Con_Alma;1382076 wrote:I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.

Agreed.
It is simply unrealistic to allow pockets of the world to fall into total anarchy and wreck havoc on the world economy.
Stability=growth.

And, while I appreciate the sudden new found appreciation in American restraint, yet, it is what America has been doing since really 1941.
All throughout the Cold War we did some shady, illegal, and down right wrong things to people, countries, and economies. Yet, it was all done in the name of the greater threat of the Soviets.

Nothing at its core has changed, just the weapons, and targets.

Con_Alma;1382076 wrote:I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.

keep drinking the kool aid.

One day the empire is going to fall. We cannot continue to sustain this shit.

I forgot.



Amirite?

Raw Dawgin' it;1381990 wrote:I just think gun owners make a huge deal over gun reform and the 2nd amendment but will never need their gun or have their lives affected by not owning a gun. On the other end of the spectrum, i think banning "assault weapons" is retarded considering there are 300 deaths a year because of rifles. But I think gun owners in general over react to this.

I don't think gun owners over react at all. The anti-gun people want to act like there "common sense" things we can do to stop this, but the "common sense" things they want to do wouldn't have stopped ANY of the massacres that have happened recently. But they don't want to take our guns. They just want to take some of them. The ones they think we don't need. Even though they don't really think we need any. They want to take assault rifles, even though assault rifles are nothing more than scary looking rifles. Even though there are significantly more deaths caused by handguns. Assault rifles are in the news now because of the Sandy hook tragedy and they wasted no time trying to capitalize with their "common sense." They will take them piece by piece if they have to, but I do not think they will happy as long as there are guns in law abiding citizens hands.

And it's great propaganda that they are pretending people who want the freedoms that are rightfully theirs are the nuts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-border-patrol-489/

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/the-age-of-drones-military-may-be-using-drones-in-us-to-help-police/

FatHobbit;1382125 wrote:I don't think gun owners over react at all. The anti-gun people want to act like there "common sense" things we can do to stop this, but the "common sense" things they want to do wouldn't have stopped ANY of the massacres that have happened recently. But they don't want to take our guns. They just want to take some of them. The ones they think we don't need. Even though they don't really think we need any. They want to take assault rifles, even though assault rifles are nothing more than scary looking rifles. Even though there are significantly more deaths caused by handguns. Assault rifles are in the news now because of the Sandy hook tragedy and they wasted no time trying to capitalize with their "common sense." They will take them piece by piece if they have to, but I do not think they will happy as long as there are guns in law abiding citizens hands.

And it's great propaganda that they are pretending people who want the freedoms that are rightfully theirs are the nuts.

I'm sympathetic to a lot of what you say...However, I think you're not cutting liberals enough slack. I think that those who desire to get rid of high capacity magazines and several types of rifles believe that doing so can help cut down on at least, maybe, massacre type shootings...or at least make them harder to pull off.

I think they realize that if they went full scale after handguns and trying to repeal the second amendment that they'd have no chance and hope that maybe people who want to keep hand guns and some rifles would be on board.

The horse really left the barn a long time ago in the U.S. so I think you have to cut gun control advocates some slack for thinking they have to start somewhere.

BoatShoes;1382153 wrote:The horse really left the barn a long time ago in the U.S. so I think you have to cut gun control advocates some slack for thinking they have to start somewhere.

But they pretend like they don't want to take away all guns. They just want to take this group. And then this group. You admit they are trying to do away with the second ammendment entirely and they know they can't do it all at once so they are going to do it piece meal until it's all gone.

That is the exact opposite of what I want so I don't have to cut them any slack. I want to call it out for what it is.

BoatShoes;1382153 wrote:...

I think they realize that if they went full scale after handguns and trying to repeal the second amendment that they'd have no chance and hope that maybe people who want to keep hand guns and some rifles would be on board.

...

If this is truly the underlying desire, to go "full scale after handguns and trying to repeal the second amendment", it's even more reason to resist any attempts to further regulate.

FatHobbit;1382160 wrote:But they pretend like they don't want to take away all guns. They just want to take this group. And then this group. You admit they are trying to do away with the second ammendment entirely and they know they can't do it all at once so they are going to do it piece meal until it's all gone.

That is the exact opposite of what I want so I don't have to cut them any slack. I want to call it out for what it is.

Reps. They don't deserve any slack. At all. None.

Raw Dawgin' it;1381969 wrote:lol didn't see this post coming. Honestly, how different would your life be without guns? When was the last time you pulled your gun in self defense? I'm gonna say...never.

For 37 years after Vietnam I had no weapons, my protection was that of my strength, power, training and wit. Two bank robbers, one break in to my home, one store robbery and a few bar fights... all handle without a weapon. I been knifed twice... That just me but would others in the same situation be as lucky

In two of those situation I wish I had a weapon but I had already committed ...

2005 My wife ask if I want to have a weapon, it took over a year before I made that purchase. I was 56 years old but still in good health however just beat cancer so was getting back into shape. I understood and she also understood I was not going to be the same physically.

I was expert small arms specialist in the Army I believe that if I could not achieve that level understanding and proficiency I would not carry.

I train and carry for my own protection, family and others from criminals who have no values, moral or respect for others lives but also for the protection against my government who opts to restrict my rights and freedoms and other American with force.

I don't pull my weapon for self defense ... it is pulled to center mass ... stop

BoatShoes;1382018 wrote:LOL I agree...I'm talking about what the justification for that is...The underlying justification for that individual right to bear arms is as protection against private coercion...not as protection against the government.

Who said? You? Or do you think the people who founded this country felt that way? Because they didn't. Hell, Jefferson called for armed revolution every 20 years.

Cleveland Buck;1382490 wrote:Who said? You? Or do you think the people who founded this country felt that way? Because they didn't. Hell, Jefferson called for armed revolution every 20 years.

From the time of Jefferson up until the reconstruction the 2nd Amendment was thought of, yes, as a right to form militias for armed insurrection against tyranny. The right to bear arms was not thought of as an individual right and they didn't even use the term "bill of rights" After the Union crushed the armed insurrections coming from the South, those militias become mobs otherwise known as the Klan wanting to harm individual black men and thus the NRA was formed and the case for an individual right to bear arms as a means of protecting against private mobs/individuals was brought forth.

BoatShoes;1382508 wrote:From the time of Jefferson up until the reconstruction the 2nd Amendment was thought of, yes, as a right to form militias for armed insurrection against tyranny. The right to bear arms was not thought of as an individual right and they didn't even use the term "bill of rights" After the Union crushed the armed insurrections coming from the South, those militias become mobs otherwise known as the Klan wanting to harm individual black men and thus the NRA was formed and the case for an individual right to bear arms as a means of protecting against private mobs/individuals was brought forth.

Long after such scenarios the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bears arms is one which is protected for the purposes of using such arms for "any lawful purpose".

BoatShoes;1382508 wrote:From the time of Jefferson up until the reconstruction the 2nd Amendment was thought of, yes, as a right to form militias for armed insurrection against tyranny. The right to bear arms was not thought of as an individual right and they didn't even use the term "bill of rights" After the Union crushed the armed insurrections coming from the South, those militias become mobs otherwise known as the Klan wanting to harm individual black men and thus the NRA was formed and the case for an individual right to bear arms as a means of protecting against private mobs/individuals was brought forth.

So it was considered a check against federal tyranny right up until the tyrannical federal government slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Americans, after which it changed to some other meaning? History is written by the victors I suppose.

So, a thread about picking targets for drone attacks has turned into a gun control thread?

ptown_trojans_1;1382036 wrote:I'm not cool with it, but what other options are there?
Send in a SEAL Team and risk casualties?
Rely on the Yemen Government to do the job?
It is the least bad option.

Fuck yeah, they should risk casualties of soldiers over killing civilians! If you sign up to be a warrior then that's the risk you accept. Civilians have not accepted that risk so leave them out of it.

Or of course get the hell out of the Middle East and Asia...and Europe and Africa and everywhere else.

Con_Alma;1382076 wrote:I disagree. The most significant point is the continued effort of keeping our finger on the pulse of the most volatile area of the world to ensure the safety of the U.S. citizens and the stability of the world economy.

As for ensuring the safey of U.S. Americans, the main reason there is a threat from Middle Easterners is because they hate us for occupying their countries. Not hard to understand why they would feel that way.

ThePatriot;1383196 wrote:As for ensuring the safey of U.S. Americans, the main reason there is a threat from Middle Easterners is because they hate us for occupying their countries. Not hard to understand why they would feel that way.

Nope. I understand it completely. That doesn't mean we are going to leave the area nor that we should.

Create a list of where the drone should be flying over:

DC

Letter from senators on drone authority


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/02/05/letter-from-senators-on-drone-authority/

Con_Alma;1383218 wrote:Nope. I understand it completely. That doesn't mean we are going to leave the area nor that we should.

Precisely. They are animals and are beneath us as the superior human beings. Since money grows on trees we should stay there indefinitely and make sure to force our preferred style of tyrannical government on them to replace their old tyrants.

Cleveland Buck;1383311 wrote:Precisely. They are animals and are beneath us as the superior human beings. Since money grows on trees we should stay there indefinitely and make sure to force our preferred style of tyrannical government on them to replace their old tyrants.

I don't quite see it that way.

Con_Alma;1383313 wrote:I don't quite see it that way.

Try opening your eyes.

justincredible;1383315 wrote:Try opening your eyes.

...you want me to open my eyes to them being " animals and are beneath us as the superior human beings"???? As hard as I look I just don't see it that way.

Raw Dawgin' it;1381969 wrote:lol didn't see this post coming. Honestly, how different would your life be without guns? When was the last time you pulled your gun in self defense? I'm gonna say...never.

This might be the most uninformed post I've seen in awhile, and that includes the likes of all the trolls we have in this forum.