List

In that case, I'd like to add that I don't see how requiring background checks for gun ownership prevents law abiding citizens from having their guns. It's obvious how it helps stop some criminals from getting firearms. At the very least, it slows them down. The assault weapons ban wouldn't effect the vast majority of gun owners, and you can't honestly tell me that you need one of those weapons for hunting/self defense. Removing them from the market/households has the added bonus of making it harder for criminals to get them illegally. That bill also included assurances that other guns, ones that most legal gun owners actually use, could not be taken from them.

Confed999

I don't have any problem with that. Did you know the National Rifle Association did some of the work getting the computer system together to preform the background checks? Crime control is good.
Not into guns huh? You're missing out. I use mine to shoot paper targets, and bigger is better. There are tons of recreational shooters and these bans (funny you don't like that word when it comes to marriage) effect all of us. You know the difference between an assult rifle and any other semi-auto rifle? They look scarry... BTW, I don't hunt. I couldn't shoot a fluffy lil' animal unless it was trying to eat me, or someone else.
And that lowers crime how?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

List

Because if a criminal can't get a gun, he's less likely to commit certain crimes. Even if that doesn't lower crime, it certainly saves lives. Shootings are much deadlier than beatings and stabbings, shootings with assault weaponry are even deadlier than those with hand/long guns etc. Also, there's the issue of armor piercing/"cop killer" bullets. You need those to shoot targets? Are deers wearing kevlar vests now? I don't like the word "ban" in the case of gay marriages because gay marriages don't directly result in people's deaths. Access to armor piercing bullets and fully automatic weapons makes criminals that much more dangerous. Whether or not I'm in to guns doesn't really matter. Even I was into guns, and was a citizen of the United States, I could get one without government intervention. Clinton, had he gotten his way with guns, would not have prevented me from owning one.

Incidentally, I can easily get a gun in Canada. If I don't mind doing the necessary training and waiting for the extra license, I could legally own a handgun too. I just have no interest in owning one. I'm not even in favour of banning handguns in Canada. Most Canadian criminals with guns smuggle them in through the States anyways.

Back to something else you said:

Vietnam was a civil war between two bad systems of government that the United States never should have gotten involved in. There was no good side in the conflict, and because of U.S. involvement a lot more innocents and soldiers got killed. If you think Vietnam had anything to do with the cold war and the war on communism, I strongly recommend reading one of Robert Mcnamara's books. "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam", "Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century", and especially "Argument Without End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy" all give good insight. You could also go out and rent "The Fog of War", or read the upcoming book.

Vietnam is currently in fairly good shape compared to many of the countries America currently deals with. Clinton's involvement with Vietnam finally "ended" the war. Families of missing soldiers finally got to know what happened because of him.

On a side note, Clinton also went extra lengths to make sure Vietnam veterans were receiving proper medical coverage. He also made sure children of veterans who had been exposed to agent orange, children with birth defects, received the care they needed.

List

And the harp on something else you said earlier:

That's a logical falicy. It's like saying if I was found innocent of killing two people, and later found guilty of assaulting another, I'm now guilty of killing those two people. Besides, if you look at the other allegations, they were easily disproven. Clinton probably cheating on his wife on numerous occasions, but the non-Lewinsky allegations, if you look at the evidence, were almost certainly false.

Right, but you don't seem to be a homosexual. Being in a "civil union" takes away ones ability to honestly say that they're married. It's being told you aren't good enough to be allowed to marry. And it lets homophobes claim a certain victory they don't deserve at the expense of the civil rights of gays.

I hope you're right. Then again, it doesn't really affect me that much in Canada. If I wanted to swing the other way and get married to another guy I'd be allowed to. As yet another side note, a poll about a decade ago showed most Americans who claimed to actually know a homosexual were in favour of gay marriages. I doubt the numbers have degraded since then.

Officer of Engineers

Sorry but that is pure baloney. I can kill you alot easier with my .30-06 (a hunting rifle) than I can with with an assault rifle. Hell, a shot gun with deer slug is far more deadlier, especially in the hands of someone who don't know a thing about guns, than any AK47, even with "armour piercing shells."

Military weapons are exactly that. Weapons designed for the military which means requiring weapons discipline and training for the weapons to be effective. Those of us who knows how to shoot are far deadlier with regular hunting gear and hunting rounds than with any assault gun, even when compared with penetrators. Those who don't know how to shoot are too stupid to pick up a shot gun and rely on the "cool" factor. If you replace all the assualt rifles in gun crimes with shot guns, I can guarrantee you that the number of victims would have at least tripple.

I admire you trying to staying on top of things but to base your arguements on such lack of knowledge really hurts your cause.

But why should I be limited to the number of guns that I could own? There's a saying. The right tool for the right job and different guns are designed for different things. Out here in the country, I need more than 5 guns.

__________________
Chimo

ChrisF202

Hes right, you need a shotgun for putting animals down, a hunting rife, etc

Ray

Confed,

I don't agree to some of your points. You are looking at it from your point of view and I from mine. We will wait as to how events shape. That is the important litmus test.

What has got me worried is that there appears to be a meandering policy in so far as Iraq is concerned. While one is going gung ho against terrorists verbally, one is compromising in handing Fellujah to the Saddam people and that scoundrel Al Sadr who should be up for trial is now acceptable! The man should be kicked and kciked hard! No appeasement.

True that we should all have been there and not talk big on a board, but then if my govt doesn't allow, I can't go, even if I WANT to go out there.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

mtnbiker

Ray,

While we seem to have screwed up Fallujah, it looks like we handled al Sadr pretty well. This letter was written in May. A little long, but worth it.

Spc. Joe Roche serves with the 16th Engineering Battalion of the 1st Armored Division, which is part of a quick deployment force tasked with dealing with sudden eruptions by enemy forces within Iraq.

(His Letter)
The fighting we are engaged in against the uprising of Muqtada Al-Sadr is one that is extremely sensitive and risks catastrophe. Had we entered this previously, it would not have been possible for us to win. Over the months, we have been involved in preparations and much planning. Thus, today we are scoring amazing successes against this would-be tyrant.

I ask that the American people be brave. Don't fall for the spin by the weak and timid amongst you that are portraying this battle as a disaster. Such people are always looking for our failure to justify and rescue their constant pessimism. They are raising false flags of defeat in the press and media. It just isn't true.

Last year in April while the main war was still going on to defeat Saddam Hussein's military, I myself gave a class to my company of the 16th Engineers about the threat posed by Sadr and the prospects for conflict with his militias. Though my fellow soldiers didn't appreciate having to attend a class at 8am on one of our last days before deploying to Baghdad, they can tell you that what is happening now is no surprise. I used open and general information that my superiors were already aware of.

The basis of our evaluation over a year ago was that Sadr presented a formidable and possibly impossible threat. Last summer, as my unit covered Sadr City -- the sprawling part of Baghdad that Sadr controlled then -- his militias challenged us by making a show of force in defiance of the effort to open up Iraq society to the new freedoms. Sadr clearly demonstrated that he would deny Iraqis democracy and freedom in his quest for power. By the fall, he had most of Iraq's Shia leaders and the community at large intimidated and kowtowing to his bully tactics. In January through March, his arrogance and thuggery led him to pursue two further attacks upon the hopes for Iraqi freedom.

He vigorously pursued courting and forming alliances with Iranian hard-liners. Upon returning to Iraq, he then welcomed many foreign fighters to train and assist his militia in terrorist tactics and guerrilla warfare.

In fact, we almost went into full conflict with him back then, months ago!

So our leaders, Paul Bremmer, Gen. Abizaid, and countless other US and Coalition leaders all over the land, acted w/ caution and care to secure for the US ever stronger cards against Sadr while simultaneously working to achieve four main goals.

Now we today are in a climactic battle against him and his militia. When the remnants of Saddam's regime were in full uprising in Fallujah, Sadr thought his time had come to make his bid for total power and to oust the US from Baghdad. He was very wrong.

It has been subtle and very well done by our leaders. You should be proud. It would have seemed impossible to have achieved our four main goals against Sadr even just a few months ago. Now today, despite the message of the pessimists who are misleading you into despair, we are have scored all the victories needed to bring this battle to a close. First goal was to isolate Sadr. Second was to exile him from his power-base in Baghdad. Third was to contain his uprising from spreading beyond his militias. And the last goal was to get both his hard-line supporters to abandon him, and to do encourage moderates to break from him. This has been done brilliantly, and now we are on the march in a way that just months ago seemed impossible to do. Sadr is losing everything.

Goal one: His so-called Mahdi Army militia is fighting alone. We are out defeating them day and night, and all the time we find them exposed and vulnerable. The people of Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf are not supporting him. His forces are isolated.

Goal two: His one-time powerbase, Sadr City in Baghdad, has been lost. Sadr has been exiled from there, and we have him on the run. He is trying to cloak his presence and activities in Najaf and Kut as planned, but that is damage control on his part. Yes we confront pockets of his followers. Just a couple days ago, I had to maneuver around such a crowd of 300 in Sadr City. The point is, though, we operate in Sadr City, and his followers are merely trying to raise the lost cause of his. It is perhaps better to understand why he is able to mobilize groups like this by seeing him as a mafia leader who is just sacrificing his own people in a mad last plunge to grab onto power. He is no different from any other thug in the world who manipulates and betrays his followers for his own lost cause. The critical thing to see, however, is that in Baghdad, Sadr is gone. He has been effectively exiled and we are destroying his one-time properties of power and abuse there.

Goal three: Other Shia leaders are breaking from him now in large numbers. The overall Shia leader of Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has left Sadr's call for jihad and uprising to flounder on deaf ears. Bremmer and Gen. Abizaid stunned the overall Shia community by negotiating a calm in Fallujah. That has tail-spinned Sadr and his efforts to intimidate Iraq's Shia leaders. They see the US hand is strong, and that therefore they are making a mistake in kowtowing to Sadr's terror and violence.

Sadr is now running scared in Najaf. This is great. The Iraqi people of Najaf are offended by this Baghdad thug coming to their city and trying to hijack them into conflict with us. His militias have moved into Karbala too, and the same sentiment is being expressed by the people there. Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia are occupiers of those cities, and are insulting the most sacred sites of Shia Islam daily in their actions. Sadr's forces have stockpiled weapons in mosques and schools, and he continuously is going into the Imam Ali Mosque to call for jihad against us. This is offending Iraq's Shia leaders very much, and the Shia people are not following.

Our units, in fact, are operating w/in 500 meters of the most sacred Shia religious sites in these cities, and you should notice that the local people are not resisting. This is what the pessimists amongst you are preventing you from understanding. Something like this would have been impossible before Sadr and his militia thugs went into there to hijack Iraqi Shia Islam. The people of Najaf and Karbala know we are not there to conquer and occupying the religious sites; we are there to liberate them from this would-be tyrant who is trying to hijack them. His uprising has been contained, despite Sadr's desperate efforts to expand.

Goal four: Now Sadr's patrons and mentor in Iran are breaking from him. Grand Ayatollah Hossain Kazzam Haeri in Qom, Iran, is no longer backing him and has instead made it clear that Sadr's uprising is not sanctioned. Haeri is his mentor, and was a close intimate to Sadr's respectable father. The Teheran Times has run stories that are largely exaggerated, but still are making clear that Sadr's uprising is counter to Iranian interests and does not have the support of even one of Iran's grand statesman, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

In lieu of this, Sadr has exploded increasingly desperate and offensive. On Friday, he offended perhaps the whole Muslim world when he issued a fatwa (a religious edict) that if his forces in Basra capture a female British soldier, they can keep her as a slave. And as I pointed out already, his militia thugs in Najaf and Karbala are keeping weapons in mosques and schools.

In this, quite frankly, Sadr has done it to himself. He has compelled his would-be supporters amongst Iran's hard-liners to break from him and to put distance between Iran's interests and Sadr's uprising. Along with this, Shiites all over Iraq are breaking from Sadr and ignoring his frantic calls for jihad and slave-taking. Sadr has been abandoned.

I'm not writing you blind to the casualties this is causing us. My battalion, the 16th Armored Engineers, should be home reunited w/ family and friends after serving a full year here. Instead, we are still here where the temp is reaching 115-125 degrees. And some of my fellow soldiers have fallen. Units of my battalion are right in the front of the fighting. Your prayers are needed. [A soldier] lost his eyes and a hand last week. The surgeons are trying to salvage his hand now by re-attaching it. This tragedy is a real nightmare. Another suffered shrapnel wounds in his abdomen. Others have been cut badly. Miracle of miracles, however, Sgt. Morales on Friday was shot in the CVC (helmet) -- the bullet ricocheted around his head and fired into the back of his seat, never cutting his skin!!!

I'm telling you this because you need to know that your soldiers are working their hardest. My unit is just one of many in this fight. What you need to do is be strong and persistent in your faith with us. Sadr's militia is in panic and desperate, so they are dangerous, but you need to keep this all in perspective. The pessimists would have you believe this is a disaster. Don't listen to them. I think some of them feel that their reputations require our failure because they have been so negative all along, so they are jumping at every opportunity to sensationalize what is happening here as a disaster. Eliminating Sadr's threat is part of the overall mission and we are further ensuring the liberation of the Iraqi people. This has to be done, and we are doing it.

Don't be seduced by those who would rather that we sit back and just enjoy the freedoms past generations of Americans have sacrificed to gain for us. This is our time to earn it. I remember President Bush saying after the September 11th attacks: "The commitment of our Fathers is now the calling of our time."

Confed999

Except, as you yourself implied, one can still get a gun. OoE covered the rest masterfully.
The communists slaughtered up to 1.3 million after we withdrew, they were the bad guys. The US should be prepared to fight for freedom anywhere we're needed. You cannot support Kosovo and not support Vietnam. If it had been fought like a war and not like some political campaign, a million more might be alive and free.
Nope, it isn't. It says he was caught in a bald faced lie and now he cannot be trusted. IMHO if he couldn't be loyal to his wife, the woman he swore to be loyal to, why should I believe he is loyal to America? Why should I believe anything he says, ever?
I'm not gay, but I live next to a very large gay community and have, simply, tons of gay friends. (Heck, I've defended them on this board, and would die, if I had to, for their rights.) They aren't militant gays though, and just want equal rights. Civil unions are the exact same thing, but at the top of the licence it would say "Civil Union Licence" instead of "Marriage Licence". Like it or not the word marriage has a religious connotation and their beliefs have to be respected as well. BTW, they can still be married, I will perform the ceremony if they wish. No rights are lost with civil unions, it's the perfect compromise, plus CUs can be for everyone. Compromise is good, I like it, I love it, I want more of it!
I agree. It's political BS.
It isn't your fault. I don't blame the people, their governments should have been screaming about the Iraqi crimes for the last decade at the least. If things get bad enough the US military is willing to overlook my physical shortcommings, I will go and sit on a machinegun nest/check point/whatever, for as long as they need me. I believe in the cause, even if I don't like how it's being done.

Confed999

Rarely do the gun control people know what they are talking about. They believe gun control is similar to crime control, and it just isn't true.

List

It's nice that you can do that. However statistically you are a lot more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun, the alternative of choice for your average ********er. Believe or not, I've never been worried about a legal gun owner shooting me. Are you suggesting a shotgun ban instead? Because it won't happen in the states. Besides, the assault weapons ban was geared towards weapons criminals use, weapons significantly more deadly than handguns. These are weapons that only a small minority of legal gun owners have, and none come close to needing.

Right, except you can't ban shotguns, and without access to assault weapons criminals will go for handguns for "cool" factor. As you said, they don't know how to shoot, so I don't see your point.

Lack of knowledge? You are THREE times more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun. There, you have your knowledge. Whether or not shotguns/rifles are more deadly is irrelevant, because they can't be well regulated, and because they aren't being used enough.

No one said you couldn't have your shotgun, or your hunting rifle, or even your handgun for "self defense." You can't honestly tell me you need an ak-47 with armor piercing bullets(as Engineers put it) for anything other than target practice and killing people.

As I said previously, the assault weapons ban protected the rights of gun owners to own most guns. Arguing about your right to own multiple firearms, or your deadliness with a shotgun or hunting rifle is irrelevant, because they were never going to be restricted.

Confed999

Criminals use cheep weapons, assult rifles aren't. If everything criminals use to commit crimes is made illegal we won't have anything left.

List

Now we're going in circles.

Right, but when we're talking about the assault weapons ban, you're still three times more likely to be killed when shot with an assault weapon than with a handgun. We've covered that already. If the weapons aren't available, criminals can't steal them from a gun store, or from your home, or get someone to buy them legally for them.

Versus the 2.5-3 million who died during the war? The majority of those deaths would not have occured had the United States not gotten involved. The United States was not fighting for freedom, because the South Vietnamese were not free. It was effectively one form of totalitarianism versus another. If the United States had put in the forces to win the war, assuming that would have even been possible, many more would have died. You're comparing up to 1.3 million deaths with the many more deaths caused by the involvement of the United States, an involvement that didn't even have the goal of freeing the Vietnamese people. Also, I don't support Kosovo, I do support Clinton's actions towards limiting the bloodshed in Bosnia. The no fly zones etc.

Yes, it is a logical fallacy. You're using bad inductive reasoning, hasty generalizations. If Bill Clinton lied, he must always be lying. If he wasn't loyal to his wife, he must not be loyal to America! You're basically saying every American who's cheated on his/her spouse isn't loyal to America. Every American who has ever lied isn't loyal to America. You're also going against the facts of the other accusations against Clinton. There's every reason to believe that those other accusations were false, but you choose to ignore those reasons because Clinton lied about something else?

None religious people can and do get married, therefore the religious connotation of marriage if irrelevant. If you're going to prevent gays from getting married for that reason, you need to prevent the irreligious from getting married too. As for civil unions, seperate but equal, right? Sound familiar?

You have yet to show me where I'm wrong. But you're right, there shouldn't be any form of gun control. A chicken in every pot and a cap in every ass.

By the way, I'm obviously not a democrat, and I'm not a gun control nut. Using arguements attacking beliefs I don't have isn't going to win you any points.

Officer of Engineers

Only because you're measuring the volume of weapons used as vs actual usage. On a per shot basis, ARs and handguns come in very, very low in lethality.

Sawed off shotguns are banned weapons.

The point is that criminals will migrate towards other weapons regardless what is banned or not. You ban ARs, they move to pistols. You ban pistols, they move to shotguns. You ban shotguns, they move to small calibre rifles. You ban guns altogether, they move to explosives.

Restricting on the basis of perceived lethality is unworkable.

I rather face an idiot with an assualt rifle than the same idiot with a shot gun. I've been under fire from enemy combattants with AK47s in a middle of a war zone and I'm still walking. Your knowledge here is very lacking as to weapons specifics.

Well, how do you define assualt weapons? I can take any AK-47, get rid of the pistol grip, get a 10 shot magazine (legal hunting limit), and to a layman, possibly to you, it looks like a regular hunting rifle and it could be used as one. What can bring down a man can bring down a deer.

Yes, they would because there is no definition of an assault weapon that does not describe traditional semi-auto hunting rifles and shot guns. All they've done so far is to restrict to a specific brand (ie an actual Kalishinkov AK-47) to which importers merely replace some parts and rename their rifles to get around the ban.

Praxus

Good point about the explosives, I honestly never thought of that.