>>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.