Angry's rant + homework

[225Slant6]

While I probably don't agree with everything Angry has said, I am so glad that somebody else sees the Patriot Act as something very dangerous. It is very frustrating that so many people simply don't care about it. I have found that they will say, "oh the government would never get away with taking citizens and locking them up with out a fair trial." and when I say they already do that they will say "they only do that to terrorists". It does not matter to me what you have done you still need have to have a fair and speedy trial (meaning they don't take 20 years before even thinking about you). Of course I am nineteen so most people think I am an idiot.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I also think that the second amendment is to keep the federal government (and state) in check. I think that guns are legal to use for home defense, However I think the second amendment main purpose is to ensure the citizens are able to defend themselves against the government. I also think that people should not own guns that they do not know how to safely handle or use, but this is obviously would not really be able to be enforced.

[Branjo]

"It wasn't about shooting an animal it was about spending time with my father". So what was wrong with going bowling or a game of pool lol.

 

I don't blame the guns I blame the morons that sell them to people that have no idea of the mental state of the person buying them. You think that all crazy people have criminal records? I think a full psychiatric evaluation should be done on anyone looking to buy a gun not just a criminal background and credit check, lets see how many Americans are mentally stable enough to use such a "Tool". I guarantee the numbers would greatly be reduced, but that would be bad for the gun companies who thrive on a scared society where everyone is a potential customer. I also bet my bottom dollar that every single one of those psycho's that have went beserk with a gun LOVED the 2nd amendment too lol.

 

Fact is you don't want to hear that your constitution is to blame. When a problem is anything to do with laws its always gonna comeback to your constitution and even though you know its at fault your pride gets in the way, so whats the point.

[wevsspot]

but that would be bad for the gun companies who thrive on a scared society where everyone is a potential customer.

 

That is such a short sighted statement that I almost fell out of my chair. You do understand that the gun industry as well as sportsmen/women generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $155 MILLION dollars a year (according to a 1998 economic impact study) that goes directly to wildlife management, wild game and waterfowl habitat acquisition and improvement programs? So next time you walk down that pretty nature trail that your state's game and fish commission created you can thank a hunter and gun maker. The latest estimates are that over $3 BILLION dollars have been generated for these programs since the enactment of the excise tax (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agencies).

 

We pay an 11% excise tax on EVERY single rifle and box of ammunition we purchase and it goes directly to the programs I mentioned above.

 

The gun industry is HUGE in this country, just like the automotive industry is HUGE in this country. If we manage to lose either of those two brick and mortar stalwarts from our economy, things are going to get a lot worse than they already are. Do you even have an idea of exactly how many Americans are employed in the gun industry, hunting, target shooting and other firearm related industries? Do you have any idea how many people participate in legal activities related to the gun industry, hunting, target shooting and other sporting activities based on firearms?

 

Do you know that some of the makers of consumer level firearms are the same manufacturer's of the weapons that our soldiers, national guardsman and police officers use in the line of duty? Every day Joe's and Jane's that purchase firearms and ammunition for protection, sporting or competition allow these manufacturer's to not only stay in business, but also invest in new technology, R&D and other activities that help secure OUR homeland?

 

Anyone that sincerely believes the second amendment is somehow flawed is probably a card carrying member of the "New World Order". Yea, let's just throw all of our pistols and rifles into the middle of the town square, dissolve our government (and every other government on the face of the planet) subject ourselves to the whims of the UN, the World Court and other World Order institutions and sing kum-bye-ya. We'll hardly notice our peaceful integration into the Borg.

[Branjo]

Do you understand that the Weapons and Oil industry was the reason Afghanistan and Iraq was bombed all to hell which resulted in the deaths of approx 100,000 innocent men women and children. But . as long as you can drive you F150 into a forest to shoot a deer I guess its ok

[wevsspot]

you F150 into a forest to shoot a deer I guess its ok

 

Actually it's a GMC Sierra Z71:) But if I drive it nice it gets about 18 miles to the gallon - unless I strap that big 'ol buck on the hood, that knocks me down to about 12 with all the wind resistance from the antlers and such

 

My wife makes up for me though. She has a very small carbon footprint - since her Subaru WRX gets about 24 mpg in town. Daughter gets second place finish for carbon footprint with a very gas miserly Jeep Liberty.

 

I blow them all out of the water! Hell, every computer in the shop on 24/7 running FAH (gotta get them work units). I drive 58 miles to work each way (by myself - no car pooling here). Gosh I love the USA.

[MACarter02]

LoL I've got a 70 mile round trip. Alone. But, I fail b/c my car gets like 31 mpg

[Guest Neezer]

I think I win!!! I work on oil rigs in North dakota! I drive an F-150, and my trip to work is about 550 miles....just one way....so for all the math geniuses 1100 round trip.

[Fogel]

Here I am.. again with ideas that don’t side any one’s side. If others are thinking outside the box I guess I just live outside of it.

 

As far as guns go, there are tons of stories like Wevsspot’s anecdote. So does having a B.A.D. (Big butt Dog), an alarm system and a gun mean you’ll be safe from the harms of the world? No. Wish it did, but what it does do is make you a less appealing target. Those guys doped up amphetamines may not be thinking clearly but most of them will also choose the easy road before the hard one. If they got a choice between a well lit house with an alarm system and hear a big crotchety dog or a dark house with no signs of protection they’ll probably pick the latter one. Of course none of those things matter to those teenage punks who think drive-by paintballing is a cool thing to do. Even when I was a snot nosed punk who got into trouble all the time and had friends who did that, I didn’t see the coolness in it. Anyhow, got side tracked for a min.

 

I’m gonna pick on A_G like he picked on Technodanman in his L.A.P. (Long butt Post) …notice how I didn’t call it bad LAP because it wasn’t – quite good in fact. But I can’t disagree hard enough people like Angry think homeowners carrying guns keeps the government in check because we can rise up at any time. Angry cites how many are now ex-(military) and ex-police. Even if we count those people, that is such a small portion of the population over all that unless there were no outside factors (which I’ll get into shortly) and the rebels got some lucky key strikes than you’re still looking at a very slim chance. Most ex-military have seen enough killing in their lifetime that the last thing they want to see is it being on their own soil. In fact, that’s why most chose to go into the military in the first place. Also, many vets become conservatives and that kinda goes against most of what they believe in. Now if a foreign organization/country came in and started war on our soil, then you best believe many of them will take up arms again and defend the country they love.

 

Angry posts a very good example of why he wouldn’t be a hero in a bank robbery situation. He’s not trained for it. How much of the United States citizens do you think are trained for a Civil War?

 

If this rebellion is looking like a bad idea now, we haven’t even factored just how much of the United States citizens wouldn’t agree with a Civil War. We also haven’t factored (if we “do the math”) how we are completely out gunned technologically. Sure by now most of us have heard of the quotation, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” I’m sorry but no matter how many guns the citizens of the U.S. has, that’s exactly what we would be doing. We wouldn’t even have the same chance the Iraq army had during Desert Storm …yes the same one where 100 of the royal guard would flee when they saw 5 American troops. And cutting the head off the snake would have the same effect it is having on the terrorists – someone else will rise to the ranks to lead.

 

If you think it looks bad now (or perhaps you’re still disagreeing) we still haven’t even factored just how many countries would sacrifice half their population just to see the U.S. in this vulnerable position. Even if we assume those countries won’t attack us from fear of what the rest of the world would do and take the most peaceful approach of simply arming the rebels with weapons …because they will do something …then we still aren’t out of the woods yet. The U.S. government would more than likely fight a war on two fronts to get back at them. And if this excites other countries into agreeing with the U.S. government that other countries should not be getting involved into kicking a country while it’s down could excite another world war. That’s definitely one scenario I think we can all agree would suck down to its core. I left this scenario for last because it’s dependant on way too many variables and is not as tangible as the previous ones.

 

 

My main point with all this is simply that I do not see a rebellion as viable option …and this is coming from someone who for most of his life thinks the country could benefit from one. Yes, I completely disagree with our government right down to the core fact I TRULY DESPISE bi-partisanship. It fosters nothing but team pride. That’s fine when we are talking Football but not when it comes to the people leading our nation. You got kiddies saying, “I vote Republican because my parents do.” Or you got kiddies saying, “I vote Democrat because my parents vote Republican.” You also get just flat out pure hate for the other side that even if the better candidate were on the other side people wouldn’t vote for them …even if they proclaim to everyone they will. I also hate our justice system. I think it is crock. It punishes those who truly aren’t criminals harder than the real criminals. If we want to lower crime rate we will have to get tougher on criminals and exact that punishment much quicker. Let’s not get started on a capital punishment argument because tougher punishment doesn’t always mean that. I’m staying high level on this for a reason. Essentially, even as smart as our ancestors were, our current troubles are not the same as theirs was. We have outgrown their model for success.

 

I think if you truly want to “overthrow the government” (here it comes, another crazy Fogel idea no one will agree with) is to come up with an Opinion Leader who wants nothing more than to improve this country. I’m not talking what the sheep say now, “Just Vote”. I am talking about grooming people into well respected great minds, and then when they improved their ideas and earned the public’s respect you vote them into office. In other words, I think we need a current day Martin Luther King …but instead the cause is to enforce quality control on the candidates we have to choose from come election day. This may seem radical, but instead of voting for one side versus the other or the man/woman with the most money and political backing …voting for someone who is the best man/woman for the job. Name the last person who motivated more people than MLK since MLK. I find that to be sad. How many presidents have we had since than and none of them could carry the torch that MLK lit? Hell, we haven’t even had a president apologize for those crimes. Now MLK was completely a pacifist in the means of getting his point of view across. For the people who get more excited than others, you would also need a current day Malcolm X. The reason for this is to reach as many people as possible with the cause so more people become excited with the cause. Now of course the MLK like person would garner most of the support because current day people would support the peaceful approach. MLK spoke eloquently, got his point across that inspired a nation and all in favor of a peaceful method like Gandhi used with success. Once you have your opinion leader you vote him/her into office and make as many changes that someone in that position can make.

 

As fun as debating is I notice people get wrapped around the axel and tend to forget that the other side may have something of value. So I’ll wrap up this post with some quotations I like.

 

There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking.

 

It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones. (1987 lecture "The Burden of Skepticism")

[Fogel]

Here I am.. again with ideas that don’t side any one’s side. If others are thinking outside the box I guess I just live outside of it.

 

As far as guns go, there are tons of stories like Wevsspot’s anecdote. So does having a B.A.D. (Big butt Dog), an alarm system and a gun mean you’ll be safe from the harms of the world? No. Wish it did, but what it does do is make you a less appealing target. Those guys doped up on amphetamines may not be thinking clearly but most of them will also choose the easy road before the hard one. If they got a choice between a well lit house with an alarm system and hear a big crotchety dog or that dark house with no signs of protection they’ll probably pick the latter one. Of course none of those things matter to those teenage punks who think drive-by paintballing is a cool thing to do. Even when I was a snot nosed punk who got into trouble all the time and had friends who did that, I didn’t see the coolness in it. Anyhow, got side tracked for a min.

 

I’m gonna pick on A_G like he picked on Technodanman in his L.A.P. (Long butt Post) …notice how I didn’t call it a bad LAP because it wasn’t – quite good in fact. But I can’t disagree hard enough with people like Angry who think homeowners carrying guns keeps the government in check because we can rise up at any time. Angry cites how many are now ex-(military) and ex-police. Even if we count those people, that is such a small portion of the population that unless there were no outside factors (which I’ll get into shortly) and the rebels got some lucky key strikes than you’re still looking at a very slim chance. Most ex-military have seen enough killing in their lifetime that the last thing they want to see is it being on their own soil. In fact, that’s why most chose to go into the military in the first place. Also, many vets become conservatives and that kinda goes against most of what they believe in. Now if a foreign organization/country came in and started war on our soil, then you best believe many of them will take up arms again and defend the country they love.

 

Angry posts a very good example of why he wouldn’t be a hero in a bank robbery situation. He’s not trained for it. How much of the United States citizens do you think are trained for a Civil War? Now use that answer to gauge how many would not run in terror from that scenario and how effective they would be if they did choose to stand their ground and fight.

 

If this rebellion is looking like a bad idea now, we haven’t even factored just how much of the United States citizens wouldn’t agree with a Civil War. We also haven’t factored (if we “do the math”) how we are completely out gunned technologically. Sure by now most of us have heard of the quotation, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.” I’m sorry but no matter how many guns the citizens of the U.S. has, that’s exactly what we would be doing. We wouldn’t even have the same chance the Iraq army had during Desert Storm …yes the same one where 100 of the royal guard would flee when they saw 5 American troops. And cutting the head off the snake would have the same effect it is having on the terrorists – someone else will rise to the ranks to lead.

 

If you think it looks bad now (or perhaps you’re still disagreeing) we still haven’t even factored just how many countries would sacrifice half their population just to see the U.S. in this vulnerable position. Even if we assume those countries won’t attack us from fear of what the rest of the world would do and take the most peaceful approach of simply arming the rebels with weapons …because they will do something …then we still aren’t out of the woods yet. The U.S. government would more than likely fight a war on two fronts to get back at them. And if this excites other countries into agreeing with the U.S. government that other countries should not be getting involved into kicking a country while it’s down could excite another world war. That’s definitely one scenario I think we can all agree would suck down to its core. I left this scenario for last because it’s dependent on way too many variables and is not as tangible as the previous ones.

 

 

My main point with all this is simply that I do not see a rebellion as viable option …and this is coming from someone who for most of his life thinks the country could benefit from one. Yes, I completely disagree with our government right down to the core fact I TRULY DESPISE bi-partisanship. It fosters nothing but team pride. That’s fine when we are talking Football but not when it comes to the people leading our nation. You got kiddies saying, “I vote Republican because my parents do.” Or you got kiddies saying, “I vote Democrat because my parents vote Republican.” You also get just flat out pure hate for the other side that even if the better candidate were on the other side people wouldn’t vote for them …even if they proclaim to everyone they will. I also hate our justice system. I think it is crock. It punishes those who truly aren’t criminals harder than the real criminals. If we want to lower crime rate we will have to get tougher on criminals and exact that punishment much quicker. Let’s not get started on a capital punishment argument because tougher punishment doesn’t always mean that. I’m staying high level on this for a reason. Essentially, even as smart as our ancestors were, our current troubles are not the same as theirs was. We have outgrown their model for success and should think of ways to reformat our whole government ...including (and most importantly) the checks and balances.

 

I think if you truly want to “overthrow the government” (here it comes, another crazy Fogel idea no one will agree with) is to come up with an Opinion Leader who wants nothing more than to improve this country. I’m not talking what the sheep say now, “Just Vote”. I am talking about grooming people into well respected great minds, and then when they improved their ideas and earned the public’s respect you vote them into office. In other words, I think we need a current day Martin Luther King …but instead the cause is to enforce quality control on the candidates we have to choose from come election day. So this may seem radical, but instead of voting for one side versus the other or the man/woman with the most money and political backing …actually voting for someone who is the best man/woman for the job. I challenge you to name the last person who motivated more people than MLK since MLK. I find that to be sad. How many presidents have we had since then and none of them could carry the torch that MLK lit? Hell, we haven’t even had a president apologize for those crimes. Now MLK was completely a pacifist in the means of getting his point of view across. For the people who get more excited than others, you would also need a current day Malcolm X. The reason for this is to reach more of audience possible with the cause so more people become excited with the cause. Now of course the MLK like person would garner most of the support because current day people would support the peaceful approach. MLK spoke eloquently, got his point across that inspired a nation and all in favor of a peaceful method like Gandhi used with success. Once you have your opinion leader you vote him/her into office and make as many changes that someone in that position can make.

 

As fun as debating is I notice people get wrapped around the axle and tend to forget that the other side may have something of value. So I’ll wrap up this post with some quotations I like.

 

There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking.

 

It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from the worthless ones. (1987 lecture "The Burden of Skepticism")

[Praz]

But . as long as you can drive you F150 into a forest to shoot a deer I guess its ok

Mine's a 350 Super Duty but I don't waste fuel to shoot deer. I can drop them without leaving the porch. And the only reason I would have to call the cops if there was a break-in is to clean up the mess.

 

Those guys doped up on amphetamines may not be thinking clearly but most of them will also choose the easy road before the hard one

Some will disagree with this and even more probably won't understand this way of thinking. But to me, those type of people, when threatening the well being of myself, my family or another individual completely forfeit there right to live. It may sound cruel but when an individual shows complete disregard for human life they also give up the right to theirs.

[Branjo]

Fogel your not to shabby when it comes to a LAP yourself lol, but I can't fault you for it bro. Being a Brit myself, thats the American attitude that makes me wanna stand shoulder to shoulder with you.

 

I'll be the first to say the faults of the UK, we are pretty much a smaller copy of the US nowadays and we have had a lot more experience in history telling us that we f**ked up.

and the blood of Afghanistan and Iraq is on both our hands, maybe I should clarify my thoughts on that one.

 

The US is the most powerful nation in the world today and Britain from my own point of view will change if the US changes. Via a domino effect a lot of countries and nations would gladly follow the example set by the US if it was going in the right direction, maybe it is or it isn't only time will tell.

 

I and others get a little heated and for that I apologize, there is a middle ground for any debate and I hate the thought of anyone thinking I am hard left or right wing because I only believe my opinion is a reflection of the times and my surroundings. Things are very wrong is todays world and the light at the end of the tunnel is getting further and further away.

 

We do need an great leader but there are very real dangers to that also and I may get flamed for this but here goes, JFK there I said it, along with Malcom X and MLK they were silenced well before their time and we the people (Globally) paid a very real price for it.

 

I have a little quote of my own which is still very pertinent for today.

 

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

 

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower. farewell speech to the nation.

 

Now it was very hard to choose a start and an end to that quote cause this dude was a very smart cookie, but if you haven't read it I suggest you do, I think most if not all Americans have read it in school so maybe us "Johnny Foreigners" should take a quick gander at it. I take a lot more stock of a person's view when they have seen first hand what war actually looks like.

 

I don't want anyone thinking that I want to remove every gun from the country, disband the armies and wear flowers in our hair. I'm not that naive, but I do think America has become very top heavy in its military way of thinking and I think a little reality check is needed. And again if your nation changes then my nation will change too so selfishly by trying to change direction for you I'm actually trying to help myself also.

 

Some of those people that work for the weapons or car industry may stop making bombs or gas guzzling SUV's but they don't become useless, We will always need machinery and basically thats what they do. So if they are make a 100% green engine or a 2000Lb LGB whats the difference we still need them.

 

The Oil industry, when the fossil fuels actually do run out they are gonna have to switch their employment titles from Oil Barons to Recycle Barons. Because thats will be where the money will be when the wells dry up. Maybe in the future our wars will be fought over paper,plastic and scrap metal who can tell.

 

I'm not in this country to escape tyranny or financial hardship in any way, I am here cause my wife and son where born here, if she would have been Chinese then I'd be in China right now being a pain it the butt for the people there too.

 

Hey I like fast cars too, but . man, I don't think I could bring myself to kill Bambi's mom unless I was starving. Thats like stepping on baby chicks for enjoyment

[HarryTaco]

Ok ok. Seems most everyone is is talking about the current sad state of the US.

I was given a piece of political philosophy from my family Doctor about 35 years ago and I believe it holds true thru time, circumstance and different countries. This is the statement. " When the people are weak, hungry and poor, the government is strong. When the people are well, fat, and wealthy the government is weak." This is a general statement, but in the last ten years Ive seen the american people (lifestyle) change from one end of the spectrum to the other. (Yellow Alert, Orange Alert, Red Alert). Our beloved "prezdent" has done a great job of breaking us down to what we are now. Searching for a leader, a way out, someone to show us the way. Unfortunately he couldnt/didnt want to, put Humpty back together again. Keep the people weak, cowered, confused, divided and our beloved Government will be Strong, Powerful, all Knowing. I personally hate and resent being in that position. Mexico has tons of natural resources and has lived under the protective umbrella of the USA for its whole existence due to its geographic proximity. But, are the Mexican people strong, fat and wealthy?? Hell no. It doesnt behoove the leaders of Mexico or the USA to have a strong economic competitor living right next door to us. Keep the people poor and looking for a hand-out and you'll find happy government leaders, knowing that they are in the Drivers Seat. "Oh save us Great Leader, from the evil world of tyranny, suppression and starvation." Bah!!