|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:01:34 GMT -5
Our President has killed at least 2 Americans simply by signing orders that order their deaths. If he can kill Americans on foreign soil why is it unlikely that he (or another President in the future) would do it here? I don't actually know much about that, but I'd say it was for the good of the country. I doubt it was a case of "Eh, I'm bored. Go kill a couple people will ya?". So it's ok to kill Americans if it's for the good of the country? Abdulrahman was 16 years old when he was killed. Their reasoning for killing him? He had a father who hated America. Not a father that killed any Americans or anything like that, just a guy who didn't like America. So they killed him and his son. If it's ok to kill for the good of the country, what if the government deems Detroit a danger to America so they nuke Detroit, it's ok because they have stopped a danger to the country? Because we have experience with governments, here and abroad, stepping on our rights. We had to fight off an oppressive government before and we should have the means to do it again. Again, you're using examples from hundreds of years ago. This is 2013, it wouldn't happen. What stops them from doing it?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:14:42 GMT -5
And your basis for this is basically a conspiracy theory. The US government doing whatever they please WOULD NOT be allowed to happen in 2013. Do you honestly think the rest of the world would just let that happen? Put down the book, use some common sense. What conspiracy theory would that be? You're right, the government hasn't purposefully killed Americans (Abdulrahman and Anwar Al-Awlaki) or holding them indefinitely in terrible conditions (Bradley Manning). What exactly do you think would stop them from doing what they please?The rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:18:11 GMT -5
What conspiracy theory would that be? You're right, the government hasn't purposefully killed Americans (Abdulrahman and Anwar Al-Awlaki) or holding them indefinitely in terrible conditions (Bradley Manning). What exactly do you think would stop them from doing what they please?The rest of the world. Because the rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the Syrian massacre. The rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the (government induced) famine in North Korea. How long did it take for the rest of the world to try and stop Hitler?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:19:24 GMT -5
I don't actually know much about that, but I'd say it was for the good of the country. I doubt it was a case of "Eh, I'm bored. Go kill a couple people will ya?". So it's ok to kill Americans if it's for the good of the country? Abdulrahman was 16 years old when he was killed. Their reasoning for killing him? He had a father who hated America. Not a father that killed any Americans or anything like that, just a guy who didn't like America. So they killed him and his son. If it's ok to kill for the good of the country, what if the government deems Detroit a danger to America so they nuke Detroit, it's ok because they have stopped a danger to the country? Like I said, I'll admit I don't know that much about those cases. I imagine it's not quite as black and white as that though. As for the rest, if the whole of Detroit was conspiring to destroy the rest of the United States, then yes it would probably be okay C'mon, at least use realistic examples. Also, if America isn't allowed to kill for the good of the country, what's the point in Death Row? Or any other American execution for that matter?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Feb 4, 2013 22:19:38 GMT -5
I want to thank Slappy for your insight in this thread. It means a lot coming from someone who doesn't even own a firearm to have a stance such as he does and stick up for what he believes in and that he believes in our constitution.
When you take little bites out of things, little by little or one large one, eventually it'll be gone. Some people have a hard time understanding this. Maybe you don't read your history books or don't see what innocent citizens of other countries are going through right at this very moment. You don't realize that it only takes one person to lead us away from our freedoms and how good we have it. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it can happen right here in the USA if our rights and freedoms are allowed to be chewed away.
JS
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:23:39 GMT -5
So it's ok to kill Americans if it's for the good of the country? Abdulrahman was 16 years old when he was killed. Their reasoning for killing him? He had a father who hated America. Not a father that killed any Americans or anything like that, just a guy who didn't like America. So they killed him and his son. If it's ok to kill for the good of the country, what if the government deems Detroit a danger to America so they nuke Detroit, it's ok because they have stopped a danger to the country? Like I said, I'll admit I don't know that much about those cases. I imagine it's not quite as black and white as that though. As for the rest, if the whole of Detroit was conspiring to destroy the rest of the United States, then yes it would probably be okay C'mon, at least use realistic examples. Also, if America isn't allowed to kill for the good of the country, what's the point in Death Row? Or any other American execution for that matter? There is a difference between conspiring to do harm and actually doing harm. Thinking about or wanting harm should not be a reason to kill someone. I am 100% against the death penalty, no matter what the person did. The only reason to kill is revenge and to make us feel better.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:27:05 GMT -5
Because the rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the Syrian massacre. The rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the (government induced) famine in North Korea. How long did it take for the rest of the world to try and stop Hitler? dawn.com/2013/01/30/following-syria-massacre-un-envoy-urges-security-council-to-act/Yeah, steps ARE being taken. Okay, it's not the greatest action but still. It's not as simple as "oh this country is doing a bad thing, let's just bomb them". America is much more accessible and it's government much more civilised. North Korea is basically "out of sight, out of mind" (which is wrong) while America is one of the biggest most important countries in the world. As for Hitler, we're talking about the 30s here. Hitler covered his tracks well and it was much easier to do so back then. If Obama did what Hitler did there's no way he'd be able to keep it under lock.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:31:42 GMT -5
Because the rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the Syrian massacre. The rest of the world has just been hopping on board to stop the (government induced) famine in North Korea. How long did it take for the rest of the world to try and stop Hitler? dawn.com/2013/01/30/following-syria-massacre-un-envoy-urges-security-council-to-act/Yeah, steps ARE being taken. Okay, it's not the greatest action but still. It's not as simple as "oh this country is doing a bad thing, let's just bomb them". America is much more accessible and it's government much more civilised. North Korea is basically "out of sight, out of mind" (which is wrong) while America is one of the biggest most important countries in the world. As for Hitler, we're talking about the 30s here. Hitler covered his tracks well and it was much easier to do so back then. If Obama did what Hitler did there's no way he'd be able to keep it under lock. Wow, two years to even begin to do something. Gives me great hope that the rest of the world would do something if the US did that. What would other countries do if the US did any of that? Would they bomb the White House or the Capital building, the Pentagon maybe? Our military would be able to shoot them out of the sky if they even tried.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:35:50 GMT -5
I want to thank Slappy for your insight in this thread. It means a lot coming from someone who doesn't even own a firearm to have a stance such as he does and stick up for what he believes in and that he believes in our constitution. When you take little bites out of things, little by little or one large one, eventually it'll be gone. Some people have a hard time understanding this. Maybe you don't read your history books or don't see what innocent citizens of other countries are going through right at this very moment. You don't realize that it only takes one person to lead us away from our freedoms and how good we have it. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it can happen right here in the USA if our rights and freedoms are allowed to be chewed away. JS There's a bit of a difference between "a right to own a gun" and "a right to life". As I said before, guns mean nothing. They're existence as far as being useful is pointless. They do much more harm than good. You're putting way too much stock into guns. They're not the be all, end all. The UK doesn't have guns. I don't see their rights being taken away. I don't see their government plotting to rule the country with an iron fist. Why is there such a difference between America and the UK? There isn't. For some reason people buy into this hype that "America is the greatest country, freedom of expression, woo hoo!". It's the same in many other countries. Why does America have to make a big deal about it?
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Feb 4, 2013 22:36:17 GMT -5
Winger, you've still yet to answer Slappys question.. what would stop the government from doing what they want?
Not to mention, that guns are part of America's defense, not just from itself, but also from foreign threats.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:38:45 GMT -5
dawn.com/2013/01/30/following-syria-massacre-un-envoy-urges-security-council-to-act/Yeah, steps ARE being taken. Okay, it's not the greatest action but still. It's not as simple as "oh this country is doing a bad thing, let's just bomb them". America is much more accessible and it's government much more civilised. North Korea is basically "out of sight, out of mind" (which is wrong) while America is one of the biggest most important countries in the world. As for Hitler, we're talking about the 30s here. Hitler covered his tracks well and it was much easier to do so back then. If Obama did what Hitler did there's no way he'd be able to keep it under lock. Wow, two years to even begin to do something. Gives me great hope that the rest of the world would do something if the US did that. What would other countries do if the US did any of that? Would they bomb the White House or the Capital building, the Pentagon maybe? Our military would be able to shoot them out of the sky if they even tried. Like I said, there's a difference between America and Syria. To think that the UN would handle both the same is asinine. The second point is debatable. It's all based on "What If?". And that's what I don't like about this argument. All this US government taking everyone's rights away stuff is all based on nothing. There is no reasoning behind it other than "THEY CAN'T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY! THEY'RE ALL NAZIS MAN! NEXT THEY'LL TAKE ALL OUR RIGHTS AWAY!".
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:40:15 GMT -5
I want to thank Slappy for your insight in this thread. It means a lot coming from someone who doesn't even own a firearm to have a stance such as he does and stick up for what he believes in and that he believes in our constitution. When you take little bites out of things, little by little or one large one, eventually it'll be gone. Some people have a hard time understanding this. Maybe you don't read your history books or don't see what innocent citizens of other countries are going through right at this very moment. You don't realize that it only takes one person to lead us away from our freedoms and how good we have it. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it can happen right here in the USA if our rights and freedoms are allowed to be chewed away. JS There's a bit of a difference between "a right to own a gun" and "a right to life". As I said before, guns mean nothing. They're existence as far as being useful is pointless. They do much more harm than good. You're putting way too much stock into guns. They're not the be all, end all. The UK doesn't have guns. I don't see their rights being taken away. I don't see their government plotting to rule the country with an iron fist. Why is there such a difference between America and the UK? There isn't. For some reason people buy into this hype that "America is the greatest country, freedom of expression, woo hoo!". It's the same in many other countries. Why does America have to make a big deal about it? You have both a right to a gun and life. Because the UK government certainly isn't infringing on the rights of its people. There would never be cameras around watching every movement of every person. They certainly wouldn't jail people for unpopular speech.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:41:46 GMT -5
Winger, you've still yet to answer Slappys question.. what would stop the government from doing what they want? Not to mention, that guns are part of America's defense, not just from itself, but also from foreign threats. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Admiral Isoroku YamamotoGive me a chance to respond, it's hard to reply to 3 different people when I'm the only one on my side I can understand the military having guns. That is nowhere near the same as some random guy from Tennessee owning a gun.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:43:50 GMT -5
Wow, two years to even begin to do something. Gives me great hope that the rest of the world would do something if the US did that. What would other countries do if the US did any of that? Would they bomb the White House or the Capital building, the Pentagon maybe? Our military would be able to shoot them out of the sky if they even tried. Like I said, there's a difference between America and Syria. To think that the UN would handle both the same is asinine. The second point is debatable. It's all based on "What If?". And that's what I don't like about this argument. All this US government taking everyone's rights away stuff is all based on nothing. There is no reasoning behind it other than "THEY CAN'T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY! THEY'RE ALL NAZIS MAN! NEXT THEY'LL TAKE ALL OUR RIGHTS AWAY!". What makes you think the US will listen to the UN? If our government wanted to kill people, some organization with no backbone won't stop them. Our rights are being taken away. Patriot Act, NDAA, the Supreme Court ruling police can barge into your house without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruling police do not have the duty to protect US citizens, etc.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:44:47 GMT -5
There's a bit of a difference between "a right to own a gun" and "a right to life". As I said before, guns mean nothing. They're existence as far as being useful is pointless. They do much more harm than good. You're putting way too much stock into guns. They're not the be all, end all. The UK doesn't have guns. I don't see their rights being taken away. I don't see their government plotting to rule the country with an iron fist. Why is there such a difference between America and the UK? There isn't. For some reason people buy into this hype that "America is the greatest country, freedom of expression, woo hoo!". It's the same in many other countries. Why does America have to make a big deal about it? You have both a right to a gun and life. Because the UK government certainly isn't infringing on the rights of its people. There would never be cameras around watching every movement of every person. They certainly wouldn't jail people for unpopular speech. Except life is much more important than a gun. That's what a lot of Americans seemed to have lost sight of. And no, the UK government isn't doing those things. Cameras are used to detect any possible crimes, similar to many other countries. And no, the UK government doesn't jail people for "unpopular speech". They would only do that if the "unpopular speech" was inciting hatred or violence. They don't just arrest people willy nilly. Don't get me wrong, the British government is far from perfect. You're statements are gross exaggerations though.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:48:30 GMT -5
You have both a right to a gun and life. Because the UK government certainly isn't infringing on the rights of its people. There would never be cameras around watching every movement of every person. They certainly wouldn't jail people for unpopular speech. Except life is much more important than a gun. That's what a lot of Americans seemed to have lost sight of. And no, the UK government isn't doing those things. Cameras are used to detect any possible crimes, similar to many other countries. And no, the UK government doesn't jail people for "unpopular speech". They would only do that if the "unpopular speech" was inciting hatred or violence. They don't just arrest people willy nilly. Don't get me wrong, the British government is far from perfect. You're statements are gross exaggerations though. Why can we only have one or the other? Why can't we have both? So it's ok to spy on citizens if it is under the guise of fighting crime or stopping terror? Guy tweeted something racist, he was arrested and thrown in jail. But they aren't doing anything wrong, right? news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57405599-71/british-man-jailed-for-racist-tweet/Hating someone should not be illegal. Racism is terrible but someone who is racist should not be jailed for their opinions.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:49:52 GMT -5
Like I said, there's a difference between America and Syria. To think that the UN would handle both the same is asinine. The second point is debatable. It's all based on "What If?". And that's what I don't like about this argument. All this US government taking everyone's rights away stuff is all based on nothing. There is no reasoning behind it other than "THEY CAN'T TAKE MY GUNS AWAY! THEY'RE ALL NAZIS MAN! NEXT THEY'LL TAKE ALL OUR RIGHTS AWAY!". What makes you think the US will listen to the UN? If our government wanted to kill people, some organization with no backbone won't stop them. Our rights are being taken away. Patriot Act, NDAA, the Supreme Court ruling police can barge into your house without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruling police do not have the duty to protect US citizens, etc. Maybe they wouldn't listen to the UN. Then the countries of the UN would have to do something then, wouldn't they? America is powerful no doubt, but even they, without any allies, would struggle against a combined force of many other countries. And again, the argument is all based on if's and but's. That isn't much of a basis for an argument. Arguments should be based on facts and stats. Not guesses and theories. As for the rest, that's a problem with the United States as a whole. Do you honestly think a gun is going to protect you from a team of police invading your home?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:53:03 GMT -5
What makes you think the US will listen to the UN? If our government wanted to kill people, some organization with no backbone won't stop them. Our rights are being taken away. Patriot Act, NDAA, the Supreme Court ruling police can barge into your house without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruling police do not have the duty to protect US citizens, etc. Maybe they wouldn't listen to the UN. Then the countries of the UN would have to do something then, wouldn't they? America is powerful no doubt, but even they, without any allies, would struggle against a combined force of many other countries. And again, the argument is all based on if's and but's. That isn't much of a basis for an argument. Arguments should be based on facts and stats. Not guesses and theories. As for the rest, that's a problem with the United States as a whole. Do you honestly think a gun is going to protect you from a team of police invading your home? The US has veto power over the UN. We could just say no to any action they would take. It's how no action has been taken on Syria because Russia has vetoed it along the way. But stopping the government from becoming tyrannical is one of the reasons we have the second amendment. Jefferson said so himself. So these theories are well within the realm of possibility.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:53:49 GMT -5
Except life is much more important than a gun. That's what a lot of Americans seemed to have lost sight of. And no, the UK government isn't doing those things. Cameras are used to detect any possible crimes, similar to many other countries. And no, the UK government doesn't jail people for "unpopular speech". They would only do that if the "unpopular speech" was inciting hatred or violence. They don't just arrest people willy nilly. Don't get me wrong, the British government is far from perfect. You're statements are gross exaggerations though. Why can we only have one or the other? Why can't we have both? So it's ok to spy on citizens if it is under the guise of fighting crime or stopping terror? Guy tweeted something racist, he was arrested and thrown in jail. But they aren't doing anything wrong, right? news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57405599-71/british-man-jailed-for-racist-tweet/Hating someone should not be illegal. Racism is terrible but someone who is racist should not be jailed for their opinions. "after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred." Key words: inciting racial hatred. Yes, that should be illegal. That's where the US and the UK differ. There's a difference between having an opinion and being an abusive racist who is trying to hurt others. And yes, cameras should be allowed in certain circumstances. Again, it all comes down to conspiracy theories about the government being out to get people. There's no basis in fact. Should a shopkeeper not have the right to protect his store by installing cameras to catch thieves then? Since "if not all is okay, then nothing is okay", right?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 22:56:42 GMT -5
Maybe they wouldn't listen to the UN. Then the countries of the UN would have to do something then, wouldn't they? America is powerful no doubt, but even they, without any allies, would struggle against a combined force of many other countries. And again, the argument is all based on if's and but's. That isn't much of a basis for an argument. Arguments should be based on facts and stats. Not guesses and theories. As for the rest, that's a problem with the United States as a whole. Do you honestly think a gun is going to protect you from a team of police invading your home? The US has veto power over the UN. We could just say no to any action they would take. It's how no action has been taken on Syria because Russia has vetoed it along the way. But stopping the government from becoming tyrannical is one of the reasons we have the second amendment. Jefferson said so himself. So these theories are well within the realm of possibility. Just because Jefferson said it, means nothing. What makes Jefferson any more knowledgeable than anybody else in predicting the future? He isn't. It's a moot point. As for America disregarding the UN, okay fine. What's to stop the UN from ignoring America though? Just because America veto something doesn't mean the UN have to stop. Just like how just because there's a constitution doesn't mean the US government can't just rip that up and do whatever they want, right? Since we all know the US government is out to get everyone....
|
|