Iraq is winning.

Originally posted by Indy
This is where the Bush administration has attacked the constitution.
...
Perhaps we should exercise our rights granted in #2 to take back #4, #5 and #6.

Wow, very nicely laid out! This is what the Second Ammendment was written for. Our government has become the tyranical entity that our founding fathers feared, only the American people are too complacent to act. Even I am guilty. Our founding fathers ceratinly weren't complacent when they rose up to kill the British in revolt over-taxing (4% sales tax, no income tax) and massive prison population (about 1 in 2000 colonists where in jail). Now we have an even bigger sales tax, around 30% INCOME tax (declared unconstitutional, then reversed), and 1 in 75 citizens in jail. Can anyone say "blood in the streets"?

Originally posted by Indy
koji_K... if I try and go to the store tomorrow to buy a gun I will be denied because 1) I don't have a permit, 2) I haven't waited the 3 days. So my right was infringed upon. The article makes NO exceptions. No exemptions. It is very specific.

yes, but you'll get your gun. while you have a point in that you're not getting your gun instantaneously, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything *either way* about waiting periods or licenses. it does however use the term "well regulated". if you were to read the 2nd amendment as literally as you suggest, then the government has a duty to provide you with a gun free of charge, because then even the requirement of having to cough up the dough for a gun could be seen as an impediment to getting one not allowed for by the second amendment.

-koji K.

It says my right shall NOT be infringed. And when I go to the store tomorrow and get denied a gun my right will have indeed been infringed upon. The government has ZERO right to deny me a gun for ANY reason.

Originally posted by Indy
It says my right shall NOT be infringed. And when I go to the store tomorrow and get denied a gun my right will have indeed been infringed upon. The government has ZERO right to deny me a gun for ANY reason.

but it's not denying you a gun. it's just making you wait and requiring you to sign up for it. what you're saying is, "if a gun doesn't magically appear when i want it, my rights have been infringed". the right should indeed not be infringed, but it is your right to BEAR ARMS which is being referred to, not your right to a speedy and prompt purchase.

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
it is your right to BEAR ARMS which is being referred to, not your right to a speedy and prompt purchase.

Surely, you know that all these vexations relative to the acquisition of firearms are the tactics of an incremental strategy to ultimately deny the Second Amendment. You're probably knee-deep in the movement. But, since everybody knows about the Brady Law, etc., anyone who waits for an emergency to make his purchase is pretty dumb or a former liberal.

[edit on 04/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by koji_K
it is your right to BEAR ARMS which is being referred to, not your right to a speedy and prompt purchase.

Surely, you know that all these vexations relative to the acquisition of firearms are the tactics of an incremental strategy to ultimately deny the Second Amendment. Your probably knee-deep in the movement. But, since everybody knows about the Brady Law, etc., anyone who waits for an emergency to make his purchase is pretty dumb or a former liberal.

thank you. i agree. the people most worried about waiting periods for gun purchases aren't buying them as a result of long-term planning, they're buying them because they want that gun NOW. usually because they're angry about something. hence cooling-down periods. same reason in england you have to wait 24 hours after signing up before you can enter a casino. don't want people making heat-of-the-moment decisions.

i'm actually all for gun rights, but i believe in controls as well. i don't think just anyone should be able to buy a gun. this may work fine for people in rural areas, but when you live in a city where people start shooting over traffic accidents, there have to be limits. and please don't make assumptions about what movements i am a part of.

-koji K.

koji... delaying me access to that gun is infringing up on that right. To infringe means also to encroach. According to Dictionary.com to infringe means to encroach and encroach means "To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. " Its pretty clear what these restrictions do. Take a little here. A little there. If I cut down a tree you will notice it missing. If I take off a branch here and there you probably won't notice the change until one day you are looking at a stick in your front yard and stand there scratching your head trying to figure out where your 20 year old maple went.

Originally posted by Indy
koji... delaying me access to that gun is infringing up on that right. To infringe means also to encroach. According to Dictionary.com to infringe means to encroach and encroach means "To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. " Its pretty clear what these restrictions do. Take a little here. A little there. If I cut down a tree you will notice it missing. If I take off a branch here and there you probably won't notice the change until one day you are looking at a stick in your front yard and stand there scratching your head trying to figure out where your 20 year old maple went.

come on... it's infringement because you call it that. i call it regulation, and i can look that up in the dictionary and post a definition and we're back at square one.

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
thank you. i agree. the people most worried about waiting periods for gun purchases aren't buying them as a result of long-term planning, they're buying them because they want that gun NOW. usually because they're angry about something. hence cooling-down periods. same reason in england you have to wait 24 hours after signing up before you can enter a casino. don't want people making heat-of-the-moment decisions.

-koji K.

You can tell that to the lady's relatives in Shreveport, LA who needed a gun to protect herself from her estranged husband. She was murdered before her waiting period elapsed.

It's all just a front for banning all guns.

You are dodging the issue. If I go to the store tomorrow I cannot get a gun. Period. I do not have a license and I would be denied. That is a violation. Even IF I had a license I could not get a gun tomorrow. That is a violation. Infringement 1. I need a license. Infringement 2. I need to wait 3 days. Infringement 3. I cannot be a felon. And god knows how many other restrictions there are on it. If you go to the bank tomorrow to get money out that you have in the account and they say "Oh im sorry.. You can't have your money until next week" are you going to be ok with that? Of course not. But hey they are gonig to let you have your money in a week so it must be ok. You just have to wait. Or are they infringing on your right to access your money?

Hey Grady isn't there a limit to how many guns you can buy in a year without a dealers license?

Why is everyone assuming that the USA is supposed to 'win'?
Maybe those in 'control' don't want this to happen.

Originally posted by Indy
You are dodging the issue. If I go to the store tomorrow I cannot get a gun. Period. I do not have a license and I would be denied. That is a violation. Even IF I had a license I could not get a gun tomorrow. That is a violation. Infringement 1. I need a license. Infringement 2. I need to wait 3 days. Infringement 3. I cannot be a felon. And god knows how many other restrictions there are on it. If you go to the bank tomorrow to get money out that you have in the account and they say "Oh im sorry.. You can't have your money until next week" are you going to be ok with that? Of course not. But hey they are gonig to let you have your money in a week so it must be ok. You just have to wait. Or are they infringing on your right to access your money?

sure, but if someone pays me a check, and i go to the bank to cash it and they say "sorry, there's a four day waiting period," i don't think my rights have been infringed, i just think "that's the law and it's a reasonable law".

what this is boiling down to seems to me to be paranoia. "they want to take all our guns, and any attempt to regulate gun ownership is a step in this direction." well, that's where you leave fact and enter the world of speculation as to possible motives, and i can't argue for or against a speculation.

grady- sure. i'd tell them i'm sorry in your case it wasn't so, but in the majority of cases waiting periods save more lives then they end.

meanwhile, Iraq is winning.

-koji K.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by Indy
Hey Grady isn't there a limit to how many guns you can buy in a year without a dealers license?

At this time, as far as I know, there is no limit to the number of guns you can buy in anytime frame. There have been attempts to limit purchases to one gun per month. There may also be jurisdictions, such as New York, where gun purchases have been curtailed. NRA is a good source for facts. And if you are not already, you should join the NRA. A life membership is quite affordable and can be purchased on a interest-free long-term basis.

Yeah GradyPhil i am old enough to remember the 1st Gulf war I fought in that war i happened to be over there for 5 months and we did not get to see much action last time . Also i went to the 2nd gulf war as a private bodyguard for a engineering company and the devastation and fighting is unbelievable compared to the first time around. My point was that we have always known what Saddam was but cant understand why we didnt just topple him last time. I understood your piece about the US goverment and the UN in the 1st Gulf and i respect your point however the troops on the ground are not told the points and reasons we just get orders. Most of the time you guys at home have more knowledge through the press about what is going on over there. I still have 2 Brothers over there and both of them served in the 1st gulf alongside myself. They call me twice a week and are surprised by what we know back at home. I just think we should of called it a day last time and brought Saddam to justice. I aint sayin we have lost but what im sayin is that we have created a monster which was lurking there anyway we have just made it harder for ourselves. I do believe a full international UN force would be ideal but i think there is a long time before that happens.

thesaint:

What kills me is even before Iraq invaded Kuwait - they asked permission from the US and we said ok!

Now Iraq's made to look like a mad dog out of control, where in fact the US supported Saddam's war on Iran, didn't bat an eye at his use of chemical weapons, and said it would be 'premature' to impose sanctions on Iraq when they used chemicals on Kurds in Iraq in 1988.

Then Saddam directly asked the US ambassador to Iraq, April Galispie, if the US would have a problem invading Kuwait. He was told that the US isn't concerned with Arab-Arab conflicts like Iraq's border conflict with Kuwait.

Then, all of a sudden, a gigantic Iraqi army instantly mobilized in the desert without being noticed by US spy satellites and swallowed up Kuwait.

Grady, sorry if I'm un-American for pointing out facts, but these are the facts: for reasons unclear, the US government has had a strong interest in getting directly involved in the Gulf militarily. We support some dictators, and when necessary we manufacture enemies out of them later.

Now, please, I would love it if you can counter those facts without throwing me off by questioning my patriotism. As far as patriotism goes, you can't possibly question mine. My patriotic resume includes:

Eagle Scout
Sergeant, USMC 5 years service MOS:4341 / E-5, NHANG 2 years service MOS: 11B
Tax-paying US citizen

Like I said, counter the facts:

We supported Saddam
We gave him the green light to invade Kuwait.

"but i have to own a gun its in the constitution!"

"dad the 2nd amendment was who opressed reveloutionarys it has no bearing on today."

"You couldnt be more wrong if i didnt have this gun the king of england could just come in here & start pushing you around is that wot you wont..is it!?"

"no"

"ok then its settled im getting a gun!"

classic simpsons

i cant belive you wud moan about 3 days i mean wots 3 days? i dont think half the people in ya contry should have a rifle i mean there are alot of irisponsible people not to mention total nutters who shoot u for no reason if rifles are kept safe & respected then you can have a rifle but if not then tuff. i wasnt saying half americans are nutters btw i was just looking how the people over here drive cars there useless most of them & you wouldnt wont them to have a rifle.

on to the topic of the war we aint losing once the iraqi people are trained up they will look after themselves its not the iraqi fighting us its outsideders i mean there will be a few from the locals but id say they were the minority.

the media are the problem id kick them all out & just get on wit the job & as for the people who go out & protest they are just wankers lazy students raised by a wet flannel if a suicide bomber came running at them they wud probably group themselves together just to make it easyier for the loverly poor oppressed brother who just wonts to express himself.

then they would moan when the sniper took him out

"It says my right shall NOT be infringed. And when I go to the store tomorrow and get denied a gun my right will have indeed been infringed upon. The government has ZERO right to deny me a gun for ANY reason"

Where the hell do you live?? Christ yeah that's a good idea for people to have guns then you'll have chaos, killing and god knows what else. I don't care if it's in your constitution, guns should be banned period.

The only people who should have guns IMO are the Military and Police and no one else. They are trained to use guns, you are not, they know how to handle a gun, you probably do not.

I live in the UK and guns are banned, which is a good thing. I don't want to live in an area where people can easily roam around with guns they're dangerous and too unsafe for normal civilians to handle.

Another thing i don't understand is that howcome needing a license and having to wait 3 days for a gun infringes on your right to have one? As i understand it the amendment says that guns need to be regulated and by using licenses and placing certain procedures/regulations to have a gun then it doesn't infringe.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
thesaint:

What kills me is even before Iraq invaded Kuwait - they asked permission from the US and we said ok!

Can you point us to something to confirm this. It's the first I've heard of the US giving permission to the Iraq to invade Kuwait.

My patriotic resume includes:

Eagle Scout
Sergeant, USMC 5 years service MOS:4341 / E-5, NHANG 2 years service MOS: 11B
Tax-paying US citizen

I'm very grateful for your service, especially as a Marine. I'm not very familiar with current MOS codes. Is 4341 a Public Information billet?

quote: Originally posted by taibunsuu
thesaint:

What kills me is even before Iraq invaded Kuwait - they asked permission from the US and we said ok!

Can you point us to something to confirm this. It's the first I've heard of the US giving permission to the Iraq to invade Kuwait.

Here you go Grady..
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Check your own sources though, just enter 'April Glaspie Iraq Kuwait' into google.


To answer some previous points on here...

Unfortunately...as long as we foot around their "holy" mosques that they themselves are using in an "unholy" fashion...then we will NEVER win!! Where would we have gotten in WW2 if we resorted to such a politically correct way of waging war?

If we wiped out 300 Germans in a church in 1944 it would firstly be as nothing compared to what crimes they may well have committed. Secondly there would be no Germans (of fighting age), to rise up for revenge.

If we wipe out 300 of the Mehdi Army and damage the Iman Ali Shrine we will have thousands / tens of thousands of fellow Shi'ites joining the insurgency, increased support from other Arab/muslim nations and NO chance of ever convincing the majority of Iraqi's that "we come in peace" (obviously we dont but we are trying to at least pretend).

If you think that attacking and wiping out Al Sadr and his forces (damaging the mosque at the same time), would be anything more than a massive backward step then I dont think you are looking from the right angle - theirs.

Oh and you also risk the southern oil fields and you wouldnt want that now would you!!

Yes we did thats why they still have a city and there water was workin as soon as we got there.

Who told you that?

We do care tahts why only soem buildings were demolished. Go watch coverage of "SHOCK AND AWE" u see percise locations were teh bombs are droppin. Yeah i few misses but the world aint perfect

3,000 innocent Americans was enough to set you off on a rampage but you seem remarkably blase about 13,000+ innocent Iraqi's. Doubly innocent in fact in that a) they are (were to be more precise), civilians; b) Iraq had nothing to do with 11/9.

Less troops are dying now because were shifting power to the Iraqis

Incorrect, US casualties have been rising every months since June - since the handover in fact. But dont take my word for it..
www.globalsecurity.org...

the worse has allready come and gone, it is getting safer there,

Again see above link.

and day by day there getting a better infastructure.

reconstruction is at a virtual standstill. The only things getting built are massive personal fortunes as $billions get lost in the sand.

The only thing I see that they need to improve on is having more and better patrols near the pipelines.

What colour is the sky in your world Murcielago?

Peacfully protested a war viewed as unjust by millions of Americans
And bashed many soldiers of the war by callin them baby killers.

He was referring to confirmed army investigations (The Winter Reports?) that confirm what he says actually happened.

They are a soveriegn free nation that has teh right (even tho they are too afraid to use it) to kick us out. And we would abide by it. Then thats were it would become illegal.

Hmmm so you think that a US appointed 16 year CIA stooge has been allowed into power with the SLIGHTEST possibility that he might ask for you to leave?

Wanna buy a bridge??

quote: Originally posted by specialasianX
Its a pity Bush didnt listen to the millions and millions of protesters around the world...


These would be the same protesters who would ralley if saddam ever got a WMD and used it and they would say why didnt anyone do anyhting bout it. ITs a lose lose situation with these people.

No Quicksilver they'll be the ones who protested while you were SELLING Saddam his WMD's and turning a blind eye to genocide in the 80's.

(just to add that the same people also knew that said WMD's would be useless by now and thus not an excuse to invade).

Insurgents usually have the upper hand in the media age, they know this, and exploit it.

plus they dont have a uniform to wear any how. You disbanded the army remember..