Printable View
Ok, Al Qaeda have existed. But what's your evidence for them still existing and being the part of or controlling any international terrorist organisation. Is there any hard evidence for it? I'm guessing it's just a media myth to sell more papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by DungeonMaster6
yes they still exit, the have a web site and pepole in Pakistan and Afghanstan have seem member but turn nobody in out of fear of their lives,
Bin Laden is alive and al Qaeda will laways exist it may loos power overthe years but it is like cancer it willl always exist in 1 form or another, the Talaban still exisits they are talking about send a surge of 15,000 there to figth them now and then ews reported tonight nbe it right or wrong that if Iran does not stop its Nuclear program the US hasa plan to invade them as well
I can make an Al Qaeda web site tomorrow. That doesn't prove a thing. There was a Dutch guy last year accused by the CIA for making a reqruitment video for Al Qaeda. When he was interogated he said it was just a joke, (which should have been obvious to anybody since it was really very silly). But it was still head-line news all over the world, (that a Al Qaeda operative had been siezed by CIA). The fact that Al Qaeda sells so much newspapers should make you a hell of a lot more critical of what you read. Unsurprisingly, him not being a part of Al Qaeda didn't make the head-lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I'm still going with my theory that it's just something militant muslims say they're a part of to seem more menacing. Even though there's no network connecting anybody.
Just compare them to real intelligence organisations of the world. They suck at keeping secrets. Watergate!!! Considering the nature of Al Qaeda, it should be super easy to lean on somebody who wants out. But they off-course haven't found anybody who talks, because there's off-course nothing to say. If the mafia can't keep infiltrators out. What makes you think a bunch of religous loons can? It just doesn't make sense.
The Taleban is on the upsurge in Afghanistan because they can provide security. In a way the govornement today can't. In politics it always comes down to the real basic practical issues and never ideology. Am I more safe/rich/healthy/educated now than I was during the last regime? It's the same reason the Islamic courts are taking power in Somalia. I doubt any of this has a basis in Aghanis or Somalis being any more religious than anybody else.
I doubt USA will invade Iran. There's no political will, money or troops to do it. I'm assuming Bush has spent USA's terrorist-fighting carte blanche. We'll see, because I doubt Iran will stop enriching uranium.
edit: How about this for good news on Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6283975.stm
It seems the Sunnis are realising it's better to be in than out from parliment.
"I have trouble seeing the news ---while the cameras capture pictures of hundreds of armed people not in the military or police force carring around automatic weapons ---and you know what ---our military are not allowed to disarm them ----"
Funny, I seem to remember the membership on this site was quite happy with the right to bear arms when it came to places like Detroit, Portland Maine, or Portland Oregon.
Timberwolf,
Please correct me if i am wrong, but my understnading is our troops are not alowed to disarm anyone as they do not want use involved. Or to create additoin issues
As Robert Ripley (The Robert Ripley Of Ripley's Believe It Or Not Fame)once said "Strange But True" if in factths is correct, if so it is amazing that wecan fight in a War but not be allowed to Disarm the enemy, as i said i am not sure if this si corect it is my understanding
The mere fact an Iraqi citizen owns a firearm doesn't make them your enemy. And anyone who doesn't see that needs to take a very hard look in the mirror.
I agree, Tinberwolf as here in the USA I would say there are 2 firearms per person avg. thinking some people don’t understand that carrying a weapon is a right of passage for most. many places in the world.
We need really to just back out of Baghdad and turn over the city to the Iraqis and pull back into biap and camp victory. With that move we will stop most of the violence. There still be some but most part with us out of the way both sides, will lose there main focus on why they are fighting each other.
The right to bear arm in the Unites States is guranteed by our Consitution, the only issue I have with this is that I see NOT REASON for any private citizen to own a fully autmatic assult rife, these are used only to kill notto hunt, i have ener seem as duck or deer fire back at a hunter so a standard rigfe should do just fine
I strongly disagree with those who say we also be alowed to own and bear fully or semi automtic assult riles, i know some will disagree but as most people tell you, unless you are a gun collector their is no reason to own a uzi, AK47 ect. I donot believe in guns, i do believe intheright o own one if one chooses to do so i do have a HUGE issue withhosewho own the othertype fire arm the full automtic assult rifle kind, no reason for private owner ship expect as a collection and not for actual use
Interpreting the US constitution as suporting AK47's and handguns is pretty stupid. When that was writen, the weapon refered to was a musket. That is off-course what the constitution suports, nothing else. The method of fighting with a musket is radically different than modern weapons. There's just no comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I may not live in the US, but the constitution isn't very hard to read and is pretty clear.
TomOf Sweden,
I know that and you know that, but the NRA (National Rifle Association) contends that the Comstituions allows ANY type fire ARMS, they said they will not support a ban of semi or fully automatic because the right to carry them is in the Unted State Contitution, that was the reason i said what I did, sory i was not complete
If the contentions are were applied to everything else that is governed by the constitution then progress would be halted in many areas so the idea of handguns and automatics not being applicable fails in my eyes.
Also, the 2nd goes along with a militia. the revolution was fought by those we had the technology of their time.. not past time.. so put that into todays technology is not much difference and very hard to argue.
two flawed postings imo.
Constitution of the United States
Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787;
Ratification completed, June 21, 17881
(Current through 1995)
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Article I: The Legislative Branch
Article II: The Executive Branch
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Article IV: Relations between the States
Article V: The Amendment Process
Article VI: General Provisions, Supremacy of the Constitution
Article VII: Ratification Process
Amendments to the Constitution:
The Bill of Rights
Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.
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.
Just a quick look at the constitution, what is said, and the second Amendment of the bill or rights, No where is a certain kind of weapon is mention, so to simple say musket, and mean you have not full though it out as our fore fathers, was smart enough to leave that kind of short comings out of the constitution.
Thank you if you like to learn more, I will be happy to send you a copy of the whole constitution.
I would also add, for those who want limit the established 2nd amendment rights (like so many of our rights have been limited in the past 70 or so years,) a simple notion; if you disarm the populace, the only groups that would be armed would the government agents and criminals. I can think of no two groups that I would be more vigilant against than the aforementioned groups. If that means owning and training "assault" rifles than so be it. Also, could those who are opposed to the ownership of "assault" rifles define what an "assault" rifle is?
Regards,
Princi
I would define an assult rifle as a rife such as a AK47, Uzi,like rifle these 2 specific model are dated as rapid fire multiload gun who when the trigger is pressed it continue to shoot rounds til it runs out (genenral 30 rounds or more) continuos firing, unlike a hunting rifle which requires reload after 1-2 rouds, I see no partical reason to own an uzi, AK47 or any rapid 30 + round gun for huntining the deer, rabbit ect are not going to fire back at you
for hunting unless you are hunting human prey, a standard 1-2 round rifle should do fine for a deer, rabbit, ect, and not a 30+ roundcllip
please ocrrectm e if thisdefinition is not correct
I have no issue with gun ownership neevr had never will, i do have an issue with guns that fire a 30+ round clip for home or leasure ownership, collector yes no, hunting no, why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong
In advance, forgive the long post.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I think this comes down to a misinterpretation of what the 2nd amendment (and indeed in a broader sense much of the constitution) was intended to do. Hunting is not the primary reason why this amendment was constituted. Those who insisted that the 2nd amendment be part of the bill of rights were principally concerned with the ability for citizens to protect themselves. The colonies were basically agrarian economies and did not require hunting to feed themselves (that hunting was part of these societies is incidental to this specific debate.) The most critical concern was the recent experience that the founding generation had with the British and there aggressive attempts to confiscate weapons. There was also the reality of western expansion and the new, perceived, "enemy" which was the native population. To add to this was the foreign threat to the new nation of the British (the former rulers who were aggressively looking for a way regain control), the Spanish (who were looking for a way to reassert the quickly fading dominance), and increasingly the French (who were act less and less like an ally.) Defense, individual liberty, and a deep distrust of government power (whether local or foreign) was the driving force behind the articulation and constitution of the right to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd amendment does not grant this right, it simply recognizes the rights that had naturally accrued (and deemed universal) during the period of "Salutary Neglect" (the period of non-intervention in the colonies by the English crown.) This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the rights enumerated by the constitution; these are not rights granted, but rights that pre-existed the American state and fully articulated by the constitution.
Regards,
Princi
A very good point. This is hard to argue with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
And now we're down to the basic philosophy of gun control. Which is basically waying the effectivity of a future needed revolution against increased murder rates. Which is equally hard to argue either for or against and is derailing the subject so I'll just leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I know hunting was not a thought with th ammedment, all in am saying is in 2007, i see no logical real for rapid fire assult weapons with 30+ round clips to be legal to own and used, what purpose do they sreve beyond killng, my intention was simpy to say if you want to own a handgun (registered) or a rifle(registered) fine, but why a assault rifle?? that was my omly question, i am not didsabreeing withtheright obeararms, i am doing so with 30 round clip gun,s if you go back to the days of prohibition, it would be similar to say "Let's all everyone who wants to bear arm the right to own and use "Tommy Gun" why??
The only reason I even brough this up is that the NRA and most gun enthusiast always use the this ammendment the 2nd to justify owning and using assult rifles with a 30 round clip saying "The constitution guarantees us the right now bear arms" no disagreement here, the disagreement is the TYPE of arms you bear hope this clear this up
I do not own a gun, i probably will never own a gun, i have no need to BUT i will defend with my life the right for someone who wants to and believes in it their right to own a gun or rifle (registered with knowlege how to use it) just not rapid fire guns with clips
If my neigbor wants to own a gun or a rifle fine with me no issue here, if he wants to own an assault rapid fire gun with clips, then YES i have a BIG ISSUE with that
so if we limit the civilian we should limit the military as then they are not equally armed?
do you see how this goes against one versus the other.
That is why we can't disarm in other countries.
And there really is no such thing as assault rifle .. this was born out in congress and is why the assault weapons ban died. smiles so that should have ended that type discussion. as for automatics if one wishes to go through ATF and seek the required documentation and license for a Class III that lets you own autos and machine guns then i have no problem with it. I have an application going through the process now.
Wolfscout,
I agree with you but you are getting a licence for it and have the knowledge to use it and know when and where to, i mean those who have them with no licence or knowledge how to use them, they have them just to have them
One question if there is no such thing as an assult rilfe how do you differentiate between a 2 round rifle and a 30clip rapid fire rifle, i am asking not bieng rude
What is your feeling about those who own rapid fire rifle, no licence for it, no knlwedge how to use it and no intentions of doing either
And I disabgree, the reasom\n the assault weapons band died is that the NRA OWNS congres, what they want they get, that is when the Brady Bill never passed, the gun lobby is the biggest and strongest in the nation
Even conservative such as Nacy Regan and Sra Bradt want the Brady bill passed but the NRS killed it, and nobody is goin to say that Nancy or Sara are just left wing liberals who wan this, very much to the contrary,neither are liberals or ever will be
A Few years back, cuhck heston was the chairman of the NRa at their convestion he raised a rifle over his head and talking about the ban said "Over my dead body" I have always wonder what chuck heston would say or do if his son, or grand child were killed with a handgun or rifle
I do apploaud you for your process on your gun, as i said i may not agree with your action but i defend with my life your right to do it, and you are doing it the corect way
Hope you have a nice day
I think you shouldn't have to have a license for it.
And it really doesn't matter if it holds one or a drum of 75 or a belt of 500.
you're talking the citizen versus the criminal.
the citizen should be able to own whatever.
look to the businesses and where the criminals get them .. there's your problem. not the rifle.
I am with Wolfscout. Furthermore, there is no language within the constitution that allows for the regulation of firearms. Like many powers the federal government has, it is a usurped power. Regulating away, or otherwise limiting, the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves will not further the cause of less criminal activity. Criminals will acquire weapons regardless of what the prevailing laws are, that is why they are criminals (because they do not abide by the laws.) The criminal element aside, my concern would come more from armed government agents. As government accrues more power (unconstitutionally and often illegally) it becomes more corrupt. As power centralizes there are fewer and fewer forces to hold the centralized authority in check. To paraphrase Lord Acton; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An armed populace is a powerful countervailing force to centralized power. This is the reason why we have seen historically tyrannical and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes strip the populace of its weapons and prohibit the right to bear arms (this can be seen during the Tokugawa period in Japan, when only the Samurai were allowed to be armed [outside of the standing army], Stalin stripping the ability of the citizens to protect themselves, Hitler (first with the Jews, then I believe the rest of the German population,) the British leading up the Revolution in the colonies, etc.) Ultimately, in a free society, the individual is responsible and has the right to protect themselves; this is a philosophical issue.
Regards,
Princi
Usually I don't post but honestly I could use the support and this seemed like a good window into it. My Master is in the army.He's in basic right now. Basicully it ended up being the fastest way for him to pay off his debts, pay for school, and get the money so that he can marry me. Not because he believes in the war or wants to kill Iraqi's or anything silly like that. He also wants into the FBI and thinks that being an army officier might help. Now that I've explained all that.
I hate Bush's plan. Everyone but him seems to know it's a bad idea. It seems like he knows he has little time left in office and the next president is going to be democratic and so he can do whatever he wants. I worry when highly religious people are elected. It seems to me like he just has a personal thing againest Musliams and is out to get them all. There is no way this war can be done. We can take down govenrnments which we have done but now we're just fighting a relgious group. We are fighting people who don't care if they live or die or how many innocent people get hurt because they think they are doing God's will. Sorry the discussion has kinda shifted by this point but there are my two cents.
Welcome to Forums Masterspet and what an eloquent post to launch yourself with. I have given my very limited penny's worth on the Iraqi matter much earlier and will not repeat what I said; but I did wish to give you a big cyber hug and wish you and your Master happiness and protection.
Please draw on this community for the support you need, and if you have not already done so, you might like to consider popping into the chatroom, where relationships are also fostered.
cariad
Princi,
One reason the Constiution may not have limits on fire arms is that when it was draw up over 200 years ago, I would imagine no thought was given to future weapons, I am sure our fore fatherdid not inviosion, assualt rifles, hand guns, crinades ect
Yes while it offer no specific weapons guaranteed beside arms, what type would they have invisioned
Well the founding fathers did prepare for things that they could not imagine that being the elastic clause but the problem with that is it is so open for interpretaion that it is easy to abuse.
BTW Thanks for the Support although I can't chat :( I'm a college student and chat rooms are firewalled by our network.
Forget about the right to carry arms - that is an abuse of your rights!Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterspet
*grins*
Well, not being in the chatroom will give you more time to explore the threads here, and perhaps even jump in the mad whirl of the Fun and Games section.
cariad
I also just heard on the new (2-20-07) that British Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce in the next few days that he is pulling at least 1,500 of his own troops out and brinig them home, no one will replace them
Not sure atthis point a surgewill help, they are in the middle of a civil war
the Maliki Gov. needs to show it's BALL and take control of his country