everyone there to pieces. Think about it, do you really think that someone willing to blow himself up is in a state of mind where he'd be willing to work out differences? Dissidents who fight fair might be willing to negotiate, but not the people I've been describing this whole time.

[KoZed]

Of course there are dissidents who are neither pro-Saddam nor terrorists. But as I said, once they do the things I listed, that makes them terrorists. Fighting from a civilian location so as to encourage collateral damage to influence public opinion - terrorism. Suicide bombing - terrorism. Roadside bombs - terrorism.

Terrorism caused, made possible, encouraged and made arguably justified or legitimated by the violation of Iraq's sovereignty and military invasion and administrative anexation of Iraq by US forces.

A country's gotta assume the responsabilities of the consequences of it's international policies, something the US seems to have a damn hard time to do because it's usually guilty of ethnocentrism and electoral short-sightedness.

[simonus]

Sorry, but people who do those types of things are not the type of people who are just gonna come to the bargaining table and work things out. They're the type who would come to the bargaining table so they could blow it and everyone there to pieces. Think about it, do you really think that someone willing to blow himself up is in a state of mind where he'd be willing to work out differences? Dissidents who fight fair might be willing to negotiate, but not the people I've been describing this whole time.

what about the IRA?

[Pierre the Great]

what about the IRA?

Now this is radical and I've only heard a few people in the world express this opinion.

IRA, the insurgency in Iraq (non al qaeda) are freedom fighters.

They represent a group of society that wants to over throw an oppressive regime. They want rights and freedom. In their context, the Al Sadr group, the IRA, The Boston Tea Party. Same thing.

So who is the oppressor here? In this context the US led forces.

If you look at it from the Iraqi point of view, this is the case.

Early on in the war where that US propaganda machine milked that Jessica Lynch story. Where she was, that city instead of joining the side of the Americans, broke into factions. Shia Sunni. There was 2 wars going on in that city. US was against the Iraqi military and then there was a guerrilla war against Shia and Sunni groups. This is what happens when you remove a dictator in a place that is not ripe for change. Saddam was the lid on the pot. He was secular and punished anybody trying to not be this way. You remove him, the pot over flows.

Same thing will happen in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia for sure, Egypt, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only country where Bush's idiotic plan would of worked ironically in Iran.

[simonus]

Now this is radical and I've only heard a few people in the world express this opinion.

IRA, the insurgency in Iraq (non al qaeda) are freedom fighters.

They represent a group of society that wants to over throw an oppressive regime. They want rights and freedom. In their context, the Al Sadr group, the IRA, The Boston Tea Party. Same thing.

So who is the oppressor here? In this context the US led forces.

If you look at it from the Iraqi point of view, this is the case.

Early on in the war where that US propaganda machine milked that Jessica Lynch story. Where she was, that city instead of joining the side of the Americans, broke into factions. Shia Sunni. There was 2 wars going on in that city. US was against the Iraqi military and then there was a guerrilla war against Shia and Sunni groups. This is what happens when you remove a dictator in a place that is not ripe for change. Saddam was the lid on the pot. He was secular and punished anybody trying to not be this way. You remove him, the pot over flows.

Same thing will happen in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia for sure, Egypt, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only country where Bush's idiotic plan would of worked ironically in Iran.

that is not the purpose of my analogy at all - all that I am saying is that there are groups that use terrorist tactics that can be negotiated. I am saying nothing more.

[Pierre the Great]

groups only resort to terrorist tactics as a last resort to get attention.

Then again the Smith Act guarantees any sort of workers struggle to be squashed.

Right of the people be damned.

[Pierre the Great]

Speaking of revolutions, somehow this didn't make it in the news last year:

Mikhail Gorbachev drew loud cheers in New Orleans Friday when he promised to lead a local revolution if the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't keep its promise to improve levees by 2011.

"We will be coming back," the Soviet Union's last leader said, through an interpreter, during a ceremony in the Lower Garden District. "If this pledge is not fulfilled, we will start a new revolution in New Orleans."

After the applause died down, Gorbachev said that action should be a last resort, even though, he added, most Americans apparently have forgotten that their country is the result of a revolution.

------

Only country in the world where the government is not afraid of its people, and the government gets free reign. Then if you want to challenge this, you are shot down by the people for being unpatriotic and a traitor. Stupid system.

[Zowpeb]

Only country where Bush's idiotic plan would of worked ironically in Iran.

Now this I think is overstating the issue...not the Bush's idiotic plan part either. lol

I believe Iran and Iraq are very similar in a way. Many people in Iraq wanted Saddam gone but, as happened after the Shah of Iran was deposed, they wanted whoever removed him to then leave and not impose THEIR new laws...which they now believe the US is doing.

A tactical assassination of Saddam and some key people probably would have been the smartest thing they could have done...while at the same time actually getting some legitimate field intelligence on possible "WMDs". It would have been cheaper, been kept quiet and they would have had proper disclosure on what weapons they actually had. The in-fighting between religious groups is occuring either way...a full out war was needless, costly in $$, lives and only increased the potential for future terrorist and state opposition in the region. JMHO

[KoZed]

A tactical assassination of Saddam and some key people probably would have been the smartest thing they could have done...while at the same time actually getting some legitimate field intelligence on possible "WMDs". It would have been cheaper, been kept quiet and they would have had proper disclosure on what weapons they actually had. The in-fighting between religious groups is occuring either way...a full out war was needless, costly in $, lives and only increased the potential for future terrorist and state opposition in the region. JMHO

They were 10 years too late in deposing Saddam. They had a chance to back a military coup by the 1st armored division back in 1994, but nobody in Washington wanted to be connected with it because of speculations and backdoor deals about oil fields and pipelines development around the region. The leadership void would have been filled by a secular military leader with debts to the US and loyalty in the army so as to keep the country relatively in order.

10 years later when there's no strong secular left to potentialy fill the void, when Saddam is old and not a treat to anyone anymore and the US already in a huge sympathy deficit in the Arab world; Washington decides to invade with no solid reason.

Why all these bad judgement calls one after the other? Because since the late 80's early 90's, the CIA decided to make away with ground operatives and put all their chips on hi-tech surveillance.

Result: Washington don't have a ing clue what's happing over there. For hard intelligence they have to rely on Mossad (who are perhaps the dirtiest guys around) and European secret services like MI6 and CSGE.

[Zowpeb]

They were 10 years too late in deposing Saddam. They had a chance to back a military coup by the 1st armored division back in 1994, but nobody in Washington wanted to be connected with it because of speculations and backdoor deals about oil fields and pipelines development around the region. The leadership void would have been filled by a secular military leader with debts to the US and loyalty in the army so as to keep the country relatively in order.

10 years later when there's no strong secular left to potentialy fill the void, when Saddam is old and not a treat to anyone anymore and the US already in a huge sympathy deficit in the Arab world; Washington decides to invade with no solid reason.

Why all these bad judgement calls one after the other? Because since the late 80's early 90's, the CIA decided to make away with ground operatives and put all their chips on hi-tech surveillance.

Result: Washington don't have a ######ing clue what's happing over there. For hard intelligence they have to rely on Mossad (who are perhaps the dirtiest guys around) and European secret services like MI6 and CSGE.

MI6 has proven to also be less then stellar with their intelligence of the area. During the original Gulf War they had guys over there without proper clothing not realising the desert actually drops below 0 at night...SAS members behind the lines were freezing their balls off. One allegedly died of hypothermia due to a lack of proper kit though some dispute the account.

The problem goes back as far as the cold war...the US has a long reputation of not having the guts to finish what they start. The issues go back to the formation of Israel, cold war fighting on Afgahnistan soil, and on through the Gulf War, invasions of Iraq, Afgahnistan, etc, etc. The US gave them the reasons to hate Western civilization and then armed, funded and trained them. They've done this in Iran, Iraq, Afgahnistan, Pakistan, etc. Hell, if they would have built schools in the countries that they help to blow up they might have actually helped move them from a theocracy into a group that can better accept a democracy. As it is, they only know what their mullah's tell them...