Thank God for the U.N.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=201

[“None of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”]

Bigger, more centralized governments are easier to become corrupt to begin with, especially in a mixed economy.

Smaller, less centralized, and less powerful forms of government are what is needed.  We should be shifting powers to local and state governments, rather than shifting it up to a higher power yet (the U.N.)

>>41 Agreed.

>>40 They aint talking for a second about the lawgivers of American goodol'boys. This is from the critic watch section of the factual, non-partisan UN dispatch website. I removed paragraphing to avoid truncating of post.

"To believe conspiracy theorists like National Rifle Association president Wayne LaPierre, the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference is one step on the slippery slope toward global mind control. But back here on planet earth, the conference will address best practices for combating the illicit trafficking of small arms by transnational criminal organizations.
The conference will say nothing about the lawful ownership of guns by citizens in the United States or elsewhere. Rather, it will bring member countries together to forge a common strategy to combat gun runners and their pernicious effect on global security. Among other nefarious activities, criminals that profit from the illicit sale of small arms are responsible for putting lightweight AK 47's in the hands of small children in Liberia and Northern Uganda and pairing stockpiles of weapons with militias in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Further, according to Interpol, the same transnational organized criminal groups that profit from the sale of arms are also likely to form cozy business relations with terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.
The fact is, any action taken to impede the UN's efforts to curb the illegal trafficking of arms is a danger to millions around the globe.

>>43
I think as long as the U.N. is donating tax dollars given them by the U.S. Government, the least they can do is not donate it to organizations like this, that are fundamentally against the 2nd amendment of our nation's very constitution: 
http://www.iansa.org/

Just an example of course. 

>>44
You mean the right to bear arms? Fair enough. I myself am not from the U.S. However, it seems to me the right to bear arms was ammended into the constitution as a precautionary measure, just in case the British were to attack and attempt to reclaim the Colonies. I don't know if this has occured to people who go on about the right to bear arms, but, well...The British aren't coming back. They're not going to try and retake the Colonies anymore.

The U.N. is sick.  Giving them tax money is like subsidizing the destruction of the constitution, since a portion of the money that goes to the U.N. gets sent to programs like >>44 mentions, but there are a lot more of them than just that one. 

>>43
It is a slippery slope.  Even if it wasn't, >>41 is right that the U.N. is looking more and more like a bigger government every time I take a look at it.  The U.N. has even attempted to levy taxes before, on numerous things.  In the USA, I was under the impression that it was constitution only for /congress/ to levy taxes, not some global bureaucratic organization housing the various tyrants from various tyrannys and despotisms the world over. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060718-083429-4191r.htm

Just a sample.

>>43
"But back here on planet earth, the conference will address best practices for combating the illicit trafficking of small arms by transnational criminal organizations."

'Illicit'? Illicit to whom? Some dictatorship, totalitarian state, or authoritarian regime? Many of the treaties that the U.N. had in mind, if implimented would have prevented the U.S. from arming resistance from the Nazis during WW2 in areas like France.  Freedom fighters fighting Saddam Hussein, like the Kurds, or some dictator or despot could be called 'criminals.'  Should we tighten up restrictions to keep freedom fighters, or as the U.N. calls them... 'criminals' from owning guns so they can fight for their freedom in some of the less fortunate and less free areas of the world?

Anyhow, aside from all this, Wayne isn't overblowing what is happening at the U.N. in regards to gun control schemes.  Lets think for a minute - what is necessary for the U.N. to impliment gun control here?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but supposing one day the U.S. elects an internationalist anti-gun House of Representatives, Senate, and President, we could very well pass these international laws, and essentially shred the 2nd amendment. 

Of course, the supreme court would rule whether or not it is constitutional, or unconstitutional, but if we had liberal presidents, and liberal appointees who had a bone to pick with the Bill of Rights, I'd like you to tell me what else is standing between us and the loss of our freedoms before the U.N.?  As I see it, Wayne saying 'the wolf is at the door already'  (not exact quote) is NOT an understatement.  All we'd need is a big liberal victory for it to be unleashed.

I fail to see how he is overblowing this.  This is a serious threat to the Bill of Rights, and if the american people fall asleep and let too many anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment politicians slide into the government, they could be face to face with a massive loss of freedom - one of the most crucial freedoms.

The solution is that we make guns that explode in the hands of anyone who hates America.

>>48 The American people have snoozed through almost every conceivable breach of the constitution and common sense this far, and you cry wolf over liberals? This congress takes aim at smuggling, and so it focuses on finding a joint effort to take on the flooding with firearms of Africa, for example. Your guns are safe, but that's basically it nowadays. Good thing, cause when the insurgents come to America on levitating dead camels, armed with sand, a piece may be useful.

>>50
We are discussing liberal ideology here, yes we are pissed off by the patriot act etc... I fail to see why you believe people must be forced to choose the lesser of 2 evils. Hmmm... Statism or 19th century style capitalism... I know. Libertarianism!

>>50
Did you address any of his points at all? The USA doesn't (and shouldn't) have any issue with 'non-state actors' attaining military weapons overseas - particularly if they are fighting tyrannical governments.  The fact that the USA doesn't want to participate in all of this is more than justified.  The U.N. is in the wrong.

>>50
He wasn't attempting to justify breaches of the constitution, he was pointing out a very real threat to the constitution coming from the U.N., which you failed to address.

Too many people in this thread think America is the savior of the world.

And as for the U.N. taking away your gun rights, I think you forget that the US has veto power over any of that shit. 
Veto power.
If the US deemed any of the U.N. sanctions too damaging to "American rights and the 2nd Amendment" they could've vetoed it.

Maybe, just maybe, the US government has a vested interest in an organization that they hold significant power in, and maybe the US government actually wants to take away your guns, even though some republican in the white house seems like he wouldn't.

Are  you crazy?  The UN is nothing but a spineless, non-powerful, non - respected organization that is taking up space in New York City.

I say that we should just tell the UN, to go buggar off.  Besides, we have more men with our country and our allies, than they could actually get to fight, in general.

Whimps, all of them.

>>54
"And as for the U.N. taking away your gun rights, I think you forget that the US has veto power over any of that shit.
Veto power."

Read what >>48 said.  The U.N. threat is very real. 

"If the US deemed any of the U.N. sanctions too damaging to "American rights and the 2nd Amendment" they could've vetoed it."

They *can*.  Will they? That's another question alltogether, and it largely depends upon who is currently in office, and who their appointees are.  Read what >>48 said.

>>44 America has been indebted to the UN since wayback, and they only started paying once they needed some love before the War on Bad.
>>52 They're not in the hands of brave militia-men resistors. They are in the hands of child soldiers. The American civilians have nothing to do with that but the American government can do something.
>>53 There is no threat of the 2nd amendment coming from the UN, which, BTW, rejected all the terror-funding states from joining the board of Human rights except Cuba. Cuba has endured state-funded terrorist attacks from the US since day one, so why aren't we taking your water, uprooting your olive trees, torturing American insurgents and liquifying your economy as we speak? One thing - if Iran isn't allowed on that board because they fund terrorism, neither should the US. We extend a privilege just by letting you speak at the UN.

>>57
You still aren't addressing what >>48 said.  There is a threat to the constitution.  >>48 is right.

"They're not in the hands of brave militia-men resistors. They are in the hands of child soldiers. The American civilians have nothing to do with that but the American government can do something."

And if they are fighting some tyrannical government, we certainly shouldn't intervene.  We should promote freedom throughout the world, and oppose those who don't, including tyrannical governments.  We shouldn't be enforcing their tyranny.

"There is no threat of the 2nd amendment coming from the UN,"

LOL? Yes there is.  See >>48.

"which, BTW, rejected all the terror-funding states from joining the board of Human rights except Cuba."

I'm not talking about terror-funding states, I'm talking about tyrannical governments, tyrants, despots, and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. 

"Cuba has endured state-funded terrorist attacks from the US since day one,"

Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime.

"so why aren't we taking your water, uprooting your olive trees, torturing American insurgents and liquifying your economy as we speak?"

See comment above.

"One thing - if Iran isn't allowed on that board because they fund terrorism, neither should the US. We extend a privilege just by letting you speak at the UN."

Who cares about the Iranian govt funding terrorism? That really has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  The U.N. consists of governments from the world over, many of whom have anti-gun attitudes, and contribute monetary aid to organizations like 'IANSA' whose purpose is to undermine our constitution and destroy the right to keep and bear arms here in the USA, and in other countries.  For this reason alone, we shouldn't contribute another dime to the U.N.

Furthermore, the U.N. should have no say over the actions we commit - the U.N. should not exist to govern us, and we shouldn't let it.  I'm not saying we should just go to war or something, but I am certainly saying that the U.N. should have no say whatsoever in our policies.  I firmly oppose and reject any such assault on our national sovereignty.

The U.N. should have no power to levy taxes on us, something it has pressed for in the past. 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060718-083429-4191r.htm

The United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights is not a promotion of basic human rights, but an assault on them, the foundation of which is property rights.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=210

"We extend a privilege just by letting you speak at the UN."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the building is on American soil.

While the U.N. rejected the United States of America from the Human Rights commission, even the Sudan, a country that tolerates -=slavery=- was alowed on it, as well as Socialist China, and Cuba, two more Human rights abusers.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=903
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=537

Funny also, that Libya, one of the worst countries on Human Rights in the world will lead this 'Human Rights Comission.'
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1991

The United States should withdraw from the United Nations.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=528

>>57
"America has been indebted to the UN since wayback, and they only started paying once they needed some love before the War on Bad."

So? None of our tax money should go to the U.N. until they stop subsidizing the destruction of our constitution and Bill of Rights. 

"I'm not talking about terror-funding states, I'm talking about tyrannical governments, tyrants, despots, and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes." You are talking about those nations, incidentally. Iran, Syria et al. were not allowed to be a part of the board on human rights, among other things.
"Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime." And America is what nowadays? America does not have the right to use terrorist tactics against civilians (Cuba) because they have the temerity to do things differently, and if it think it does then it needs to be taught many lessons.
"See comment above." You have used terrorist tactics, abstaining from any claim of decency and moral superiority. The endurance of Cuba throughout the decades is comparable to that of Israel.
"Who cares about the Iranian govt funding terrorism? That really has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  The U.N. consists of governments from the world over, many of whom have anti-gun attitudes, and contribute monetary aid to organizations like 'IANSA' whose purpose is to undermine our constitution and destroy the right to keep and bear arms here in the USA, and in other countries.  For this reason alone, we shouldn't contribute another dime to the U.N.

Furthermore, the U.N. should have no say over the actions we commit - the U.N. should not exist to govern us, and we shouldn't let it.  I'm not saying we should just go to war or something, but I am certainly saying that the U.N. should have no say whatsoever in our policies.  I firmly oppose and reject any such assault on our national sovereignty."
America has voided its right to complain about sovereignty. Also, IANSA has these objectives: research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms. These objectives are not anti-gun per se and would have no effect on the average consumer. These proliferated guns reach soldiers in Africa who are doing nothing but taking their chance to rape, extort and pillage everything in sight, destabilizing an entire continent. Just because they have guns and don't own homes doesn't mean they are fighting nasty brits and communists while wearing raccoon hats and writing laissez-faire philosophy under starlight. This is a new millenium, and guns doesn't automatically provide a cornucopia wherever they appear.
"While the U.N. rejected the United States of America from the Human Rights commission, even the Sudan, a country that tolerates -=slavery=- was alowed on it, as well as Socialist China, and Cuba, two more Human rights abusers." A horrible double standard, Agreed. Another double standard is how all the G8 countries do jack shit to slow the export of small arms to human rights-abusing nations (freedom- and liberty-loving America do the most black small arms trading of course, then use the same principle of human-rights abuse to liquify Iraq's public sector and use terrorism against Cuba), where without a doubt inpoverished mothers use them to hunt, learn about freedom and defend their daughters from gang-raping bands of grown men armed with these very same guns, in larger numbers. Because guns automatically do that everywhere all the time, and limiting these exports will harm gun consumers inside the US, without a doubt. I also am pro-2nd amendment, and I think that the US has no business in the UN. G'wan, git.

>>60
"You are talking about those nations, incidentally. Iran, Syria et al. were not allowed to be a part of the board on human rights, among other things."

Assuming the 'board on human rights' isn't the 'Human Rights Comission, you might be right.  (lol)
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1991

"And America is what nowadays?"

A hell of a lot better than Cuba.

"America does not have the right to use terrorist tactics against civilians (Cuba) because they have the temerity to do things differently, and if it think it does then it needs to be taught many lessons."

Cuba shouldn't be elevated to the level of a free state in people's minds.  I frankly don't give a fuck whether or not these actions are taken against tyrannical oppressive governments around the world.  Overthrowing tyranny is not a bad cause.

"You have used terrorist tactics, abstaining from any claim of decency and moral superiority."

To overthrow tyranny.  Explain to me what is wrong with overthrowing tyranny.  We help to spread freedom and liberty around the globe.

"The endurance of Cuba throughout the decades is comparable to that of Israel."

The U.N. seems pretty opposed to Israel too.

"America has voided its right to complain about sovereignty."

What the hell? ..... We have every right to complain about sovereignty.

"Also, IANSA has these objectives: research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms."

Right, and if you'll take note, any patriotic freedom loving american who cares about the Bill of Rights should have qualms with, at the very least, these:  'research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms.'

All of these amount to attacks on our Bill of Rights.  Incidentally, this is everything you managed to mention IANSA does. 

"These objectives are not anti-gun per se"

Yes they are. 

"and would have no effect on the average consumer."

Yes they would.

"These proliferated guns reach soldiers in Africa who are doing nothing but taking their chance to rape, extort and pillage everything in sight, destabilizing an entire continent."

This isn't true.  Many of those prohibited from firearms ownership in Africa are prohibited from doing so thanks to oppressive governments.  Many of these arms are reaching legitimate rebels who fight for a good cause - liberty.  Many of these same government enact many racist gun controls prohibiting black people from owning firearms enabling them to defend themselves from Muslim aggressors and governments.  The U.N. might label these folks 'criminals', LOL.

"Just because they have guns and don't own homes doesn't mean they are fighting nasty brits and communists"

Right, and just because they own guns doesn't mean they are raping young women, pillaging villages, or extorting things.  Yes, some of their actions might 'destabilize' things there, but you should keep in mind that 'stabilize' means control by oppressive dictators and monstrous governments who violate human rights at every turn. 

"This is a new millenium, and guns doesn't automatically provide a cornucopia wherever they appear."

Nor do they automatically provide a hell whenever they appear.  The U.N.'s regulations, if implimented as they wanted, would restrict us from arming freedom fighters and good-rebels.  I think its funny; if enacted, they'd have prevented us from arming the French resistance against the Nazis.

"A horrible double standard, Agreed."

Good.  Fuck the U.N.

"Another double standard is how all the G8 countries do jack shit to slow the export of small arms to human rights-abusing nations"

Sounds exactly where they are needed most - where all the freedom fighting will be occurring.  The U.S. should not be prohibited from arming rebels that work to promote freedom and destabilize tyrannical governments and authoritarian regimes.

"(freedom- and liberty-loving America do the most black small arms trading of course,"

Aka supporting the 'illegal' sale of guns to freedom fighters and rebels fighting tyrannical anti-freedom governments.

"and use terrorism against Cuba"

Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime.

"where without a doubt inpoverished mothers use them to hunt, learn about freedom and defend their daughters from gang-raping bands of grown men armed with these very same guns, in larger numbers."

You act like if we actually did something to stop it, it would stop, which is bullshit.  Don't believe me? Look at the drug situation in the USA.  We've been trying to restrict drug trafficking in the USA for YEARS, spending enormous sums of money on it, and the result? Just about anyone can just walk down to the street corner, ask the right questions, and get their hands on various illicit drugs.

Furthermore, if we cut off sale of arms entirely, those people you are talking about wouldn't be able to use them in self-defense.  I firmly believe in self-defense and guns as a crime and violence deterrant.

"and limiting these exports will harm gun consumers inside the US, without a doubt."

That isn't what I'm talking about.  We shouldn't restrict or infringe upon the sale of arms to freedom fighters who work to promote freedom in their countries, and oppose tyrannical governments.  Of course, these folks get referred to as 'nasty criminals and evil terrorist organizations' by the U.N. 

"I also am pro-2nd amendment, and I think that the US has no business in the UN. G'wan, git."

The U.N. is about as 'pro-gun' as the democrats, if not less.  They support organizations and essentially fund the otherwise un-funded gun-control anti-freedom anti-gun agenda that would otherwise be practically non-existent. 

I would LOVE to see the USA withdraw from the U.N. 

>>60 America is a unique country; While Australia enjoyed lower gun crime rates after tightening up in 1996 (in 2002 contracting bulletdeath was 16 times more probable in America than in Australia, and the ratio is 8:1 for Canada and 40:1 for Britain), America's crime rate has dropped now that the Assault Weapons Ban has *expired*. Homicide and suicide by gun is still the highest in America, but oddly enough most regions (save for San Fransisco) has less crime the more civilians own guns. Whether this is because of a lack of regulations (law-abiders can get guns easily but unregistered guns are five a penny as well) or cultural factors I do not know (my view is that too many undervalue firearms as a kneejerk reaction, but that gun proponents commonly overvalue the people who have guns). As such, since the IANSA looks more to the damage caused by guns outside of America (who have different situations), opposing it simply because they recognize the incredible damage it causes is nothing but paranoia closet conservatives use and spread to justify voting republican. Before IX XI America opposed a treaty that would prevent arms trade with insurgents and terrorist militias, incuding -yup- talibans. It appears as if limiting gun ownership in America works poorly, while doing so outside of America has a better effect. As such, I condone IANSA for trying to improve the position of consumers for gun owners in America while preventing guns from flooding nations where they are used to oppress and wreak havoc (news flash: these 'resistance fighters' in Africa do not wear raccoon hats, fight brits and communists and write laissez-faire philosophies under starlight, they use the black market guns America do nothing to prevent proliferation of in order to rape and pillage everything they can see). I dislike the democrats/socialists almost as much as evangelicals, fifth-columnists and muttering NRA hermits but naïve propaganda like that of this board has made me realize that the other option is to side with fundmentalists who use dogmas instead of facts.

>>61 "Overthrowing tyranny is not a bad cause." Then you put up or shut up, and don't make civilians subject of terrorist methods such as poisoning crops and water supplies. You don't fight tyrants by fighting the tyranees.
"To overthrow tyranny.  Explain to me what is wrong with overthrowing tyranny.  We help to spread freedom and liberty around the globe." Cuba is a tyrrany that has had widespread support by the citizens. Since there are no violent right-wing contra groups in Cuba, America used terrorism to punish Cuban civilians. America is a bit selective come to think of it; Mexico's current "president" used extensive fraud to become president but that is not even mentioned in America. Chavez, on the other hand, should be removed ASAP because of voting irregularities.
"The U.N. seems pretty opposed to Israel too." They shouldn't be. Have I said that? I'm with left-wing zionist Amos Oz on the Israel issue.
"What the hell? ..... We have every right to complain about sovereignty." There are 14 cases where America has been involved in overthrowing nations, and some -not all, such as Afghanistan and Iraq for example- of these had a perfectly democratic foundation.
"Right, and if you'll take note, any patriotic freedom loving american who cares about the Bill of Rights should have qualms with, at the very least, these:  'research the health and social impact of guns, educate the public on the risks of firearm ownership,
promote policies to prevent criminal and youth access to guns,
apply consumer product regulations to the gun industry,
support international efforts to curb the proliferation of small arms." So trying to find a cure for diarrhea is the same thing as trying to illegalize spare ribs, mangos, prunes et al., got it. This is research, damage control and spreading of information. These are of course labels that I don't assume will be executed perfectly or with objectivity, but per se carrying out these objectives would not affect the 2nd.
"This isn't true.  Many of those prohibited from firearms ownership in Africa are prohibited from doing so thanks to oppressive governments.  Many of these arms are reaching legitimate rebels who fight for a good cause - liberty.  Many of these same government enact many racist gun controls prohibiting black people from owning firearms enabling them to defend themselves from Muslim aggressors and governments.  The U.N. might label these folks 'criminals', LOL." And the oppressed can afford these guns, how? I'm already aware of the racism in Africa, but name an organized militia that has not resorted to attacks on civilians and who attack an undemocratic regime in Africa. Do that and that point belongs to you.
"Right, and just because they own guns doesn't mean they are raping young women, pillaging villages, or extorting things.  Yes, some of their actions might 'destabilize' things there, but you should keep in mind that 'stabilize' means control by oppressive dictators and monstrous governments who violate human rights at every turn." Almost all the militias in Africa, of various morality and sizes, say *they* are the good guys. They attack democracies and civilians too, so I need to find some facts regarding how many guns in the developing world is used for a net good.
"Sounds exactly where they are needed most - where all the freedom fighting will be occurring.  The U.S. should not be prohibited from arming rebels that work to promote freedom and destabilize tyrannical governments and authoritarian regimes." They arm everybody in the developing world that has the cash.
"Aka supporting the 'illegal' sale of guns to freedom fighters and rebels fighting tyrannical anti-freedom governments." Once again, I do not know how many, if any, of the guns on the white and black market are used for democratic, moral aims.
"Cuba is an authoritarian communist regime." Well, there was some proven voting fraud in America in 2000 and 2004, so now we have to free the shit out of you and poison your crops.
"You act like if we actually did something to stop it, it would stop, which is bullshit.  Don't believe me? Look at the drug situation in the USA.  We've been trying to restrict drug trafficking in the USA for YEARS, spending enormous sums of money on it, and the result? Just about anyone can just walk down to the street corner, ask the right questions, and get their hands on various illicit drugs." Drugs - into America from the developing world. Guns - Out of America, into the developing world. I think situations and premises are somewhat different.
"Furthermore, if we cut off sale of arms entirely, those people you are talking about wouldn't be able to use them in self-defense.  I firmly believe in self-defense and guns as a crime and violence deterrant." Black market equality symbol slash equality symbol white market.
"That isn't what I'm talking about.  We shouldn't restrict or infringe upon the sale of arms to freedom fighters who work to promote freedom in their countries, and oppose tyrannical governments.  Of course, these folks get referred to as 'nasty criminals and evil terrorist organizations' by the U.N." Sure. If you can name one organisation that is terrorbranded or otherwise recognized as bad by the UN, who doesn't use rape and terror against civilians as a weapon but receives armament for their honorable resistance from the US via the white or the black market, I am utterly defenseless.
"The U.N. is about as 'pro-gun' as the democrats, if not less.  They support organizations and essentially fund the otherwise un-funded gun-control anti-freedom anti-gun agenda that would otherwise be practically non-existent." Gun control =/= Anti-freedom, gun control =/= freedom-control, Anti-Gun = Anti-freedom.

The crime rate in the USA has nothing to do with our guns, it has to do with stupid liberal crime policies.  You know there's a problem when rapists aren't put behind bars - but are put on -=probation=- for raping people.

And the crusade on drugs and the failing policies on sex education, contraception and abortion was started by feminist gay black atheist lower-class liberals as well.

>>62

"Drugs - into America from the developing world. Guns - Out of America, into the developing world. I think situations and premises are somewhat different."

They should both be legal, imo.  Screw the U.N.  The USA's arms being shipped overseas are often going to good causes, such as fighting tyrannies and dictatorships.

"Black market equality symbol slash equality symbol white market."

Elaborate.

"Sure. If you can name one organisation that is terrorbranded or otherwise recognized as bad by the UN, who doesn't use rape and terror against civilians as a weapon but receives armament for their honorable resistance from the US via the white or the black market, I am utterly defenseless."

I don't care if they use terror & rape against civilians since their governments are 99% of the time going to be doing the same, or worse.  If the USA arms them, its very likely for a damn good reason. 

Anyway, if this is your criteria for whether or not a fight/struggle/war is just or not, I guess you must think the USA shouldn't have taken Saddam Hussein out of power, since we no doubt terrorized civilians here and there.  Hell, I think we even have a rape case on our hands from Iraq too.

"Gun control =/= Anti-freedom, gun control =/= freedom-control, Anti-Gun = Anti-freedom."

Put it in words.  I'm not gonna bother trying to understand this otherwise.  This isn't math class.

>>63
'Then you put up or shut up, and don't make civilians subject of terrorist methods such as poisoning crops and water supplies.'

I'm not gonna 'put up or shut up' as long as you are bashing freedom-promoting american policies, while at the same time condoning the U.N., an anti-freedom, anti-2nd amendment, anti-human rights organization. 

"Cuba is a tyrrany that has had widespread support by the citizens."

Individual rights shouldn't be allowed to be subjugated to the will of the many.  This is just mob rule, regardless of basic inalienable human rights, such as property, and puts them in line with all the other vicious tyrannies of history, like China, the Soviet Union, etc.

"America is a bit selective come to think of it; Mexico's current "president" used extensive fraud to become president but that is not even mentioned in America."

I see.  You hate america because we can't patch up *every* boo-boo in the world.

"They shouldn't be. Have I said that? I'm with left-wing zionist Amos Oz on the Israel issue."

No, I wasn't aware.  Well fuck the U.N. then. 

"There are 14 cases where America has been involved in overthrowing nations, and some -not all, such as Afghanistan and Iraq for example- of these had a perfectly democratic foundation."

Talking about us funding the Afghanis against the Soviets? Common, don't make this too easy.  The Soviets were the biggest mass-murders in all human history.  They killed even more than the Socialist Nazis and Chinese.  It was clearly justified, even if the people we were aiding weren't squeaky clean themselves.

"So trying to find a cure for diarrhea is the same thing as trying to illegalize spare ribs, mangos, prunes et al., got it."

What a shitty example.  Anyhow, it is wrong on libertarian principles.  Pro-gunners shouldn't have to fund anti-gun organizations like IANSA.  Since you are basing your support of this funding on the fact that IANSA's studies supposedly help people and save lives, I guess you wouldn't mind throwing some research money at the NRA and JPFO as well, right? They do research into how PRO-GUN policies save lives and make the world a better place.  I'm not talking a small amount of money, either.  IANSA and these NGOs get huge sums of money - there are over 500 of them that are anti-gun and are getting funding. 

"This is research, damage control and spreading of information. These are of course labels that I don't assume will be executed perfectly or with objectivity, but per se carrying out these objectives would not affect the 2nd."

Yes they will.  IANSA is an anti-gun organization, and Rebecca Peters, the director of this organization, is one of the most vicious anti-gunners I have ever seen or heard of.  Hell, she has advocated banning 'sniper rifles' (to her, means any rifle capable of shooting over 100 meters).  Yeah, forget that this encompasses just about every decent rifle in existence.. (Note for hunters:  you obviously aren't immune from this), as well as a global ban on handguns.

"And the oppressed can afford these guns, how?"

Not all oppressed people are poor, and even the poor can afford guns, or get access to them usually.

"I'm already aware of the racism in Africa, but name an organized militia that has not resorted to attacks on civilians and who attack an undemocratic regime in Africa. Do that and that point belongs to you."

I don't need to.  The USA said it is going to arm freedom and liberty supporters.  Anyway, on a side note, are you against all military action that then effects civilians? Note:  we have many cases like this coming from Iraq, which you support, if I recall correctly.

"Almost all the militias in Africa, of various morality and sizes, say *they* are the good guys. They attack democracies and civilians too, so I need to find some facts regarding how many guns in the developing world is used for a net good."

Attacking civilians is something that commonly happens often.  Civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of most conflicts.  Anyhow, most of these governments perform similar actions, so usage of the same tactics to bring them down is possibly justified anyways, if it brings a stop to it all. 

Nextly, just because a nation is 'democratic' doesn't mean we shouldn't arm resistors to it.  If a nation hostile to the USA that would fund terrorists to fight us is elected, for example, it could warrant our action on the matter. 

"Once again, I do not know how many, if any, of the guns on the white and black market are used for democratic, moral aims."

Well great! So I guess you don't know whether or not you are advocating disarming people who really shouldn't have guns, or if you are advocating disarming pro-freedom/liberty revolutionaries. 

"Well, there was some proven voting fraud in America in 2000 and 2004, so now we have to free the shit out of you and poison your crops."

If it was proven, take it to the courts, or do something about it.  There is often dirty shit pulled by either party, this is nothing new.  I think elections are mostly fair though.  I WILL say that I hold some degree of distrust of electronic voting.  Electronic voting should be avoided, but I'm not ready to say I think the elections were a 'sham' by any means.  Dirty tricks doesn't necessarilly = staged elections.

"Drugs - into America from the developing world. Guns - Out of America, into the developing world. I think situations and premises are somewhat different."

They should both be legal.  Screw the U.N.  Anyway, I'm fairly sure a good portion of the guns running into the developing world are going to reasonable (but maybe not perfect) causes.

"Black market equality symbol slash equality symbol white market."

Elaborate. 

"Sure. If you can name one organisation that is terrorbranded or otherwise recognized as bad by the UN, who doesn't use rape and terror against civilians as a weapon but receives armament for their honorable resistance from the US via the white or the black market, I am utterly defenseless."

I don't know that they wouldn't use rape and terror against civilians as a weapon.  Against tyrannical and unjust governments that likely do the same, if not worse things, it may be justified if it results in the defeat of said government, and the end of its awful policies. 

"I don't care if they use terror & rape against civilians since their governments are 99% of the time going to be doing the same, or worse.  If the USA arms them, its very likely for a damn good reason." Ah. If you'll just provide prrof now we can wrap this up.
"Elaborate." What I mean is that while the white market for guns supplies mostly to realtors in developed countries mostly, the black market has no qualms about whom it deals with. Asking America to put a foot down on those inside its borders that supply developing nations with guns that may or may not be used in an acceptable manner has nothing to do with capitalists who are doing nothing wrong, nor their consumers.
"Anyway, if this is your criteria for whether or not a fight/struggle/war is just or not, I guess you must think the USA shouldn't have taken Saddam Hussein out of power, since we no doubt terrorized civilians here and there.  Hell, I think we even have a rape case on our hands from Iraq too." Saddam Hussein was a proven undemocratic leader who used terror, and I can't disapprove of his removal. But this was self-defense between one nation and another, not a resistance from within the borders. This rape case you speak of was never an objective of the American army, so the comparison doesn't necessarily comport with any real situation. By the way, she was 14 years old and her name - Abeer- means 'fragrance of flowers'. Very poorly planned and executed self-defense at that.
"Put it in words.  I'm not gonna bother trying to understand this otherwise.  This isn't math class." You can be pro-gun control to a degree while still being pro-freedom. It all depends on whether you breach laissez-faire/civil principles or not.

"I'm not gonna 'put up or shut up' as long as you are bashing freedom-promoting american policies, while at the same time condoning the U.N., an anti-freedom, anti-2nd amendment, anti-human rights organization." I don't condone the entirety of the UN, but America can't say shit while it is using terrorist tactics, which hasn't done anything for freedom in Cuba. Then there are all the tortured people in Egypt, Chile and Iran.
"Individual rights shouldn't be allowed to be subjugated to the will of the many.  This is just mob rule, regardless of basic inalienable human rights, such as property, and puts them in line with all the other vicious tyrannies of history, like China, the Soviet Union, etc." I didn't say this gave the regime any ethical elevation or credibility, but that this is the reason why America resorted to civilian-targetting tactics - no right-wing guerillas to support, so you attack the population directly.
"I see.  You hate america because we can't patch up *every* boo-boo in the world." I don't hate America, and I think it is a bit odd that a right-wing president who betrays democratic principles gets away scot-free.
"No, I wasn't aware.  Well fuck the U.N. then." I can't disagree or agree yet.
"Talking about us funding the Afghanis against the Soviets? Common, don't make this too easy.  The Soviets were the biggest mass-murders in all human history.  They killed even more than the Socialist Nazis and Chinese.  It was clearly justified, even if the people we were aiding weren't squeaky clean themselves." I approve of the principle that America should outsource the resistance to undemocratic enemies. If those you side with are unsqueaky enough to fly planes into buildings inside your borders you may want to think through who you deal with.
"Pro-gunners shouldn't have to fund anti-gun organizations like IANSA." The crusade on drugs is not libertarian, so no more taxes for the crime-fighting sector.
" I guess you wouldn't mind throwing some research money at the NRA and JPFO as well, right? They do research into how PRO-GUN policies save lives and make the world a better place.  I'm not talking a small amount of money, either.  IANSA and these NGOs get huge sums of money - there are over 500 of them that are anti-gun and are getting funding." Of course not, because I am not anti-gun, I am pro-information.
"Yes they will.  IANSA is an anti-gun organization, and Rebecca Peters, the director of this organization, is one of the most vicious anti-gunners I have ever seen or heard of.  Hell, she has advocated banning 'sniper rifles' (to her, means any rifle capable of shooting over 100 meters).  Yeah, forget that this encompasses just about every decent rifle in existence.. (Note for hunters:  you obviously aren't immune from this), as well as a global ban on handguns." This global ban is something I am very much against, because this should not apply to America. Regarding the 100-meter limit I find that very silly, considering that even if you limited purchase of these to hunters people that don't hunt would still be able to get a hold.
"I don't need to.  The USA said it is going to arm freedom and liberty supporters.  Anyway, on a side note, are you against all military action that then effects civilians? Note:  we have many cases like this coming from Iraq, which you support, if I recall correctly." I am against any faction that do not have a principle to avoid civilian suffering. As such I think Hamas,  Fatah Hezbollah and maybe even the Tamil Tigers to be of questionable morality. The American army does not target civilians, which most if not all resistance factions in Africa do, even though sometimes it is hard to make a distinction.
"Attacking civilians is something that commonly happens often.  Civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of most conflicts.  Anyhow, most of these governments perform similar actions, so usage of the same tactics to bring them down is possibly justified anyways, if it brings a stop to it all." Give an example where an armed faction was succesful in dismantling an oppressive force and then starting adequate democracies themselves.
"Nextly, just because a nation is 'democratic' doesn't mean we shouldn't arm resistors to it.  If a nation hostile to the USA that would fund terrorists to fight us is elected, for example, it could warrant our action on the matter." See above.
"Well great! So I guess you don't know whether or not you are advocating disarming people who really shouldn't have guns, or if you are advocating disarming pro-freedom/liberty revolutionaries." I am far from convinced, I just look at what guns are used for in developing nations.
"If it was proven, take it to the courts, or do something about it.  There is often dirty shit pulled by either party, this is nothing new.  I think elections are mostly fair though.  I WILL say that I hold some degree of distrust of electronic voting.  Electronic voting should be avoided, but I'm not ready to say I think the elections were a 'sham' by any means.  Dirty tricks doesn't necessarilly = staged elections." These dirty tricks are the tip of the iceberg. Diebold, the company, was present in Florida and Ohio and both times there were irregularities and direct deletion of votes. All of the votes disappearing were for Gore, how convenient.
"I don't know that they wouldn't use rape and terror against civilians as a weapon.  Against tyrannical and unjust governments that likely do the same, if not worse things, it may be justified if it results in the defeat of said government, and the end of its awful policies." Sure. Provide a situation where raping a woman at gunpoint could poosibly provide a boost to freedom fighters. And give a reason as to why a resistance movement that gladly uses rape as a weapon has the moral, intellectual, ethical or even human faculties required to create a better state once the current oppressors are gone.

>>68
"Ah. If you'll just provide prrof now we can wrap this up."

Why? I don't need to.  The manufacturers aren't responsible for how people misuse the firearms they buy from them.  It is the responsibility of governments to protect their people.  I guess you think our government should stop Coca Cola from screwing up India too.  Well, I'll agree this is bad - it isn't our responsibility to handle these things, it is the responsibility of the people who are effected, and their government.  For the same reason I don't think it is our respsonsibility to tackle Coke (its not ours, its the indian government's), is the same reason I think we don't have a responsibility to stop the arms industry from selling to whoever.  The arms industry isn't responsible for how OTHER people misuse their arms.

On top of this, again, it isn't clear whether or not they are arming freedom fighters, or those who (in your and my opinion) shouldn't have guns.  Either way, it still isn't their responsibility.

"What I mean is that while the white market for guns supplies mostly to realtors in developed countries mostly, the black market has no qualms about whom it deals with."

See comments above.  It is their problem to handle their security, not ours.

"Asking America to put a foot down on those inside its borders that supply developing nations with guns that may or may not be used in an acceptable manner has nothing to do with capitalists who are doing nothing wrong, nor their consumers."

Yes it does.  It isn't the responsibility of the gun industry or the capitalists who own it to handle the security of other nations, or to question the moral sanctity of their sales or the recipients of their guns.  This responsibility lies with the foreign government whose people may be effected, not with the gun industry.

"Saddam Hussein was a proven undemocratic leader who used terror, and I can't disapprove of his removal."

So why oppose freedom fighters being armed? Sure they aren't always morally scrupulous (I think is the right word), but neither is our military, or our soldiers, as I just said above there.  Since you support our military and its action, I don't see why you oppose these rebels and their action, since they probly committed at least some of the same atrocities, like the rape example.

"But this was self-defense between one nation and another, not a resistance from within the borders. This rape case you speak of was never an objective of the American army,"

Sure.  And I doubt you can show me that the objectives of various rebels include raping an occasional girl, either.  Clearly, there is a distinction to make between the ideas in the heads of the soldiers on the fields, and the ideas in the heads of the armies.  Since you wouldn't hold our entire military accountable for the actions of a single soldier or a small group of soldiers in Iraq, I fail to see why you would hold an entire group of rebels accountable for the actions of a small group of them, unlike how you view our own military.

"You can be pro-gun control to a degree while still being pro-freedom."

Sure.  You can be pro-freedom in a general sense without being pro-gun rights.  The U.N. isn't pro-freedom though.  Its declaration of rights is practically aimed at violating rights.

>>69
"I don't condone the entirety of the UN, but America can't say shit while it is using terrorist tactics, which hasn't done anything for freedom in Cuba."

So because we weren't successful, means we shouldn't have tried?

"Then there are all the tortured people in Egypt, Chile and Iran."

We can't fix everything you know.

"I didn't say this gave the regime any ethical elevation or credibility,"

You implied it.  You had said something along the lines of 'well, the Cuban authoritarian communist government has the support of its people, so the USA was wrong to try and put a stop to it', or something.

"I don't hate America, and I think it is a bit odd that a right-wing president who betrays democratic principles gets away scot-free."

Bush's civil liberty violations are quite over the top.  Outside of that, what can I say, he's better than the dems, imo.

"I approve of the principle that America should outsource the resistance to undemocratic enemies. If those you side with are unsqueaky enough to fly planes into buildings inside your borders you may want to think through who you deal with."

Sure, but I still have no problem that they helped them fight back the Soviets.  Part of that was also that they saw the Soviet Union as a kindof evil empire that was spreading evil throughout the globe, which it kindof was I guess.  Seeing as how the Soviets were so brutal, so oppressive, and the Afghanis were probably quite a bit better, I see no reason why we shouldn't have armed them. 

"The crusade on drugs is not libertarian, so no more taxes for the crime-fighting sector."

I agree the crusade on drugs is not libertarian.  However, the crime fighting sector does other things that can be justified with more or less libertarian ideas, so I don't think it is right to take all funding from it, but rather to just vote libertarian so that we can get the laws changed to protect drug users, provided they don't harm others.

"Of course not, because I am not anti-gun, I am pro-information."

Ok, and since the U.N. isn't doing that, they can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.  They are a bunch of biased shits, and we shouldn't have to fund their anti-gun studies. 

"This global ban is something I am very much against, because this should not apply to America."

I agree.  Here we find yet another reason the U.N. sucks.

"Regarding the 100-meter limit I find that very silly, considering that even if you limited purchase of these to hunters people that don't hunt would still be able to get a hold."

Yep, the U.N. sucks.

"I am against any faction that do not have a principle to avoid civilian suffering. As such I think Hamas,  Fatah Hezbollah and maybe even the Tamil Tigers to be of questionable morality. The American army does not target civilians, which most if not all resistance factions in Africa do, even though sometimes it is hard to make a distinction."

Right.  But they do this for the sake of furthering their agenda of getting rid of the governments that are there.  If the government's actions and crimes are worse than this, even though they are assholes themselves, I again don't see why the USA shouldn't be allowed to arm them if they wish.

"Give an example where an armed faction was succesful in dismantling an oppressive force and then starting adequate democracies themselves."

There are many.  Just look at history.  We dismantled the Nazis, just to name one off the top of my head.  We are dismantling the former Iraqi regime too.

"I am far from convinced, I just look at what guns are used for in developing nations."

I think they are often times used for reasonable (but not perfect) causes.

"These dirty tricks are the tip of the iceberg. Diebold, the company, was present in Florida and Ohio and both times there were irregularities and direct deletion of votes. All of the votes disappearing were for Gore, how convenient."

There's lots of dirty shit pulled by both parties, and this doesn't exclude the democrats.  I don't think anyone but the third parties are clean.  This doesn't mean much to me.  They are both full of crooks, but I already knew this.  I don't see how the republicans are that much worse, the democrats, again, often pull similar shit.

"Sure. Provide a situation where raping a woman at gunpoint could poosibly provide a boost to freedom fighters."

If you'll recall from above, I don't condone every action committed by every soldier on the field.  This doesn't mean I don't think that soldiers in general should be armed, or that the general cause or purpose of said group is bad or wrong.  Notice the similarity that exists within our own American military.  This doesn't mean I disaprove of our military or its overall mission.

"And give a reason as to why a resistance movement that gladly uses rape as a weapon has the moral, intellectual, ethical or even human faculties required to create a better state once the current oppressors are gone."

See above.  Also note:  they may be better than said government in power already.  The Afghani rebels were probly shitheads themselves, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have armed them against the worse evil (the Soviets).

"
Why? I don't need to.  The manufacturers aren't responsible for how people misuse the firearms they buy from them.  It is the responsibility of governments to protect their people.  I guess you think our government should stop Coca Cola from screwing up India too.  Well, I'll agree this is bad - it isn't our responsibility to handle these things, it is the responsibility of the people who are effected, and their government.  For the same reason I don't think it is our respsonsibility to tackle Coke (its not ours, its the indian government's), is the same reason I think we don't have a responsibility to stop the arms industry from selling to whoever.  The arms industry isn't responsible for how OTHER people misuse their arms." Dude, if part of the American economy relies, thrives with and depends on companies that are mistreating other nations, all the players of that economy has a responsibility to put their foot down. But you don't ask for change so we have to change them through political means. You can start by not Drinking Cola or Pepsi anymore. Capitalism doen't work if consumers don't take responsibility. Furthermore, America had no qualms about trading arms with talibans before IX XI. You might not care about the inconsideration of arms manufacturers when foreigners suffer, but what if you have to pay the price?
"
Why? I don't need to.  The manufacturers aren't responsible for how people misuse the firearms they buy from them.  It is the responsibility of governments to protect their people.  I guess you think our government should stop Coca Cola from screwing up India too.  Well, I'll agree this is bad - it isn't our responsibility to handle these things, it is the responsibility of the people who are effected, and their government.  For the same reason I don't think it is our respsonsibility to tackle Coke (its not ours, its the indian government's), is the same reason I think we don't have a responsibility to stop the arms industry from selling to whoever.  The arms industry isn't responsible for how OTHER people misuse their arms." If an economy decides to not remove businesses inside its borders that cause suffering elsewhere, they are partially founding their economy on suffering, and void its moral superiority.
"Yes it does.  It isn't the responsibility of the gun industry or the capitalists who own it to handle the security of other nations, or to question the moral sanctity of their sales or the recipients of their guns.  This responsibility lies with the foreign government whose people may be effected, not with the gun industry." Downward spiral; the governments that are trying to pull countries together get destabilized by the influx of guns, eagerly awaited on by macho-misogynist-guerillas who fire at whatever.
"So why oppose freedom fighters being armed? Sure they aren't always morally scrupulous (I think is the right word), but neither is our military, or our soldiers, as I just said above there.  Since you support our military and its action, I don't see why you oppose these rebels and their action, since they probly committed at least some of the same atrocities, like the rape example." Word is unscrupulous. Would you sell an armament to a dude with a proven record of mental instability (if you live in Alabama, don't bother answering)? So why do you think it is okay that parts of the American economy sell guns to people, who -unlike the America army or IDF-, doesn't have any objectives to minimalize civilian suffering.
"Sure.  And I doubt you can show me that the objectives of various rebels include raping an occasional girl, either.  Clearly, there is a distinction to make between the ideas in the heads of the soldiers on the fields, and the ideas in the heads of the armies.  Since you wouldn't hold our entire military accountable for the actions of a single soldier or a small group of soldiers in Iraq, I fail to see why you would hold an entire group of rebels accountable for the actions of a small group of them, unlike how you view our own military." None of the objectives of the American army has abasement and oppression of civilians as a subobjective or prerequisite. These guerillas want control above everything around them, they do everything they want and are subject to no martial courts.
"So because we weren't successful, means we shouldn't have tried?" Poisoning... Water... Supply... Becomes, freedom... How?
"We can't fix everything you know." You can not unfix everything you know.
"You implied it.  You had said something along the lines of 'well, the Cuban authoritarian communist government has the support of its people, so the USA was wrong to try and put a stop to it', or something." Consensus has no objective value. However, when a resistance is not present inside the country, resorting to terrorist tactics to swing sentiments or express disapproval is pure cowardice.
"Bush's civil liberty violations are quite over the top.  Outside of that, what can I say, he's better than the dems, imo." Yeah yeah yeah. I was referring to Obrador, just south of youse.
"Sure, but I still have no problem that they helped them fight back the Soviets.  Part of that was also that they saw the Soviet Union as a kindof evil empire that was spreading evil throughout the globe, which it kindof was I guess.  Seeing as how the Soviets were so brutal, so oppressive, and the Afghanis were probably quite a bit better, I see no reason why we shouldn't have armed them." Because their ideal vision of the world is no better, and they hate you?
"I agree the crusade on drugs is not libertarian.  However, the crime fighting sector does other things that can be justified with more or less libertarian ideas, so I don't think it is right to take all funding from it, but rather to just vote libertarian so that we can get the laws changed to protect drug users, provided they don't harm others." Complete failure to see the parallell.
"They are a bunch of biased shits, and we shouldn't have to fund their anti-gun studies." Prove the bias.
"They are a bunch of biased shits, and we shouldn't have to fund their anti-gun studies." A hack in the vinyl.
"Right.  But they do this for the sake of furthering their agenda of getting rid of the governments that are there.  If the government's actions and crimes are worse than this, even though they are assholes themselves, I again don't see why the USA shouldn't be allowed to arm them if they wish." Fighting fire with fire is okay when you don't target the same kindling as the oppressors just to get your rocks off.
"There are many.  Just look at history.  We dismantled the Nazis, just to name one off the top of my head.  We are dismantling the former Iraqi regime too." That was not a coup d'état, and it was between countries, and raping civilians wouldn't have done anything to facilitate it.
"There's lots of dirty shit pulled by both parties, and this doesn't exclude the democrats.  I don't think anyone but the third parties are clean.  This doesn't mean much to me.  They are both full of crooks, but I already knew this.  I don't see how the republicans are that much worse, the democrats, again, often pull similar shit." I tentatively await proof of democrat's resorting to voting fraud et al.
"If you'll recall from above, I don't condone every action committed by every soldier on the field.  This doesn't mean I don't think that soldiers in general should be armed, or that the general cause or purpose of said group is bad or wrong.  Notice the similarity that exists within our own American military.  This doesn't mean I disaprove of our military or its overall mission." Doesn't really answer the question below.
 


 

>>71 for the win.

Unless, >>70 is actually going to suicide himself and his argument. How do you think that we're not responsible for the suffering certain companies create abroad, when we directly fund those companies by purchasing their goods. Even then, you in particular seem to be doing so with KNOWLEDGE of what they are doing. This is nothing less than civilian funded terrorism. To disagree with this is panultimate fail. I'm sure >>70 will bemoan something completely irrelvant about liberal, femnazi, democraps, etc.

I guess we'll just see how you feel after nine hundred and eleven more 9/11's.

>>72 I think that if neither governments or consumers are ready to scrutinize the various corporations that make up an economy, then reaping the fruits of these corporations (economic growth et al.) means that you are -to a degree- living off the undemocratic, non-liberated situation of others, indirect slavery. As such, people must have a cultural ideal of taking responsibility for their part in the economy, or else capitalism can take any iteration it wants. Just setting the market absolutely free isn't going to stop corporations from going nuts; they won't enjoy political influence but if the consumers don't care about bad business within or outside of their borders, how will things improve? If Coca and Pepsi can do whatever today, what says that they won't be able to do that in a laissez-faire market, and that they will be able to create daughter companies that will control and shape even more parts of our everyday lives? As a libertarian *of sorts* (still coalescing into something, me), I think I should investigate and attempt to find a solution here.

>>71
"Dude, if part of the American economy relies, thrives with and depends on companies that are mistreating other nations, all the players of that economy has a responsibility to put their foot down."

No, the nations effected do.  If a company is 'mistreating' a nation, the nation needs to handle this problem, not us. 

"But you don't ask for change so we have to change them through political means. You can start by not Drinking Cola or Pepsi anymore."

I don't drink Coke or Pepsi.  I usually drink Jones soda.

"Capitalism doen't work if consumers don't take responsibility."

To some extent I agree here.  However, I fail to see why you think the arms industry should be responsible for actions committed by people who abuse their products in other countries.  Furthermore, I don't think freedom fighters should be disarmed, even if they commit an occasional abuse, since the overall effect of their actions in fighting human rights abusing tyrants is likely good.

"Furthermore, America had no qualms about trading arms with talibans before IX XI. You might not care about the inconsideration of arms manufacturers when foreigners suffer, but what if you have to pay the price?"

You are talking about us arming the Taliban? We didn't pay the price for that.  We armed them against the Soviets if I remember right.  I have no issue with this.  The Soviets were mass murdering maniacs, and I fail to see what is wrong with supporting a resistance movement fighting Soviet oppression.  Even if the Taliban was an immoral organization, they were fighting an even more immoral foe (the Soviet Union), so again I don't see what was wrong with the decision to arm them.


"If an economy decides to not remove businesses inside its borders that cause suffering elsewhere, they are partially founding their economy on suffering, and void its moral superiority."

No they aren't.  I guess you fail to see my point.  The arms industry is not committing any crimes.  The people who use their products in immoral ways are.  If I buy a baseball bat from my local supermarket, and then smash someone's face in with it, is it the fault of the person who sold me the bat, or mine? Punishing the arms industry would be like punishing the supermarket in that situation.

"Downward spiral; the governments that are trying to pull countries together get destabilized by the influx of guns, eagerly awaited on by macho-misogynist-guerillas who fire at whatever."

Tyrannical governments trying to pull people together so they can oppress them both personally and economically, and strengthen the control their corrupt leadership has over their starving people.  I fail to see what is wrong with arming rebels against such governments.

"Word is unscrupulous. Would you sell an armament to a dude with a proven record of mental instability (if you live in Alabama, don't bother answering)?"

I'm from Michigan.  This depends on whether I knew he had a record of mental instability or not, and what sort of mental instability he had, whether or not it has been under control for a long enough time to be considered stable once again, etc.  It is dependent upon many things.  This is not to say I am responsible to not sell him the armament, or that I should be responsible if he does misuse it, but just because I am not responsible, doesn't mean I am going to sell it to him if I know there is a good chance he is going to use it in ways I won't approve of.  I'm not a heartless bastard.

"So why do you think it is okay that parts of the American economy sell guns to people, who -unlike the America army or IDF-, doesn't have any objectives to minimalize civilian suffering."

Because if they are fighting governments who commit the same, or worse atrocities, it might be justified in the end if it brings an end to the government that commits said atrocities.

"None of the objectives of the American army has abasement and oppression of civilians as a subobjective or prerequisite. These guerillas want control above everything around them, they do everything they want and are subject to no martial courts."

Big generalization.  Anyhow, if their government is as shitty as I imagine, its not like they are subject to anything anyhow, so its kinda moot.  In short, in said situation, we would be arming our enemies to fight our enemies.. its of debatable morality I guess.

"Poisoning... Water... Supply... Becomes, freedom... How?"

No idea.  You seemed to imply that this was an attack on the Cuban government somehow, though.

"You can not unfix everything you know."

Could you explain this?

"Consensus has no objective value. However, when a resistance is not present inside the country, resorting to terrorist tactics to swing sentiments or express disapproval is pure cowardice."

No apparent resistance does not mean there is no discontent. 

"Yeah yeah yeah. I was referring to Obrador, just south of youse."

I don't know what you are talking about.

"Because their ideal vision of the world is no better, and they hate you?"

The Soviet's had a good ideal vision of the world.  From my perspective, I like the -idea-, but you see, the Soviets, like many Socialists and liberals, have/had good intentions, but the problem is that they are willing to do ANYTHING to reach their objectives, and they are not above using force to ram their agenda down the throats of those who disagree.  Just because the Soviets had a better ideal vision doesn't mean they are in any way better.  Think about this phrase: 

'The end justifies the means.'

It applies to this.  I might not necessarilly disagree with their end - a happy society of people living and working together, in which nobody is poor, everyone has enough to eat, everyone contributes, and everything is shared equally..

But I strongly disagree with the things they do to REACH these goals, which are nothing short of the most frightening and disturbing human rights abuses I've ever seen.  They are so overcome by their ideology and their ideal vision for the world, that to them, any means to reach their end is justified.  As a result of this, we have all the gulags, the secret police, statism, government oppression, dictatorship, torture, jesus you name it.. 

"Complete failure to see the parallell."

You are saying that the U.N. does some things that are libertarian in nature, and thus it is wrong to take all funding from them? If that's what you were thinking, I'd LOVE to hear it.  Then, we can compare all the anti-liberty activities they do, and we'll see whether or not the U.N. should really be funded, and if it is in the interests of liberty.

"Prove the bias."

Just go look at their damn website.  They blame everything on guns, and seem to want to make people think that if only private citizens had no guns, everything would be peachy.  They are 'anti-gun', and anti-freedom.  They don't want to fix anything, they just hate guns, gun owners, and our freedoms.

"A hack in the vinyl."

Not sure what you're talking about.  Why should we have to fund their anti-gun studies? Why should we have our right to property eroded even more, to fund studies that we don't believe in or want to happen?

"Fighting fire with fire is okay when you don't target the same kindling as the oppressors just to get your rocks off."

I dislike their targetting of civilians, but since the governments will commit the same abuses if left in power, I don't see the issue with arming those who commit abuses to destabilize said governments, thus preventing a future of continual abuses if nobody resists...

"That was not a coup d'état,"

So?

"and it was between countries, and raping civilians wouldn't have done anything to facilitate it."

You asked a question, I gave you a legitimate answer.  What more do you want?

"I tentatively await proof of democrat's resorting to voting fraud et al."

I'll go look for some in the near future, and make a post about it if I remember to.  I remember there was some kindof scandal recently about how the dems had been registering people to vote/voting under the names of people who are dead, and voting under their names or something a while ago.  This is by no means substantiated, and I have vague memories of it at best, but again, if I remember, I'll search around and see what I can find on the dems. 

"Doesn't really answer the question below."

Did you not say something like:  'some of these rebels you are arming are raping civilians at gunpoint', or some such?

I don't see how it doesn't address your concern.  Our soldiers (not as a whole, or generally, but your occasional group of individuals) commits war crimes like rape, murder of civilians, etc, just like said rebels.  I don't think it is on the agenda of the rebels to 'hey lets go out rape a bunch of civilians, lol'.  I don't think it is any more a part of their organized group than it is a part of our organized military to go out and kill or rape civilians in Iraq, but it still happens on an individual basis... our military can't always stop crimes from happening within its ranks, and this isn't what they had in mind when they invaded Iraq to begin with, just like it probly wasn't what was generally in the mind of the foreign rebels.

>>72
"How do you think that we're not responsible for the suffering certain companies create abroad, when we directly fund those companies by purchasing their goods."

Fail.  If I buy a baseball bat, knife, axe, or other object that might be used as a weapon, then kill someone with it, who is responsible, the person who sold me the bat?

Likewise, the arms industry isn't responsible for criminals who misuse their weapons. 

>>72
"I guess we'll just see how you feel after nine hundred and eleven more 9/11's. "

Nah, Bush has that covered with his domestic spying, patriot act, etc.  I don't have to worry.

"No, the nations effected do.  If a company is 'mistreating' a nation, the nation needs to handle this problem, not us." So you encourage companies to hurt civilians in other countries (often with less stable governments), while your economy indirectly gains dividens through immoral businesses. If all or most Americans think like that, you need to get hurt.
"I don't drink Coke or Pepsi.  I usually drink Jones soda." Still a point, it just doesn't apply to you.
"Fail.  If I buy a baseball bat, knife, axe, or other object that might be used as a weapon, then kill someone with it, who is responsible, the person who sold me the bat?" Non-comporting and juvenile analogy, the type usually delivered by people with crew-cuts or mullets.
"To some extent I agree here.  However, I fail to see why you think the arms industry should be responsible for actions committed by people who abuse their products in other countries.  Furthermore, I don't think freedom fighters should be disarmed, even if they commit an occasional abuse, since the overall effect of their actions in fighting human rights abusing tyrants is likely good." You can not prove that any freedom fighters in the world produce a net good throught their movement, whether said movement utilizes rape or not. You can not argument that a movement that directly terrorizes civilians could benefit or gain tactically from this and you still haven't offered any examples. Also, checking on gun consumers to see if they have records or bouts of mental health before purchase is applicable to libertarian philosophy (if you harm a person's liberties through exercise of your own, then you are not capable of handling them and relevant liberties must be taken from you for the sake of further victims). This principle should be exercised when you are selling something that is designed to offer a charge of lethal and/or crippling charge, i.e. kills easily (I predicted someone would say "Then we have to ban anything because you can kill someone with anything fucking commie bitch without penis!"). This is not exercised by the black market, and if America allows its economy to partially build on businessmen who spread suffering by not examining the background of their clients, then America is making money of that suffering. If you can't handle your gun, no more boom for you. If you rape, chemical castration. If you can't make business without harming innocents, then no deal.
"You are talking about us arming the Taliban? We didn't pay the price for that.  We armed them against the Soviets if I remember right.  I have no issue with this.  The Soviets were mass murdering maniacs, and I fail to see what is wrong with supporting a resistance movement fighting Soviet oppression.  Even if the Taliban was an immoral organization, they were fighting an even more immoral foe (the Soviet Union), so again I don't see what was wrong with the decision to arm them." You gave them armaments and gods know what else, and then you didn't care to see what they did once they were finished. That probably bit you in the ass on IX XI (allegedly the talibans did it), and I will not feel sympathy with you if it happens again.
"No they aren't.  I guess you fail to see my point.  The arms industry is not committing any crimes.  The people who use their products in immoral ways are.  If I buy a baseball bat from my local supermarket, and then smash someone's face in with it, is it the fault of the person who sold me the bat, or mine? Punishing the arms industry would be like punishing the supermarket in that situation." Guns are very very very easy to hurt someone with, hence check-ups on clients are important. If a person uses his liberty to hurt others, that freedom must be questioned for this individual and possibly stripped for the sake of those who can handle their liberties. If you have the capability to prevent immoral businesses, do so, or you are not taking responsibility.
"Tyrannical governments trying to pull people together so they can oppress them both personally and economically, and strengthen the control their corrupt leadership has over their starving people.  I fail to see what is wrong with arming rebels against such governments." hack in the vinyl.
"I'm from Michigan.  This depends on whether I knew he had a record of mental instability or not, and what sort of mental instability he had, whether or not it has been under control for a long enough time to be considered stable once again, etc.  It is dependent upon many things.  This is not to say I am responsible to not sell him the armament, or that I should be responsible if he does misuse it, but just because I am not responsible, doesn't mean I am going to sell it to him if I know there is a good chance he is going to use it in ways I won't approve of.  I'm not a heartless bastard." So that is basically settled then. Now ponder that you are not allowed to do business with certain people because people with experience and knowledge of who is unstable tells you that "They are unstable, they will use those guns to harm civilians.". Do you still do it, and should your government allow you to do so?
"Because if they are fighting governments who commit the same, or worse atrocities, it might be justified in the end if it brings an end to the government that commits said atrocities." Example of such a movement and a conceivable tactical use of encouraged rape among the ranks would be just super-duper.
"No idea.  You seemed to imply that this was an attack on the Cuban government somehow, though." You were the one that said that America shouldn't be criticized when it was fighting undemocratic governments. I was wondering how bioterrorist tactics on oppressed civilians could harm the oppressor, and why one would resort to such tactics.
"Could you explain this?" I meant; you can refrain from fucking it up for people.
"No apparent resistance does not mean there is no discontent." If you have to get a dictatorship dethroned there are less despicable tactics than using poison against civilians.
"I don't know what you are talking about." "El Presidente" of Meh-hi-ko, although on second thought Obrador is the one who got his office stolen via fraud while the current dictator; *Calderon*, is the undemocratic leader who the White House is not criticizing in the least. Double standard of highest order. Sorry about that.
"The Soviet's had a good ideal vision of the world.  From my perspective, I like the -idea-, but you see, the Soviets, like many Socialists and liberals, have/had good intentions, but the problem is that they are willing to do ANYTHING to reach their objectives, and they are not above using force to ram their agenda down the throats of those who disagree.  Just because the Soviets had a better ideal vision doesn't mean they are in any way better.  Think about this phrase: 

'The end justifies the means.'

It applies to this.  I might not necessarilly disagree with their end - a happy society of people living and working together, in which nobody is poor, everyone has enough to eat, everyone contributes, and everything is shared equally..

But I strongly disagree with the things they do to REACH these goals, which are nothing short of the most frightening and disturbing human rights abuses I've ever seen.  They are so overcome by their ideology and their ideal vision for the world, that to them, any means to reach their end is justified.  As a result of this, we have all the gulags, the secret police, statism, government oppression, dictatorship, torture, jesus you name it.." And the ideal world according to the talibans is better how? Also, do you honestly think that said talibans do not agree that 'the end justifies the means'? Also, isn't this why you support "freedom fighters" who allow their recruits/CONSCRIPTS (liberty!!) to do whatever, because 'their end justifies the means', even though you have no idea of the darkness of their end and the horror of their means? Not to mention that the current alternative to the democrats are neo-conservatives, who has used every practice between here and hell to get what they want?
Wow.
"You are saying that the U.N. does some things that are libertarian in nature, and thus it is wrong to take all funding from them? If that's what you were thinking, I'd LOVE to hear it.  Then, we can compare all the anti-liberty activities they do, and we'll see whether or not the U.N. should really be funded, and if it is in the interests of liberty." The idea was that if it is immoral to force American taxpayers to fund what they think is "gay" or "anti-libertarian", since the UN is far from perfect, then I can say I'm not gonna pay taxes because the crusade on drugs is immoral. That was the parallell.
"Just go look at their damn website.  They blame everything on guns, and seem to want to make people think that if only private citizens had no guns, everything would be peachy.  They are 'anti-gun', and anti-freedom.  They don't want to fix anything, they just hate guns, gun owners, and our freedoms." I'm 17, I live in Sweden and I've heard enough American, rural paranoia to last me from here to the day the libertarians are in charge.
"Not sure what you're talking about.  Why should we have to fund their anti-gun studies? Why should we have our right to property eroded even more, to fund studies that we don't believe in or want to happen?" Objective studies are objective studies. I don't take for granted that IANSA are objective or unbiased, I was pointing out how incredibly destructive it is to find it moral to repress information, data and *facts* just because of your own convictions.
"I dislike their targetting of civilians, but since the governments will commit the same abuses if left in power, I don't see the issue with arming those who commit abuses to destabilize said governments, thus preventing a future of continual abuses if nobody resists..." A few poorly-written paragraphs ago the entire left sucked cunt because it beleives that the end justifies the means. Shall we make up our mind, maybe?
"You asked a question, I gave you a legitimate answer.  What more do you want?" You think that the intention and accountability of a fighting force doesn't make a difference, and I say that it does.
"I'll go look for some in the near future, and make a post about it if I remember to.  I remember there was some kindof scandal recently about how the dems had been registering people to vote/voting under the names of people who are dead, and voting under their names or something a while ago.  This is by no means substantiated, and I have vague memories of it at best, but again, if I remember, I'll search around and see what I can find on the dems." Do that, and I'll concur if I can verify.
"I don't see how it doesn't address your concern.  Our soldiers (not as a whole, or generally, but your occasional group of individuals) commits war crimes like rape, murder of civilians, etc, just like said rebels.  I don't think it is on the agenda of the rebels to 'hey lets go out rape a bunch of civilians, lol'.  I don't think it is any more a part of their organized group than it is a part of our organized military to go out and kill or rape civilians in Iraq, but it still happens on an individual basis... our military can't always stop crimes from happening within its ranks, and this isn't what they had in mind when they invaded Iraq to begin with, just like it probly wasn't what was generally in the mind of the foreign rebels." It's about culture and pervasive attitudes. The rape of Abeer was not spontaneous, while the rapes African 'freedom fighters' employ are of a very systematic nature, with an intended effect of mollifying and subordinating the populace. In Iraq, we are dealing with individuals of the lowest possible sort who aren't going to get their desserts because apparently they are under a bit of stress and boys will be boys. In Africa, young armed men -whose suppliers do business with mindless people America is completely ignoring in some kind of Randian wet dreamland- are taught it is for the greater good to inflict misery on villages for tactical benefits. Difference.

I shall remind people that I am far from convinced of my position and that facts are the only things that shape and solidify my view of the world - and my stance in it.

>>77
"So you encourage companies to hurt civilians in other countries (often with less stable governments), while your economy indirectly gains dividens through immoral businesses. If all or most Americans think like that, you need to get hurt."

I don't think what they are doing is immoral.  People have a right to keep and bear arms, and the arms industry is helping make that possible.  I don't see what is wrong with the firearms industry.  Furthermore, I don't see what is wrong with the position we have taken on this issue.  (We will not be stopped from arming freedom-fighters.)

"Non-comporting and juvenile analogy, the type usually delivered by people with crew-cuts or mullets."

Ah! An ineffective reply by a liberal who fails to explain* the validity of my analogy, and instead resorts to personal attacks!

"You can not prove that any freedom fighters in the world produce a net good throught their movement, whether said movement utilizes rape or not."

I don't care.  They are fighting for the overthrow of a fundamentally anti-freedom government, so that's dandy to me, and I see no qualm with arming them, especially if they are fighting a shitty government that likely does similar or worse things itself if left to its own devices.

"You can not argument that a movement that directly terrorizes civilians could benefit or gain tactically from this and you still haven't offered any examples."

Our military didn't gain tactically from the rape some soldier of ours committed in Iraq to my knowledge, yet you aren't blaming our military for this.  Why then, if an individual rebel from a group of rebels decides to rape someone, would you blame the entire group of rebels when a similar action occurred and you didn't blame our entire military?

"Also, checking on gun consumers to see if they have records or bouts of mental health before purchase is applicable to libertarian philosophy"

HAHA! No it isn't.  Well, I guess it depends.  If businesses were doing it voluntarilly, then sure.. nothing wrong with that.  Government ? No.  In the USA the constitutional way to disable a person's right to keep and bear arms on grounds such as what you mentioned is to obtain a specific court order that it be done.  Federal bans, on the other hand, are unconstitutional.  The fact that the liberals pursued federal bans shows their reckless disregard for the 2nd amendment.

"(if you harm a person's liberties through exercise of your own, then you are not capable of handling them and relevant liberties must be taken from you for the sake of further victims)."

Yes, but owning a firearm in and of itself does not harm anyone.  If you don't want mental patients to have arms - that's fine.  But the way the democrats went about preventing them from getting them (federal bans) is wrong and unconstitutional.  The proper way is via court order.  I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar, but I believe the 2nd amendment applies as a restriction to the feds - so it should be fine if state govts enact laws regarding this as well, but feds weren't supposed to make laws concerning this. 

"This is not exercised by the black market, and if America allows its economy to partially build on businessmen who spread suffering by not examining the background of their clients,"

It is the responsibility of governments to deter crime, not businessmen.

"If you can't make business without harming innocents, then no deal."

Right.  Nobody is forcing you to buy from us.  'No deal' is words I can understand.  Move along then..:)

"You gave them armaments and gods know what else, and then you didn't care to see what they did once they were finished. That probably bit you in the ass on IX XI (allegedly the talibans did it),"

What is IX XI? 9/11? I don't think 9/11 is specifically the result of us arming the Afghanis.  The terrorist network that hit us has cells all over the world.  I don't think the Soviets crushing the Afghans would have done us that much good in preventing 9/11.

"and I will not feel sympathy with you if it happens again."

No wonder the liberals have been having a rough time these last elections.

"Guns are very very very easy to hurt someone with, hence check-ups on clients are important."

It is the same basic idea.  The person who sold you the item is not responsible for actions YOU do with it.  The arms industry is thus not responsible for irresponsible misuse of its products, just like the supermarket is not responsible for irresponsible misuse by its clients of the products it sells.  It could be argued that it is also very easy to kill someone with a baseball bat, a knife, or any number of potential weapons you could buy at an ordinary supermarket, yet if someone killed someone with these potential weapons, you wouldn't be so into holding the supermarket accountable. 

"If a person uses his liberty to hurt others, that freedom must be questioned for this individual and possibly stripped for the sake of those who can handle their liberties."

Yes.  But the gun industry isn't hurting others, the people who misuse their weapons, if they even exist, are.

"If you have the capability to prevent immoral businesses, do so, or you are not taking responsibility."

It is not the responsibility of the gun industry to prevent people from using their products in an irresponsible manner.  If I buy a knife, and then stab someone to death with it, is the person who sold me the knife to be held accountable? obviously not.  Similarly, neither is the firearms industry.

"So that is basically settled then."

If you say so.  I still say the responsibility does not rest with the arms industry.

"Now ponder that you are not allowed to do business with certain people because people with experience and knowledge of who is unstable tells you that "They are unstable, they will use those guns to harm civilians.". Do you still do it, and should your government allow you to do so?"

If we are arming freedom fighters, yes.  We need to arm those who fight for liberty in the world.

"Example of such a movement and a conceivable tactical use of encouraged rape among the ranks would be just super-duper."

I don't need to give an example.  You don't critisize the entire American military for the war crimes committed by INDIVIDUAL american soldiers, so why then would you critisize entire rebel movements for crimes committed by INDIVIDUAL rebels? Sweeping disarmament of said rebels, or stopping the flow of arms and ammunitions would be punishing entire movements for actions committed by individuals within movements.  Likewise, I don't dislike the american military as a whole for individual actions commmitted on the field by individual soldiers.

"You were the one that said that America shouldn't be criticized when it was fighting undemocratic governments."

I never said that.  I have no issue with critisizing the american government.

"If you have to get a dictatorship dethroned there are less despicable tactics than using poison against civilians."

Says the armchair general? I'm no general, but I bet we did what we did for some reasons.  I'm not a general, I'm not in the military, I don't know shit about war, or why they might have done that specifically, but I kindof doubt you do either.

"Obrador is the one who got his office stolen via fraud while the current dictator; *Calderon*, is the undemocratic leader who the White House is not criticizing in the least. Double standard of highest order. Sorry about that."

Why do we have a responsibility to critisize them? I'm not saying we shouldn't critisize them, but really, the most you can say is that we haven't critisized them, as if this was some sort of monstrosity. 

"And the ideal world according to the talibans is better how?"

Read my post.  I never said it was.  I never critisized the world many socialists have in mind.  I critisized their means to reaching said end.  I don't have an issue with commies who go live peacefully together sharing things.  I have an issue with authoritarian commies who try to ram their garbage down my throat.

"Also, isn't this why you support "freedom fighters" who allow their recruits/CONSCRIPTS (liberty!!) to do whatever, because 'their end justifies the means', even though you have no idea of the darkness of their end and the horror of their means?"

Ah, here's some good points.  Regardless of the fact that they likely utilize that same awful way of thinking 'the end justifies the means', if they overthrow a worse form of government than themselves, is this not a good thing?

"Not to mention that the current alternative to the democrats are neo-conservatives, who has used every practice between here and hell to get what they want?"

So have the dems.  Anyhow, this isn't about the dems or repubs, this is about the U.N.

"The idea was that if it is immoral to force American taxpayers to fund what they think is "gay" or "anti-libertarian", since the UN is far from perfect, then I can say I'm not gonna pay taxes because the crusade on drugs is immoral. That was the parallell."

Right - that you shouldn't support law enforcement through taxes due to the war on drugs.  This would be a valid point if not for the fact that law enforcement is necessary for the safeguard of so many other crucially important freedoms, such as property rights, without which you wouldn't have the rights to your drugs anyways, unlike the U.N.

"I'm 17, I live in Sweden and I've heard enough American, rural paranoia to last me from here to the day the libertarians are in charge."

It isn't paranoia.  Rebecca Peters = Feinstein on steroids.

"Objective studies are objective studies. I don't take for granted that IANSA are objective or unbiased, I was pointing out how incredibly destructive it is to find it moral to repress information, data and *facts* just because of your own convictions."

LOL! We aren't 'repressing' anything.  To repress means to put down by force or intimidation.  I'm not saying we are going to put a gun to Rebecca Peters, and make her stop doing her damn studies.  I AM saying that we should have the right to not-pay for them though.  She can get her own funds.  She doesn't have the right to force us to pay for things we happen to be against. 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=repress

"A few poorly-written paragraphs ago the entire left sucked cunt because it beleives that the end justifies the means. Shall we make up our mind, maybe?"

Fail.  See above.

"You think that the intention and accountability of a fighting force doesn't make a difference, and I say that it does."

Once again, you seem to blame an entire movement of rebels for actions committed by individuals.

"It's about culture and pervasive attitudes. The rape of Abeer was not spontaneous, while the rapes African 'freedom fighters' employ are of a very systematic nature,"

So what is the difference? Don't systemic and non-spontaneous mean pretty much the same thing?

"In Iraq, we are dealing with individuals of the lowest possible sort who aren't going to get their desserts because apparently they are under a bit of stress and boys will be boys."

I don't think this is accurate.  I'm fairly sure the soldiers that did that in Iraq were dealt with. 

This thread fails.  The U.N. funds anti-gun organizations and opposes our constitution and national sovereignty.  We should cut off all funding and withdraw at the very least.

"I don't think what they are doing is immoral.  People have a right to keep and bear arms, and the arms industry is helping make that possible.  I don't see what is wrong with the firearms industry.  Furthermore, I don't see what is wrong with the position we have taken on this issue.  (We will not be stopped from arming freedom-fighters.)" Get me a contemporary example of freedom fighters. Also, give me examples of fighters for democracy the CIA didn't oppose every step of the way.
"Ah! An ineffective reply by a liberal who fails to explain* the validity of my analogy, and instead resorts to personal attacks!" I was saying that selling a knife or a gun to a person who has invalidated his freedom to certain property because of a previous choice to attack people unprovokedly with it, should be stripped of or prevented from the capacity to sell said property. That is what is going on in many cases.
"I don't care.  They are fighting for the overthrow of a fundamentally anti-freedom government, so that's dandy to me, and I see no qualm with arming them, especially if they are fighting a shitty government that likely does similar or worse things itself if left to its own devices." There is a list of good-ol' CIA extending a helping hand towards the vilest dictatorships and said center picking off brave fledgling democracies one by one. If you libertarians really care about responsibility and freedom, unfuck Haiti, Guatemala, Chile and I could go on.
"Our military didn't gain tactically from the rape some soldier of ours committed in Iraq to my knowledge, yet you aren't blaming our military for this.  Why then, if an individual rebel from a group of rebels decides to rape someone, would you blame the entire group of rebels when a similar action occurred and you didn't blame our entire military?" I hate to repeat myself, but the US military has realized there is no tactical advantage in systematic, endorsed and encouraged raping by its soldiers against the civilians in Iraq. Come to think of it, what is far more common is that American women get assailed, harassed and raped by enrollers and compatriots as they join the war effort. America isn't ready to care for its women even when they are ready to die for it. Impressive. This standard notion of respect for humans' inalienable right to their bodies has not yet reached certain cultures in Africa, and as such the boys can do as they please because their superiors want civilians mollified and in a constant state of fear.
"HAHA! No it isn't.  Well, I guess it depends.  If businesses were doing it voluntarilly, then sure.. nothing wrong with that.  Government ? No.  In the USA the constitutional way to disable a person's right to keep and bear arms on grounds such as what you mentioned is to obtain a specific court order that it be done.  Federal bans, on the other hand, are unconstitutional.  The fact that the liberals pursued federal bans shows their reckless disregard for the 2nd amendment." If a retailer sells a gun to a proven offender who has already voided his right to a certain property because he used it to harm another human unprovokedly, that retailer has voided his right to sell said property.
"Yes, but owning a firearm in and of itself does not harm anyone.  If you don't want mental patients to have arms - that's fine.  But the way the democrats went about preventing them from getting them (federal bans) is wrong and unconstitutional.  The proper way is via court order.  I'm not exactly a constitutional scholar, but I believe the 2nd amendment applies as a restriction to the feds - so it should be fine if state govts enact laws regarding this as well, but feds weren't supposed to make laws concerning this." Sure thing, as long as the states get to clean up the results of their legislation themselves.
"It is the responsibility of governments to deter crime, not businessmen." Selling guns to previous offenders or known abusers of human rights is criminal.
"Right.  Nobody is forcing you to buy from us." Still talking about the black market.
"What is IX XI? 9/11? I don't think 9/11 is specifically the result of us arming the Afghanis.  The terrorist network that hit us has cells all over the world.  I don't think the Soviets crushing the Afghans would have done us that much good in preventing 9/11." There is still not sufficient proof that the attack came from outside interests, or that the government was unaware or was actively working against possible instigators of said attack. The talibans are all grace of the CIA, that is for certain.
"No wonder the liberals have been having a rough time these last elections." Collective responsibility. If I knew my government was harming another country, but did nothing or even cheered them on, and this country retaliated against mine and accidentally kills me in the process, I deserved it.
"It is the same basic idea.  The person who sold you the item is not responsible for actions YOU do with it.  The arms industry is thus not responsible for irresponsible misuse of its products, just like the supermarket is not responsible for irresponsible misuse by its clients of the products it sells.  It could be argued that it is also very easy to kill someone with a baseball bat, a knife, or any number of potential weapons you could buy at an ordinary supermarket, yet if someone killed someone with these potential weapons, you wouldn't be so into holding the supermarket accountable." Check-ups are supposed to sort out those who have voided their rights to a gun by unprovkedly using said gun to deny a fellow human being her inalienable rights.
"Yes.  But the gun industry isn't hurting others, the people who misuse their weapons, if they even exist, are." So the gun industries earn their right to sell guns by making sure the buyer hasn't proven herself incapable to handle a firearm decently and with respect to his fellow man.
"It is not the responsibility of the gun industry to prevent people from using their products in an irresponsible manner.  If I buy a knife, and then stab someone to death with it, is the person who sold me the knife to be held accountable? obviously not.  Similarly, neither is the firearms industry." What if you were known to be unstable or incapable of handling a knife? This principle applies to the selling of guns to known abusers of human rights.
"If we are arming freedom fighters, yes.  We need to arm those who fight for liberty in the world." First, name me a contemporary junta that utilizes rape to a tactical advantage, are deserving of the moniker "freedom fighters" and is being bullied by mean old UN. Well, there are those actual freedom fighters during the 20th century but the CIA sorted those democratically elected, left-wing upstarts out nicely, right?
"I don't need to give an example.  You don't critisize the entire American military for the war crimes committed by INDIVIDUAL american soldiers, so why then would you critisize entire rebel movements for crimes committed by INDIVIDUAL rebels? Sweeping disarmament of said rebels, or stopping the flow of arms and ammunitions would be punishing entire movements for actions committed by individuals within movements.  Likewise, I don't dislike the american military as a whole for individual actions commmitted on the field by individual soldiers." Once, again... Nah, I shouldn't have to abase myself like this by eternal repetition. I'm not your parents.
"Says the armchair general? I'm no general, but I bet we did what we did for some reasons.  I'm not a general, I'm not in the military, I don't know shit about war, or why they might have done that specifically, but I kindof doubt you do either." Touché. But he who joins the game must endure the game. That is a good Swedish proverb and it is applicable here.
"Why do we have a responsibility to critisize them? I'm not saying we shouldn't critisize them, but really, the most you can say is that we haven't critisized them, as if this was some sort of monstrosity." You need to start poisoning the crops of Mexico's citizens now, because allegedly you care about democracy and not whether a democracy are ready to lick your shoes or not.
"Ah, here's some good points.  Regardless of the fact that they likely utilize that same awful way of thinking 'the end justifies the means', if they overthrow a worse form of government than themselves, is this not a good thing?" You are pyrotechnically right here, but pragmatically all evidence suggests that all successful, democratizing and benevolent revolutions were not carried out by people using systematic, encouraged, tactically intended rape to carry it out.
"So have the dems.  Anyhow, this isn't about the dems or repubs, this is about the U.N." The terrorist organisation CIA is notoriously conservative.
"Right - that you shouldn't support law enforcement through taxes due to the war on drugs.  This would be a valid point if not for the fact that law enforcement is necessary for the safeguard of so many other crucially important freedoms, such as property rights, without which you wouldn't have the rights to your drugs anyways, unlike the U.N." This is the one point you have so far. I'll test this philophically and pragmatically, but for now my response will be that I'd rather protect my property myself than rely on people terrorizing and ruining citizens who has done no more wrong than swigging a brandy or buying a piece.
"She doesn't have the right to force us to pay for things we happen to be against." Stopping the flow of objevtive information is not defensible simply by somebodies convictions alone. I want IANSA stopped or criticized because it is biased, not because I get huffy about their DATA and their spreading of it.
"Fail.  See above." I've only failed to suck down the philosophical equivalent of a turd. Really, why are militias in Africa allowed to rape women and the left not allowed to favor and work for progressive taxation?
"Once again, you seem to blame an entire movement of rebels for actions committed by individuals." No, I look to the rarity of rape and abuse of human rights amongst a force and rate it after that.
"So what is the difference? Don't systemic and non-spontaneous mean pretty much the same thing?" Poor semantics from my side. The "freedom-lovers" in Africa are actively and passively encouraged to terrorize, extort and rape to cause a perceived tactical advantage. This is not the case with the duped, unneccesarily endangered and deceived men and women in Iraq.
"I don't think this is accurate.  I'm fairly sure the soldiers that did that in Iraq were dealt with." If it weren't for the fact that Steven Green was allowed to enlist because the army has lowered its standards (He was 19, had anger issues with three convictions: fighting, and alcohol and drug possession. Incidentally this ignoring of previous misconducts was also used when McVeigh wanted to enlist), Abeer and her family would have been alive and well now. If America sends men like that to battle, they pay for it. If a retailer sells a weapon to a person who could easily be checked for previous abuse of the right to own a gun, that retailer, too, faces just consequences. If America wasn't a democracy, the voters would have no responsibility for the actions of their government. If they have the right to dissent, voting, protesting and all other methods for changing government policy, they are responsible for the sins of their government, and become accountable.