>>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).