Automobile accidents kill TENS OF THOUSANDS of people every year. If no one had cars, no one would die because of them. Do you want to be part of the problem or the solution?
Everything kills people. Even "harmless" items like bicycles and buckets. You have to offset the harm with the usefulness and good that any item causes. As I said earlier, defensive gun uses (ie: preservation of life) happens far, far more times than deaths due to gun uses.
To some extent I may agree, but intervention is good or bad only if judged by conflicting sets of principles.
For instance, does the same reasoning apply also to a region called Europe during fascism and nazism? Does it apply to the Holocaust?
I have my ideals, and those ideals tell me that Saddam was an evil man. But I also think that when you start a war you do so because you've given up the idea of reasoning with your adversary, who becomes an enemy. Wars are always fought to achieve results, and they are generally popularly judged by the results they achieve. In this the Iraqi campaign has been undeniably bad, and Bush has been a bad president in that respect too.
The problem is that Saddam would never have come to power if it weren't for meddling by the U.S. We backed him to keep Iran in check, because our government didn't like them. The same thing happened with bin Laden. We trained and funded him because he was the enemy of our enemy. We do this kind of stuff and it always comes back to bite us in the ass.
The U.S. (and especially the CIA) need to mind their own business and everyone would be better off.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I don't look at those things as a "price." Freedom is free, by definition. Everything else is unrelated baggage.
It's not true, it's not false. Freedom is an ideal, generic word when removed from reality, hence the definition of bullshit applies also for me.
Once again I'll quote George Orwell:
Meaningless Words.
[...] The words DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, FREEDOM,
PATRIOTIC, REALISTIC, JUSTICE, have each of them several different
meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.
Edit: and on Saddam I think you're right, but responsibility goes way back and has to be shared with Europe.
That counts as shooting someone, right? Whatever the motive, your still shooting someone with an intention to kill or injure. I think that your forgetting irrespective of the morals (ie "i shot him to stop him trying to mug me") your still using a gun with the express aim to kill or hurt someone. This is ALL a gun will EVER do.
Not totally true, really. Marksmanship is a sport, much like archery. Triathaletes don't kill people. (usually)
Guns exist to put a hole in things, knives exist to cut things.
Blowing away tin cans is fun!
While you could probably argue what they are used for more, you cannot say that guns are inherantly for killing/injuring because that's not fundamentally true.
And? There's nothing wrong with killing someone to prevent them from killing you. Obviously, nobody WANTS to have to take someone's life. Which is why guns are so great, because 99% of the time you don't have to. You simply point it and it does it's job without even being fired.
In an ideal world nobody would ever have to protect themselves, because there would be no bad guys. But we don't live in an ideal world. If you are content to call the police and wait for them to arrive while your life is in jeopardy, have fun with that. I prefer to take responsibility for myself and carry a sidearm. My doing so harms nobody unless they try to harm me first, and my right to do so is non-negotiable.
Nobody ever needs a gun until they NEED it. I don't need a seatbelt until someone hits my car. I don't need a smoke detector until my house catches on fire. I don't need a gun until someone tries to assault me. It's cheap insurance, great peace of mind, and a valuable skill to have.
Cue-ball, stop defending your point... Your point of view is absolutely worthless. I accept your point of view, but please stay far far away from any other human form you might encounter.
It's impossible to know what the best course of action is, and the natural human response is intervention, but long-term it may only be prolonging the agony.
I can't pretend that the Iraq war was ever about the welfare of the disenfranchised Iraqi sects, so I have to judge that war as a selfish grab for resources with no regard for the welfare of anybody in the region at all. In the aftermath, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption. It also seems that the occupation has merely prolonged a period of suffering, and that the only option left is to leave Iraq and hope for the best.
Personally, as someone who's lived in the US for 26 years, I have never once felt the need for a gun. Or for any weapon of any kind, really. I've done some sport shooting and I appreciate the fun and skill involved, but that's the extent of guns' usefulness to me.
There are lots of things you might need at some point in your life, but many of those (to me) don't fall under the category of things I expect to need (for instance: projectile weapons, a place to park a Lambo, a wedding ring, etc). Using prevention as an excuse for arms proliferation doesn't sit well with me, but it seems to be the way of the world (cf. the Cold War).
It isn't. Please take my word for granted since Cue-Ball has been passionate and honest about his ideas and has been respectful. If you don't take my word for granted I'll just explain further, but I hope there's no need to do so.
Kev, prolong an agony or prevent a disaster, or avoid causing disasters. I never said it's easy. For me, it isn't.
I don't mean that post as an insult or whatever. My brain can't go far enough to understand what he's saying though. I know that's no way of a discussion, but I'm no longer in the discussion, I have nothing left to say
So his point of view is absolutely worthless for you because your brain can't go far enough to understand it. I can accept it, I'm not into your brain. And mind you, I don' mean this post as an insult or whatever.
Edit: I assume you have read Hankstar's words about constitutions. You'll find some useful hints about why I'm able to understand it.
I would like to know if the eurotypes with the anti-gun attitude will still have that outlook in the next 15 years or so.
You can say this and that about "gun toting American rednecks" all you want. But can you shed some light on your solution to the current rise, more like spike, in gun related crimes happening in europe right now?
I mean, y'all got all these "really good" gun laws in place. they almost completely prohibit law abiding citizens from having them. Too bad it don't much for the Non - law abiding ones.
You know, the anti-gun crowd reminds me alot of those people that think everything they see on TV is true.
In washington D.C. they have some of the most restrictive laws prohibiting firearms. It has been recently challenged in court and the laws were declared unconstitutional by a lower court judge. See the laws didn't do a thing but make more victims. It kept a person from adequately defending themselves.
Y'all can keep wearing your rose colored glasses and think banning guns is a great start to something. but as your nations populations swells with more immigrants, and your morals start to decline and economic growth goes into a recession... nah, you'll just blame it all on America
Oh... the 2008 "canidints"...
I don't think there's a one of them that's worth voting for. the candidates running for their parties nominations are completely out of touch with the American people. Whether we lean to the left or the right, we want a definite change in the way things are being done.
I don't think that's going to happen with any of these people.
I also think that if Hillary is elected, the the other criminals (oops world leaders) will try to push her to see what they can get away with. I think it would be unwise to do so, but whoever said a politician was wise? LOL especially one that rules in a country where there are no armed citizens to counter them?
Then you got Barak.... you know who he reminds me of? Jimmy Carter. he strikes me as being the ultimate knee-jerk politician.
The rest of the democratic party runners are just that. they may as well quit now.
The Republicans? Why their gonna be in the house in 08. yeah right. they have continuously managed to alienate their grass roots supports. Even the Religious fundamentalist groups are divided and leery of the current crop of crooks that the Republicans are trying to offer.
Ron Paul looks good - on paper. but that's about it.
Too bad that kid in the Home Alone movies isn't old enough to be president. I think he'd make a great write-in for the job.
