LotR TCG Wiki → Card Sets:  All 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 → Forums:  TLHH CC

Author Topic: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack  (Read 7942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

October 07, 2008, 12:15:50 PM
Reply #60

HawkeyeSPF

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 639
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2008, 12:15:50 PM »
See, that's better. I don't really lean one way or the other on gun control, but you can't just outright dismiss someone's argument without evidence of your own to back up your stance. Now that you have brought it to the table, I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

October 07, 2008, 12:46:31 PM
Reply #61

SomeRandomDude

  • ********
  • Information Offline
  • Maia
  • Posts: 7004
  • Most Likely To Usurp Kralik and Dáin
    • My Wordpress
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2008, 12:46:31 PM »
I figured the DC Gun Ban study would be familiar to everyone...  :-[
NB- 4 year veteran of CC/TLHH

"It was like:
Kralik: "What hath God wrought"
NB: "I dunno, but I'm in ur house eating ur food.""
-Elessar's Socks

Trade List- ft. Aragorn, Defender of Rohan

October 07, 2008, 03:31:00 PM
Reply #62

turin08

  • Guest
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2008, 03:31:00 PM »
The point raised about the difficulty of implementing gun control in America is a very good one. It would be extremely difficult to near impossible to do because as you said you have huge borders with Mexico and Cananda which are hard to police. Also the USA gun culture in very deeply embedded. The reason it was so easy to put in place the gun ban in the UK was because we have never had that gun culture, not many people had them or wanted them when the ban came in so there was very little fuss made about it. And also props to everyone who has posted so far in this as it has become a real debate with actual facts being used and full explanations for answers. Sometimes on these boards in can be so annoying cos people won't give evidence or explanation for their usually controversial statements.

October 07, 2008, 04:49:59 PM
Reply #63

macheteman

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2008, 04:49:59 PM »
yes, i agree, it's nice that we finally have a respectful debate =D> =D> =D>

and turin, you are exactly right about the gun culture being so deeply embedded in our society. i come from a redneck family, none of them are criminals, but i know there would be problems if they had to give up their guns. and rednecks aren't the half of it. the gangs, ghettos, hillbillies, farmers, hunters, disturbed youths, the list goes on...

maybe in a few generations the sentiments towards guns will change, but currently, there is no way it would work. we do not have the resources needed (especially with this economy) to back up anti-firearm laws at this point. and you are asking for trouble anytime you make laws you can't enforce.

-mm

October 07, 2008, 05:51:12 PM
Reply #64

HawkeyeSPF

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 639
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2008, 05:51:12 PM »
and rednecks aren't the half of it. the gangs, ghettos, hillbillies, farmers, hunters, disturbed youths, the list goes on...

we do not have the resources needed (especially with this economy) to back up anti-firearm laws at this point. and you are asking for trouble anytime you make laws you can't enforce.

Yeah, because the gangs, ghettos and disturbed youths need to be represented in government you know...

I don't think that this country could, or even should, go so far as to have strict gun control to the point of only governmental agencies or specially permitted agencies/companies having guns. What I do think this country needs to do is have gun laws that MAKE SENSE. Mandatory wait periods when purchasing guns, deep deep background checks and maybe even psych evals, for a start. Maybe special permits for gun collectors, with deeper psych evals and continued background checks (every 3-6 months)? The point and end result needs to be keeping guns out of the hands of those who would commit crimes - I don't think anyone would dispute that. The trouble comes in where this group or that special interest tries to derail the law by adding loopholes for their interest. Open enough loopholes, and soon enough that law begins to look like a fishnet trying to catch a shrimp. Now, that doesn't mean that I think civil liberties can be trampled on, not at all. There should be NO reason that a person who enjoys hunting shouldn't be able to pass a psych eval in order to get their gun permit.

The motto of just about every Police force I've ever heard of has been "To Protect and Serve". If officers are spending less time dealing with small-time gangs and ghettos (who would be less likely to acquire guns through smuggling than large ones), it stands to reason that they would have more time to stand behind their motto, and protect the public. At the same time, under the general idea outlined above, there would be nothing to stop a reasonable person from owning a gun and keeping it in their home for the protection of their family, as long as they could pass that psych eval.

As far as gun smuggling goes, yes, it would probably increase due to a law spelled out like the above. Why is that ok and how do we deal with it? First of all, it "eliminates" one very easy way for criminals to get their guns, so they have to rely on means such as smuggling. To me, it's almost like deck strategy - you eliminate the threat of this, so you can concentrate on dealing with this other threat. Pooling resources, you know? Anyway, at this point, you already know that smuggling will be a focus of criminals, so you focus on it as well - shutting it down. You increase security along all borders and at all entry points (creating jobs...); more border patrol, stricter access, and more detection tools. I know, again this can be an issue of privacy at places like border crossings and customs at airports. If you focus on who should be focused on and tone down the random checks - don't eliminate them altogether - then that issue is mitigated. We're looking for contraband, weapons, and other illegal items here, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to be discriminatory. No, don't strip search every person wearing a turban dammit, doing a fingerprint check on all travelers will do nicely - if nothing pops up, they get the usual x-ray and crap; if something does come up on their record, that person should be subject to more scrutiny (if someone committed a crime worthy of jail, then they've earned this right for life).

I know I brought up psych evals a lot, but don't you want guns out of the hands of unstable folks?

Anyway, just my two cents, but if you don't reply to anything else I've written, please please PLEASE tell me whether or not you agree with the following and if not, why:

- The goal is to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would or could use them for ill intent.
- Civil liberties and freedoms should not be trampled on in the course of this objective. (Hunters still hunting, gun collectors still collecting, home owners still protecting their loved ones.)

October 07, 2008, 06:53:33 PM
Reply #65

sickofpalantirs

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Useful Spammer
  • Posts: 8880
  • one spammer to rule them all
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2008, 06:53:33 PM »
sounds good to me ;)
Felipe Musco:
(after all, it's a CHARITY organization, I still have SOME principles, even having gone through Law School... :P),
Elf Lvr:
Bit of a scrawny Iowan kid with an unhealthy artifact obsession. Oh, and a God of Spam. In a good way.
Ahhh!!! SoP, you're a genius!!! :gp: ~Menace64
SoP's Trade List
Like Muscle Cars? Check out themusclecarplace.com

October 07, 2008, 06:56:45 PM
Reply #66

MR. Lurtzy

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • King
  • Posts: 2745
  • Wouldn't it be nice if we were Hodor?
    • My website
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2008, 06:56:45 PM »
An excellent point. :up:

October 07, 2008, 07:19:03 PM
Reply #67

macheteman

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2008, 07:19:03 PM »
ah, you have raised some good questions hawkeyes. i'll start by answering your last 2 points.

- The goal is to keep weapons out of the hands of those who would or could use them for ill intent.

anyone can use a gun for ill intent. that alone makes this issue sticky. it's obvious that regulations can't keep guns out of the wrong hands completely. that has already been established in previous posts by multiple members. so, i guess what i'm saying is, i agree with this, to an extent, with the realization that any person at any time could be dangerous with a gun.

- Civil liberties and freedoms should not be trampled on in the course of this objective. (Hunters still hunting, gun collectors still collecting, home owners still protecting their loved ones.)

absolutely, insuring freedoms is the ONLY way this country will see effective weapon restrictions.

so, on to the more specific:

the mandatory wait period: this is one law that definitely makes sense. think about the guy that gets mad enough, or drunk enough, or depressed enough to kill someone (or himself). the wait period gives time for him to come back to his senses. even a one week wait can drastically help. in fact, if someone hasn't calmed down in a day or two, chances are he's the kind of guy who will find a way to get his hands on a firearm, whether it is legal or not.

background checks: another one that is necessary, and is used today. perhaps tighter restrictions could be implemented, and background checks on all persons living in that particular home. that way, if Bob Smith's record is clear, then that's fine, but if he's living with his son who was convicted of a crime, then maybe he shouldn't be allowed while the son is living in the house. these extensive background checks would take more time, but a wait period would insure the time needed for a thorough investigation. on the other hand, these restrictions wouldn't necessarily help. for instance, when i got my shotgun, i was 13, obviously my dad had to buy it for me. they ran a background check on him, and we were on our way. it's easy for someone to buy a gun for a friend or family member and bypass these kinds of restrictions.

psych evals: here is where things get a little more dicey. there are a lot of people who would say that psych evals would be infringing on rights. people who are going to harm someone aren't going to sit down for an evaluation. i fear that they will only be used for people who don't need them. maybe there should be certain situations in which a person needs a psych eval, (maybe factors of age, record, i'm not sure) but for the most part, people could get by without one. i'm not sure about this one.

hawkeyes brought up a lot of good questions.

this was brought to my attention: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf

it was published by: Florida department of Criminology. National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply

it raises some interesting facts, like just revealing a gun prevents most crimes without firing a shot. and that 39.2% of convicts obtained their guns from illegal street dealers. SOP: your average joe is already getting guns from dealers and "black market connections" as you put it.

so, while i think that wise regulations are a good thing, many people underestimate the benefits to the average citizen having a gun.

-mm

October 07, 2008, 07:21:59 PM
Reply #68

SomeRandomDude

  • ********
  • Information Offline
  • Maia
  • Posts: 7004
  • Most Likely To Usurp Kralik and Dáin
    • My Wordpress
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2008, 07:21:59 PM »
He did it again! :P (See thread title)

Nice McCain response.
NB- 4 year veteran of CC/TLHH

"It was like:
Kralik: "What hath God wrought"
NB: "I dunno, but I'm in ur house eating ur food.""
-Elessar's Socks

Trade List- ft. Aragorn, Defender of Rohan

October 07, 2008, 07:26:37 PM
Reply #69

macheteman

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Knight
  • Posts: 1938
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2008, 07:26:37 PM »
He did it again! :P (See thread title)

Nice McCain response.

what are you talking about?

October 07, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Reply #70

FM

  • Future Judge
  • *******
  • Information Offline
  • Wizard
  • Posts: 4074
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #70 on: October 07, 2008, 07:34:03 PM »
Hawkeyes raises EXCELLENT points, IMO. Actually, gun control in Brazil got REALLY strict a few years ago, with a new law about it, but when the government made a Popular Vote on actually UNARMING the population, even though it might be easier to get a CLONE than a gun here, brazilians STILL voted "no". So, when it comes down to it, the population don't want to give up their "right to bear arms", they just want it so that not every single lunatic CAN get one.
If anyone is interested, I can TRY to translate our Law on Firearms and post it here later.

October 07, 2008, 07:48:50 PM
Reply #71

HawkeyeSPF

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 639
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #71 on: October 07, 2008, 07:48:50 PM »
Okay, and this truly, TRULY, is NOT an attack, so please don't take it as one, but...

Did those of you who think that Barack said he'd attack Pakistan actually listen to the words that came out of his mouth?

"If we have Osama Bin-laden in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, I think we have to take him out."

Please, PLEASE, tell me where in that sentence Barack said anything about attacking the COUNTRY OF PAKISTAN.

October 07, 2008, 07:53:26 PM
Reply #72

sickofpalantirs

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Useful Spammer
  • Posts: 8880
  • one spammer to rule them all
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #72 on: October 07, 2008, 07:53:26 PM »
yer...he said he would carry out military operations on pakistani soil I guess...could be construed as an attack for example, lets say we had a ex-russian who had carried our terrorists acts against them in the rockies, and russia came in with helicopters and special forces and all and killed him...would we be happy? IDK
anyway right now I think obama's got it, as long as the main issue is economy (debate and election) the problem is, if something happens (october suprise anyone?) to shift it to foreign policy, things could be interesting.

interesting statistics mm...
and also interesting point about the psych evals...
Felipe Musco:
(after all, it's a CHARITY organization, I still have SOME principles, even having gone through Law School... :P),
Elf Lvr:
Bit of a scrawny Iowan kid with an unhealthy artifact obsession. Oh, and a God of Spam. In a good way.
Ahhh!!! SoP, you're a genius!!! :gp: ~Menace64
SoP's Trade List
Like Muscle Cars? Check out themusclecarplace.com

October 07, 2008, 08:21:49 PM
Reply #73

HawkeyeSPF

  • ****
  • Information Offline
  • Marksman
  • Posts: 639
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #73 on: October 07, 2008, 08:21:49 PM »
The difference is that you need cooperation between the countries.

Let's set it up differently: Iranian (or even, I don't know, French) terrorist carries out attacks in and against North Korea, and hides out in the US of all places. North Korea comes to us asking for assistance in seeking out and killing (not even trying to capture) the terrorist (Iranian or French, doesn't matter, one's an ally, the other an enemy (in a generalist sense)). Do we assist? Of course, that person carried out vile attacks that took human lives. Let's say that North Korea and their amazing reconaissance are able to pinpoint the man and they have him in their sights - they share the information with us, in the hopes that we'll be able to act more quickly. Let's assume that we are not able to pinpoint him as they are; we're having a bad day - our binoculars are broken or something. Do we then allow the North Koreans to make the kill on our soil? I would think that the answer would be an emphatic YES.*

But it all boils down to the country's leadership and the cooperation between the nations; without better relations between the US and Pakistan, direct action on our part would almost certainly be necessary. Having those relations and working towards a common goal means that either they're going be able to make the kill themselves, or they would not have a problem with us taking the shot.

Military action should never leave the table, but by God, it should not be the number one option.


* All assumptions are based on claims being substantiated and truthful: the guy did it, he IS the man in their sights, etc.

October 08, 2008, 05:45:59 AM
Reply #74

sickofpalantirs

  • *****
  • Information Offline
  • Useful Spammer
  • Posts: 8880
  • one spammer to rule them all
Re: Obama Spilling His Military Secret's To The Guy He Wants To Attack
« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2008, 05:45:59 AM »
but, what if we tell them no (for whatever reason, like it was implied in the earlier debate) and they attack, wouldn't we be a little ticked?
Felipe Musco:
(after all, it's a CHARITY organization, I still have SOME principles, even having gone through Law School... :P),
Elf Lvr:
Bit of a scrawny Iowan kid with an unhealthy artifact obsession. Oh, and a God of Spam. In a good way.
Ahhh!!! SoP, you're a genius!!! :gp: ~Menace64
SoP's Trade List
Like Muscle Cars? Check out themusclecarplace.com