How many are changing their vote?

[merphie]

It's not the politicians we have to convince. We the people create the government. We need to educate the people about guns and debunk the claims of those who would take them from us.

I could go along with that. I see the problem as being able to effectively reach people. As I have seen on this board it is not easy to debunk false claims on guns. This is the reason I don't evny Mr Randi or Penn & Teller. You saw how people attacked your second hand smoke thread. I was trying to follow along and read some of it. I didn't see any meaningful argument that secondhand smoke was proven for anything.

Even Athiest and Skeptics can hold onto their world view no matter what. I have posted threads to challenge my views, but I have been able to effectively debunk any opinion they give with hard evidence.

I don't know if such a task would be possible.

I meant blanket in that it applies to everyone convicted automatically. It would be different if it were a part of the sentencing hearing where they could present arguments etc. and have due process about the whole thing.

OK, but shouldn't some people be excluded? Like those who commit first degree murder? Armed Robbery? Rape?

Well, the question really is, whose responsibility is it to keep the guns out of the hands of the irresponsible? I think it's ridiculous to put that on the shoulders of the dealer. That's just one step away from being able to sue the dealer if one of his customers commits a crime.

I don't have any problems if a dealer wants to voluntarily do this, BTW.

I agree to some extent. I see the dealers as a more effective means. Of course, voluntary involvement would be great. I think most of the gun shops I know would participate willingly.

But again, it's a system that is almost impossible to appeal. You'd have to get a lawyer and set up a whole proceeding to take care of it if somehow you were wrongly rejected. They shouldn't be able to put you on the list in the first place without a sentencing hearing.

I can't argue that.

Well, New York, in an uncharacteristic fit of good sense, has a program where inmates can learn a trade so they can be productive when they get out of jail. Largely, it's been a success, except for cases where, for example, one inmate studied to become a barber, but when he was released the State of New York refused to give him a barber's license because he's a convicted felon. Ah, government thinking...

You're right. I have seen other things like that. I can understand people not hiring. My father in law hired an Ex Felony for electrical. The problem was the guy was in jail for robbery. Although, so far the guy has done a wonderful job.

It wasn't a matter of labels; my point was that the argument you used employed the same flawed logic as those arguing on the other side. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

Well, I tend to say what I think and follow logically as I see fit. I am more than willing to change my world view. I just didn't follow you as to what you were referring to. No problem. Moving along.

People who don't feel they should have to spend valuable time going to the government to say "Mother, may I?" every time they want to exercise one of their sovereign rights?

I see your point. I think it still comes down to the government trying to prevent bad people from getting guns. In allowing it, you almost help them create more victims. Surveys show that felonys don't usually get guns from legal dealers, but that could change if there was no fear of getting caught.

Well, the problem there is government ownership of property. The government should own the property it needs to do its job, and no more.

What about federal parks? Grand Canyon, Yellow stone?

 

[merphie]

So what's my point?

Dubya is campaigning that he's fighting the war on terrorism. Dubya isn't fighting the 'War Against Terrorism' at all. He's fighting daddy's war for oil, and doing a lousy job even at that, while promoting the growth of terrorism.

Of course, those suicide bombers and random killers who do everything exactly like a terrorist in Iraq, they're 'insurgents'. Not 'terrorists'. You see, they're only promoting 'insurgency', rather than blowing the doors wide open for terrorists to operate in fertile new ground.

My point is that it is funny. People will attack the other guy rather than talk about the positive of their guy. You could have said, "Yeah his gun record sucks, but he has done this. . . ." Instead you decided to talk about negative of the other guy.

Him fighting Iraq for oil is a media statement. It makes no sense to destablize a region and expect to get better oil prices. If anything it would make oil harder to get.

I would say they are doing a good job in Iraq. They caught another high level guy yesterday. It only looks like a bad job if you focus on the negative campaigns of the media. If you talked to the soldiers I think you would get a different impression.

The labels they give them is pointless. I don't think that Iraq will be a bed for terrorist once the government is stronger. No more a bed than any other Middle East country.

 

[shanek]

I don't know if such a task would be possible.

It used to be that Americans universally agreed on the right to bear arms. It was only after decades of misinformation that they were convinced otherwise. If they can be mis-educated one way, they can be re-educated the other, although it may take decades and we'll be fighting the purveyors of misinformation the whole way.

OK, but shouldn't some people be excluded? Like those who commit first degree murder? Armed Robbery? Rape?

Sure, just make it a function of the sentencing. Don't just attach it automatically without giving the person a chance to argue against it.

I see your point. I think it still comes down to the government trying to prevent bad people from getting guns.

The problem there is twofold: 1) You're giving the government the power to declare who is "bad," and 2) you're giving the power to take away their rights on that basis. Can't do it. Ya gotta go through the process.

What about federal parks? Grand Canyon, Yellow stone?

They should be turned over to groups such as the Nature Conservancy who have a history of taking care of natural lands and doing it well.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Him fighting Iraq for oil is a media statement. It makes no sense to destablize a region and expect to get better oil prices. If anything it would make oil harder to get.

If Iraq was really all about oil then the US would have battled in the U.N. to lift the Iraqi oil quotas and saved hundreds of lives and billions of dollars. That would have been the path of least resistance to the goal of cheaper Iraqi oil. Fighting in Iraq to control the oil *is* a nice sound bite to lambaste America with.

Many are so caught up in the war-for-oil propoganda that they barely aknowledge stuff like mass graves...

 

[merphie]

If Iraq was really all about oil then the US would have battled in the U.N. to lift the Iraqi oil quotas and saved hundreds of lives and billions of dollars. That would have been the path of least resistance to the goal of cheaper Iraqi oil. Fighting in Iraq to control the oil *is* a nice sound bite to lambaste America with.

Many are so caught up in the war-for-oil propoganda that they barely aknowledge stuff like mass graves...

Agreed.

 

[evildave]

My point is that it is funny. People will attack the other guy rather than talk about the positive of their guy. You could have said, "Yeah his gun record sucks, but he has done this. . . ." Instead you decided to talk about negative of the other guy.

Him fighting Iraq for oil is a media statement. It makes no sense to destablize a region and expect to get better oil prices. If anything it would make oil harder to get.

I would say they are doing a good job in Iraq. They caught another high level guy yesterday. It only looks like a bad job if you focus on the negative campaigns of the media. If you talked to the soldiers I think you would get a different impression.

The labels they give them is pointless. I don't think that Iraq will be a bed for terrorist once the government is stronger. No more a bed than any other Middle East country.

With Kerry, you worry about the science fiction of what he *might* do as president.

With Dubya, we have his track record of what he's already "accomplished".

Unwarranted aggression. Torture.

Dubya said he'd bring those responsible for 9/11 to "justice". I don't see any trials for the 'terrorists' we have in custody. Just indefinite incarcerations. A trial for Saddam. What about all those "Al Qaeda leaders" we already have? Shouldn't we be making charges and bringing them to justice? Apparently, that's not a priority. Just collecting bodies in prison camps seems to be the priority.

Turning these people who are allegedly "Al Qaeda Leaders" and "Taliban Leaders" (some of them for sure, but not all of them are) into victims instead of trying them for their crimes is very troublesome.

You'd think the US would be able to scrape up a few federal prosecutors and defenders to try these people. Maybe they're all too busy putting kids away for 20 year mandatory sentences in Texas for possessing drugs that Bush has used.

 

[merphie]

With Dubya, we have his track record of what he's already "accomplished".

Unwarranted aggression. Torture.

Dubya said he'd bring those responsible for 9/11 to "justice". I don't see any trials for the 'terrorists' we have in custody. Just indefinite incarcerations. A trial for Saddam. What about all those "Al Qaeda leaders" we already have? Shouldn't we be making charges and bringing them to justice? Apparently, that's not a priority. Just collecting bodies in prison camps seems to be the priority.

Turning these people who are allegedly "Al Qaeda Leaders" and "Taliban Leaders" (some of them for sure, but not all of them are) into victims instead of trying them for their crimes is very troublesome.

You'd think the US would be able to scrape up a few federal prosecutors and defenders to try these people. Maybe they're all too busy putting kids away for 20 year mandatory sentences in Texas for possessing drugs that Bush has used.

I think you are just looking for someone to blame for what the media reports. Do you ever hear much about the good that has happened? Do you ever hear about the kids who never saw clear water before? Did you watch how they unearthed all the mass graves?

Unwarranted agresssion? We may have gone to war for the wrong reason, but that was probably more of an intelligence failure. Our British even came out and said that very thing. The only thing I have against Bush is he should have come out and done the same as the British. Now that we are there we should finish the job.

Torture? So now Bush is responsible for the humiliation that happened in the prisons? What proof do you have that he gave any order to do so? From what I have heard, those who are responsible are being tried for their crimes and they did it on their own accord. Not under orders. So you can't blame Bush for such things.

Collecting bodies in prison? That's just BS. Don't you think we should find out information? Saddam will be put on trial in Iraq by the Iraqi people. If we just throw away the key on all of these we might not have some of the information that we have now. These Key leaders know alot about the organization. Information we need to fight this war on terrorism.

If we did you what you mentioned we would have no more information than we had when we started. They may not announce the capture of some right away so no one knows they are captured and they can be used to our advantage. Which has been done and resulted in the capture of more terrorist.

I don't believe in this Drug war so I can't really argue for it. However pointing out that Bush did drugs and then he legislates against it is non-sense.

Kerry used drugs. Clinton used drugs but didn't inhale? Who hasn't tried drugs in one form or another? Marajiuana? Cigarettes? Alcohol? What difference does it make?

You sound more like a mouth peice for the media. All I have to do is turn on the TV and hear the same rehtoric non sense.

 

[evildave]

Yes, the President bears responsibility for the torture and humiliation that occurred in the prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo.

The White House looked for ways they could except their 'detainees' from international laws of prisoner treatment. They went back and forth several times with conflicting 'guidelines' for how to interrogate/torture the prisoners.

If the prisoners they rounded up had simply been treated as prisoners of war from the beginning by those who held them, then there could not have been any confusion about the treatment of these prisoners. The military training given to soldiers, and guidelines set by the Geneva Convention are very clear and specific, and so is the training.

Instead, the White House tries to lawyer around the and contend with the definitions, and make these people non-entities. Super. Now we have people of undefined status. The White House provides interrogation guidelines that actually do call for torture. (You can dissemble with your definition of what "torture" is if you like.) Now we have an environment where troops who are not trained to interrogate prisoners, who are not to be treated per the only guidelines they are trained to follow, in charge of prisoners in unsupervised conditions, where nobody is sure how they're supposed to be treated. Now when a doctor or a guard on another shift sees them, they must've been 'interrogated', so the bruises and wounds aren't reported. They are desensitized to mistreatment of human beings and just let things slide.

If the White House had done nothing, then no torture would have been permitted or tolerated at all. Instead, they did something that ultimately resulted in those images hitting the press.

Congratulations, George W. Bush.

I don't care if Bush kisses a hundred babies. He's killed at least that many by diverting the war against terror to a war to grab Iraq's oil.

There is nothing positive that can be said of Bush Jr. that can ever excuse what he has done to the image of the United States of America. His administration has dragged us down to the level of the very brutal regimes he pretends to be 'rescuing' people from. Below that level, because we're hypocrites, too.

And if he gets re-elected, he will take that as universal acclamation of his 'efforts', and continue with even worse. That's my little prediction.

"Four more wars."
"Four more wars."
"Four more wars."

 

[Atlas]

Yes, the President bears responsibility for the torture and humiliation that occurred in the prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo.

The White House looked for ways they could except their 'detainees' from international laws of prisoner treatment. They went back and forth several times with conflicting 'guidelines' for how to interrogate/torture the prisoners.

If the prisoners they rounded up had simply been treated as prisoners of war from the beginning by those who held them, then there could not have been any confusion about the treatment of these prisoners. The military training given to soldiers, and guidelines set by the Geneva Convention are very clear and specific, and so is the training. ...

The Geneva Convention articles are fairly clear who is a prisoner of war and who isn't. It's pretty long. I looked at the first several articles. The ragtag militia of the Taliban and foreign al Queda fighters do not fit the definition. They just don't.

Geneva Convention Articles

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

There are other categories. But Category 2 above, points B and D give the flavor of what is expected of enemy fighters. At least wear an identifying turban - something - that would give you a status different from criminal murderer. And No hiding behind women and children.

In our own Revolutionary War we learned that rigid thinking of the British and especially the Hessians made them easy targets. We had the advantage of knowing the landscape but they had better training and firepower. But they marched in lockstep under our snipers who then melted away.

This enemy is likewise not honoring the rules of war or the Geneva Convention. If we do not use tactics that will bring victory we will lose ugly. Don't think for a minute that I think we should use torture as a blunt weapon. I think it could be used, however, with precision on someone like Zarqawi. That is, in certain rare circumstances against perpetrators who have beheaded innocents or murdered children and have clearly led horrible attacks, then whatever information can be extracted from the refuse should be. NO MERCY. Save the innocent. (I'll add this amendment, If our enemy is highminded about the treatment of prisoners we should never go lower than them in our treatment of prisoners.)

As far as Abu Ghraib. It was an aberration. But other prisoners have been held humanely. Why? If it's policy to "Abu Ghraib" why is it not systematic? Are we less good administrators than the Nazis? Perhaps it might be, as investigations say, isolated instances of a dereliction of the duty commanders have to oversee their troops and the troop's treatment of prisoners.

I don't care if Bush kisses a hundred babies. He's killed at least that many by diverting the war against terror to a war to grab Iraq's oil.

GRAB THE OIL? Dave, Take your meds. It's so strange, you've got a good mind, but you're letting your disgust for this president destroy your rationality. Here's and example from another thread you posted in late July. In this post your slide toward lunacy is exposed.

I'm generally of the opinion that the government WANTS an atom bomb detonated on U.S. soil.

Think of all the rights they could convince cowardly Americans they can do without after an atom bomb goes off?

And the POWER the government could grab! ...

Your reason has been lost. No President WANTS to torture others and destroy civilization. You are way over the line, man.

 

[CapelDodger]

from merphie:

I was commenting on Kerry's attempt to look good to the "pro-gun" people

If that's what you think it is, it explains why RightGuard are looking for a new ad-agency.

 

[merphie]

Yes, the President bears responsibility for the torture and humiliation that occurred in the prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo.

The White House looked for ways they could except their 'detainees' from international laws of prisoner treatment. They went back and forth several times with conflicting 'guidelines' for how to interrogate/torture the prisoners.

If the prisoners they rounded up had simply been treated as prisoners of war from the beginning by those who held them, then there could not have been any confusion about the treatment of these prisoners. The military training given to soldiers, and guidelines set by the Geneva Convention are very clear and specific, and so is the training.

Instead, the White House tries to lawyer around the and contend with the definitions, and make these people non-entities. Super. Now we have people of undefined status. The White House provides interrogation guidelines that actually do call for torture. (You can dissemble with your definition of what "torture" is if you like.) Now we have an environment where troops who are not trained to interrogate prisoners, who are not to be treated per the only guidelines they are trained to follow, in charge of prisoners in unsupervised conditions, where nobody is sure how they're supposed to be treated. Now when a doctor or a guard on another shift sees them, they must've been 'interrogated', so the bruises and wounds aren't reported. They are desensitized to mistreatment of human beings and just let things slide.

If the White House had done nothing, then no torture would have been permitted or tolerated at all. Instead, they did something that ultimately resulted in those images hitting the press.

Congratulations, George W. Bush.

I don't care if Bush kisses a hundred babies. He's killed at least that many by diverting the war against terror to a war to grab Iraq's oil.

There is nothing positive that can be said of Bush Jr. that can ever excuse what he has done to the image of the United States of America. His administration has dragged us down to the level of the very brutal regimes he pretends to be 'rescuing' people from. Below that level, because we're hypocrites, too.

And if he gets re-elected, he will take that as universal acclamation of his 'efforts', and continue with even worse. That's my little prediction.

So What were the guidelines the president put down? They ones guilty of the abuse are being put on trial. What more do you want?

I think you are right. We never should interrogate anyone. Especially fanatics. We should give them little care packages of food and send them back to their home country.

Again you go back to grab Iraq's oil. That is a completely silly argument. I just bought gas today and the war sure helped me there!

Still nothing over what you hear from the democrats.

 

[merphie]

from merphie:If that's what you think it is, it explains why RightGuard are looking for a new ad-agency.

That's exactly what it is. He ahs voted for every anti-gun measure to come through congress.

He has voted several times on the "Assault Weapons" ban alone.

 

[evildave]

So What were the guidelines the president put down? They ones guilty of the abuse are being put on trial. What more do you want?

I think you are right. We never should interrogate anyone. Especially fanatics. We should give them little care packages of food and send them back to their home country.

Again you go back to grab Iraq's oil. That is a completely silly argument. I just bought gas today and the war sure helped me there!

Still nothing over what you hear from the democrats.

Here you go.

Bush Administration Documents on Interrogation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html

How is it that police interrogate people without torture and extract a confession most of the time? Could it be there is a technique to get information from people without MAKING them say basically anything that will make the torment stop? And might this technique actually be better than thumbscrews or 'water boarding' at getting a truthful answer from an accused criminal? Or do you think that when Americans are arrested for a crime, that THEY should be tortured until they 'confess' whatever they're told to?

 

[evildave]

The Geneva Convention articles are fairly clear who is a prisoner of war and who isn't. It's pretty long. I looked at the first several articles. The ragtag militia of the Taliban and foreign al Queda fighters do not fit the definition. They just don't.

So if you're impoverished and/or don't have any uniforms, an invading force can (and should) just have their way with you for resisting? An interesting perspective on international law.

There are also articles and treaties about minimum acceptable conditions for *ANY* prisoner.

AP: Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm

General Says Less Coercion of Captives Yields Better Data
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/international/middleeast/07detain.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 6 - American interrogators working in Iraq have obtained as much as 50 percent more high-value intelligence since a series of coercive practices like hooding, stripping and sleep deprivation were banned, a senior American official said Monday.

 

[UserGoogol]

Not all anti-gun laws are against the 2nd amendment even under the most stringent interpetation. Many anti-gun laws direct their attention on the gun trade, instead of gun possesion. The "right to bear arms" does not immediately imply the "right to freely trade arms." The Federal Government has the explicitly granted power to regulate interstate and international commerce, and I see no constitutional reason why that shouldn't extend to the gun industry.

 

[evildave]

Prison abuse reports
http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/abuse/schlesinger_report.pdf
http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf

 

[merphie]

Here you go.

Bush Administration Documents on Interrogation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html

How is it that police interrogate people without torture and extract a confession most of the time? Could it be there is a technique to get information from people without MAKING them say basically anything that will make the torment stop? And might this technique actually be better than thumbscrews or 'water boarding' at getting a truthful answer from an accused criminal? Or do you think that when Americans are arrested for a crime, that THEY should be tortured until they 'confess' whatever they're told to?

What does the police have to do with it? The police don't have to deal with these fanatical people who want to die so they can be a martyr.

So instead you have someone threatening jail time to the terrorist? I bet that makes them tell the truth.

What methods do the police use for interrogation? You haven't even proved that the USA has tortured anyone.

 

[merphie]

Not all anti-gun laws are against the 2nd amendment even under the most stringent interpetation. Many anti-gun laws direct their attention on the gun trade, instead of gun possesion. The "right to bear arms" does not immediately imply the "right to freely trade arms." The Federal Government has the explicitly granted power to regulate interstate and international commerce, and I see no constitutional reason why that shouldn't extend to the gun industry.

Sure, but if a trade restriction prevents the possession of a firearm by a citizen, then it is an infringment on the second amendment.

 

[merphie]

Prison abuse reports
http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/abuse/schlesinger_report.pdf
http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf

Ok they clearly show the these abuses were not sanctioned by our government. In the document you provided it says that even though the president said that the conventions didn't apply to the taliban or al Qaeda, the prisoners should be treated as if they were. So all the abuses were illegal and those who did them will be punished by trial.

You entire argument is pointless, because your own documentation shows that you idea has no basis. I think your hatred of one person has relieved you of any reason.