[“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.”]
Name:
Xel2006-08-25 18:54
"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.