Be sure to vote, I am curious where most atheists stand on this issue.

Views: 3085

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Exactly. It's not really your problem. Don't get worked up over it. As you outlined it, freedom (from England, for slaves) came from the barrel of a gun. It left a greazt impression.

As for the NRA, they are almost to a person responsible gun owners. 99% of the gun criminals who murder and rob are not going to belong to the NRA.

@Suzanne Olson-Hyde;

I have an Australian question, how many unarmed Aboriginal people have been slaughtered by armed Australians since the English first colonized the place?  Would the Aboriginal people  had a better chance if they had been armed?  It's interesting to me that the Aboriginal people are still second-class citizens in their own country...but, I am just an American and we did a similar thing to the Native Americans when this country was founded...I blame the English for everything.

The Australians collected all the citizen's guns a while back.  Here's another question for you; Why did collecting all the citizens guns (the government still has guns) not stop crimes against the elderly and the weak?  Once you have solved the violent crimes against the elderly and the weak in your country, get back to us on the gun rights issue.

Here's another question;

How many law abiding citizens have committed mass killings?

I read it as "militias necessary for the protection of the free state, citizens own guns to protect free state". It's the only one of the amendments with a preamble...

You guys keep harping about everyone, during the time of our forefathers, owning guns. You have to do more reading. Guns, in the colony's, were expensive; since they came via boat from Europe. Not only were they expensive but they were stored in magazines until needed. Most farmers did not own a gun. Those flintlocks were a pain to load and not very accurate. Bows and Arrows could do more harm to a combatant than guns. You could load and fire an arrow much faster than fiddling around with powder and lead balls. Also they were much more accurate than flintlocks. Most guns, stored in magazines, were never maintained. Most citizens did not know how to handle a gun. Like I said more reading. Try Guns, Germs, and Steel; yeah I know the gun lobby has poo pooed it but some really interesting stuff on being at the right place at the right time.

I just don't get the mentality of modern gun owners who think that they can defend themselves from our standing army. I served in the military. I've loaded nukes. I've serviced M161A1 guns. I've watched missiles launched from Carriers. If the interpretation is to defend against your government then you guys will have to start thinking about whole squadrons of F/A 18 Hornets. Maybe a carrier or two. Guided missile destroyer will also help. If you can get your hands on one of those new fangled Stealth Bombers you'll be right as rain. Tanks! Yep, you'll need more than two of those. Not to mention who will lead the charge against such overwhelming odds. Have you thought this out or are you just as happy about owning an AR15 or Bushmaster as I am about owning a new set of speakers for my surround system?


Depends on the speakers.

Noel, after my hitch in the US Navy during the Korean War, America's zillion-dollar military has not done well against guerillas and non-state actors.

Why are there non-state actors?

Because during the Cold War America gave foreign aid to any tyrant who opposed the Soviet Union, and those tyrants treated their own people so badly.

Since WW2, America's foreign policy has been on a collision course with Americans' civil rights.

Our CIA overthrew an elected government in Iran. We installed and supported a tyrant (the Shah) and trained his secret police (Savak). In short, America created the conditions that resulted in the religious government Iran now has.

You might not like the idea, but America can and has done wrong.

Oh, I forgot. A Democratic administration lied us into a war in Viet Nam and a Republican administration lied us into a war in Iraq. Do you care?

Hells to the yeah, yeah! I care.

Do some reading, General Smedley Butler. Invaded and helped install most of the despots in Latin America, in the early 1900's only to come to the realization that his government sent him to all these exotic places, like Panama and Guatemala, at the behest of U.S. company's with interest in those countries. In his book "War is a Racket", he lambasted our political system and it's  being at the beck and call of companies who got us into, what he called, The Banana Wars.

My argument, in my previous post, was not to lob praise on our countries military exploits in other countries but to demolish the argument that several thousand or even several tens of thousands, armed with AR-15's against our standing Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines, Coast Guard, CIA, etc, do not stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting their way.

My argument is not to destroy the 2nd Ammendment to the constitution. The same way we regulate medicine, which can be deadly, regulating plutonium, regulating most crap that kills us; we should at least know who the fuck the asshole was that bought that Bushmaster, with the 1,000 round clip, and forgot to report it stolen after it was used to kill several hundred people at a movie theater, or a school, or an old folks home…. To those who feel that owning an assault rifle is the best thing since, well apple pie, I gotta' ask, what's next? Grenade launchers?, guided missile battery's? F/A-18's? How about a few Howitzers on our front lawns? The argument that regulation is imposing on gun owners freedoms is pathetic when some gun owners care more about hoarding arms than of mine and my children's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I'm shot dead their argument is "he should have had a gun". If I'm shout dead and had a gun their argument is, "he should have spent more time at the range". When the argument should be, "Why was he shot dead?" Without all the circular nonsense.

But how long do most of these installed dictatorships stay in power. Rarely do they last for very long. How many can you name?



Husni al-Za'im's reign was short lived-lived, but subsequent coups learned the lesson and let the Trans Arabian Pipeline be - Syria has never regained stability and as I understand it is still somewhat of a problem.

The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53 - which at least 'un-nationalized' the petrol resources for 25 years.  With democracy gone, they eventually turned to theocracy and, well, they are somewhat of a problem today as well.

Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala - again, may not have ruled long, but commercial goals were achieved.

I have about 20 of them - do you really want me to type them all out?

Yes, I do.

Well the US failed in 1958 in Indonesia - but actually got caught covertly dropping bombs on behalf of rebels.  Kennedy later got what he wanted anyway by simply offering billions in 'foreign aid'.

They failed at the Bay of Pigs too I guess.

Mobutu in Zaire/Congo

João Goulart, overthrown in 64

Nkruma was financially undermined - and Ghana brought to ruin.

Let's not forget Afghanistan - first putting warlords in power, leading the the Taliban to become their supreme court, then putting Karzai in there now - so that's one country that's been flipped twice, both times for the sake of keeping markets open.

1980 Turkish coup

There was the contras fiasco, Iraq has been flipped again, this time to a puppet government rather than a dictatorship - but still not a government formed by the people.

I wouldn't mind if y'all would go in and flip North Korea - but I imagine you'll choose Iran and fabricate bullshit evidence to flip that one instead.

Did I hit 20 yet? (counting Iraq and Afghanistan twice each)

Looks more like 10 - seemed like I was typing for longer.

Those look more like administrations overthrown and not dictators installed who have survived long term.


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service