ParanoiA

Ok, ok, I get that now. I'm thick sometimes. Interesting stuff. In that context, it does appear to lend stock to the notion that it's not an individual right. However, one then has to wonder how the civilian militia was therefore thought to have armed itself without the individual right to arms. Or was that supposed to be government provided?

Interesting, so the Bush administration did something right? Wait...this is a joke right? I click the link and a picture of an obscene monkey flipping me off pops up on the screen right? I'm not falling for it.

So, can we sum that up by saying that "bearing arms" used to mean flexing in a soldier's role? (something's wrong with the link, I see no picture). So that would explain why women could own and use guns, but not "bear arms", since they could not really participate in this kind of duty?

Why didn't I see this coming? Yeah, I'm not real sure either. Maybe he's using "bearing arms" in the context of assuming a soldier's role. So women couldn't participate as soldiers, but could use a gun to kill a rabbit, or an intruder. But that's just a guess. Of course, women and guns are a dangerous combination. My wife is a hell of a shot.

Why hasn't there been an effort to amend the constitution concerning gun regulation? Or has there and I just missed it? I guess I'm glad they're being prudent with amendments, but after all of this long drawn out warfare with grammer and punctuation, I'm just surprised there hasn't been the resolve to just rewrite the damn thing. Maybe that would make a good thread: How should the 28th amendment be written to repeal the 2nd, and establish the modern principle of rights to bear arms? I think it would be an interesting exercise for the board to create a mock amendment, written and ratified by the membership. I'll bet we couldn't agree on the first freaking sentence...

Maybe we call them freedom terrorists? Or fighting terrorists?. What do you call a guy who kills 50 people, but saves 300 people? Is he a killer? A hero? Either way, that dilemma doesn't diminish the word's individual meaning. They are still two distinct ideas, with incidental conflicting morals. Is there a legitimate rationale for targeting civilians for terror? I've not heard of one. So, to me, any government engaged in attacking civilians becomes a terrorist government pretty damn quick.

I'm very disturbed by this and totally agree we should expect better on the highest court. I guess I've been underestimating the danger of fluid interpretation, because I'm suddenly feeling a little nauseous. By the way, that was a bang up post up there doG. I really like how you get into this stuff and your level of understanding, as well as your lecture. Once again, I walk away smarter after a doG post.

Would you call someone who killed someone else in self defense, a murderer? A killer? That's how I see this semantics battle between terrorist and freedom fighter. Either can employ the other. When they target civilians, it's a terrorist attack. When they target enemy forces, it's a fight. How does a freedom fighter fight civilians? Please, that's like saying I got in a fight with a 3 year old when I whipped his ass. So, a fighter would presumably fight other fighters - hence enemy forces, not civilians. A terrorist isn't fighting anyone, they are terrorizing civilians, presumably vulnerable and/or unarmed and unaware. So I think it's somewhat self explanatory in the words themselves. Call it semantics if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.

I see them as freedom fighters. I suppose there's some questionable practices concerning hiding amongst civilians and such, but as far as I know they aren't targeting these civilians. They are targeting the US forces. There is some terrorism there, obviously, with the bombing of public places and so forth. But I think I'm on fairly safe ground to say they are mostly freedom fighters.

Great post Pangloss. Concerning the SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for child rapists, there stands a decent example of what you're talking about. Many partisans have complained on the ruling and so forth, but upon closer examination many thoughts came up that were not partisan in nature, and lent some real value to the decision. Someone brought up the idea that some children, victims of rape by a family member, may be less inclined to report the incident if they think that family member could be put to death. That's a perspective I never thought of. It's hard enough to get these kids to come forward, let alone scare the resolve out of them by thinking their dad is going to be executed if they tell. I don't know how partisan that hang up really is. That sounds like objective, careful reasoning actually. So, to me, this is good example of the need to at least check your inner partisan and be sure you're not the one guilty of it.

Because they are not the same tactics. Terrorism seeks to focus on and invoke the psychology of terror by victimizing and assaulting the "innocent". They rationalize this by claiming there is no innocent. This way, they can kill "representatives" of the opponent without really fighting the opponent. It would be like forfeiting a football game, only to tackle and thrash the cheerleaders of the other team, rationalizing that they're not innocent. It gives you the make believe boost you need to feel like you're actually fighting - when really you are a bottom feeding thug preying on the weak and relatively powerless. A freedom fighter, disregarding Carlin's brilliant observation on the phrase, doesn't rationalize killing the weak and powerless, but rather fights the fighters of the opposing side. Now, they may use similar strategies as terrorists, but they focus and aim their attacks on the opposing forces. I can agree or disagree with, and want to destroy or support a freedom fighter. I can never agree with a terrorist. His rationale is of no interest to me. Other than academically, as I'm interested in exploring the possibility of a scenario that would morally justify aiming specifically for civilians. I haven't discovered one yet.

That sounds exactly right to me. And I'm not entirely sure there is a cause worth employing terrorism to achieve. I'm not sure there is a realistic scenario that would make it morally acceptable.

Don't forget Israel. I suppose we'd protect Israel anyway, but I wonder how much of the religious angle contributes to our feirce support of them. Marriage really doesn't count since that's about legally recognizing a partnership, not about god. I'm really surprised we don't see more cases of fathers doing the dirty work for the executioners. I guess they've gotten good at preventing that sort of thing. I have a hard time imagining anything short of that resolution, no matter how impossible it may seem to pull off successfully.

Well, I can't support using the people's money as prizes for the private sector. No more than I can support using the people's money as R&D funding for profiteers. That said, this is certainly a far better idea than these never ending subsidy pits. Here, we're still utilizing competition, inspiring innovation, dynamic participation - all of which requires investment and results using private funding in order to get the prize. I do like that much better than essential unconditional funding.

Absolutely. In fact, didn't we bring this up in previous political discussions? It would seem that virtually any religious individual is in conflict between the interests of his/her god and his/her countrymen. In principle, it would suggest we should demand secular legislators, only, no matter the branch. Unless of course these individuals were willing to claim their country comes before their god. Otherwise, aren't we basically endorsing god over ourselves when we elect these religious devotees into office, or get appointed? We can't really pretend as if their doctrine doesn't enumerate god's reverence over ourselves.

Isn't that about as impressive as a creationist coming in here and laying down a one liner that evolution is bullshit? How does that really refute anything? Great lecture. I really enjoyed the comedy relief too, that was freaking hilarious. I just loved the whole "uh...when you're done pillaging, bombing and killing everyone - could we have our planet back?" So true.

Don't forget the paranoid...

I can't imagine anyone in the US not aware of George Carlin's passing. I remember listening to his albums, yes actual vinyl records, growing up. I caught every single HBO special and I even watched his sit-com, if anyone remembers that. I adored him and his humor from my early teens to the present. The same stupid shit that pissed him off, pisses me off too. It felt like he was vocalizing all of my complaints, and doing it humorously. I don't know why I started this thread. I guess I just wanted to know if anyone else had any particular appreciation for the fella. I was quite fond of the old dude.

If Israel exercises this last resort, I'm sure it will be considered an "illegal action", criticized to no end. Whereas, if they would just let the UN get them destroyed with their paper tiger ideology then at least they died legally.

Peak Oil Man, consider that the minimal advancement made in these markets is not a limitation of tech, but rather a limitation in the quantity of developers. You're talking about a market that has been essentially "asleep" due to the cheap access to oil based energy. There hasn't been that much attention. Now you're going to see a relative flood of development and innovation. Diversity and quantity will do us a great service to this end. Sorry you missed my point on the $500,000 did-it-himself green home. The point wasn't "Hey look, let's all buy $500,000 homes". The point was that one guy did it, using products available today, much of which wasn't even engineered specifically for this. He innovated and created an alternative energy solution - and he didn't use a factory. The obvious conclusion being: If one guy can do it with stuff we already make, just imagine what could be developed when a competing business makes the effort - with real money, infrastructure, and etc. The second point being: How does this kind of innovation get recognized and have a chance to compete with other ideas if you've decided to socialize the solution with government mandates and closed minded, archaic city planning techniques? Come on. Think outside of the box. You're going to plan a city around an energy solution? Isn't that the same mistake you're crying about with oil and gas? Exactly how many times are you going to repeat the same behavior with the same negative result? I'd rather think flexibly. I'd rather let the market weed out the stupid ideas from the smart ones. No need to "engineer" the whole freaking city with permanent structure, so we can all bitch about how stupid that was a hundred years from now when an even better energy solution comes around. Let's let the innovators have their chance and see what they come up with. Capitalism hasn't done squat with this market yet, so it's premature to make any predictions really of any kind. But hey, I see you've got your agenda all fixed up in your head and you've decided all other ideas will not work. I can't do anything with that.

Amen to that.

Yeah, interesting point there. Damn good really, because that's exactly where we're at: divided. We fractured them creating a moral dilemma that has fractured us. Too bad we won't learn that lesson. Or is that too pessimistic?

You know, I agree with all that. More careful intelligent approaches to future advancements, reverence to resources and quality of life and diversity of that life on this planet. My only contention is that we haven't let ourselves become this way, as we've always been this way. What we've never been, is intelligent and thoughtful enough to do otherwise - until now. I guess I just see it as mankind evolving yet more intelligently. This evolution seems to produce indictment of our past behavior, which rubs me the wrong way. Let's celebrate what we're becoming; that we're slowly, incrementally shedding our stupidity one issue at a time, one generation at at time, rather than to polarize the effort by using hindsight to punish our ancestors. There's really nothing observed in nature to suggest violence and resource exploitation are not bred into the bone of every living thing. That we recognize it, is precious, is advanced thinking. That we haven't recongized it before, is just a function of evolution. My two cents anyway. I have a tendency to be amazed that humans don't slaughter and pillage more than they do; that every decent thing done by a human had to overcome a hundred instinctive, nefarious impulses.

So another vote for business as usual huh? I don't suppose there's any hope of getting my countrymen to stop endorsing this low expectation on the highest office in the land. I'm not satisfied with either man becoming president, except that I wouldn't be depressed if it was McCain. Obama is starting to scare me now. He just seems like such a child next to McCain. This is a genuine flip-flop. Hell, even the libertarian candidate is a noted flip-flopper. It's going to be a long 4 years....

Ok, here's some exerpts from the article I was referencing. Like I said, I have a lot of respect for this media source as they seem quite genuine to their committment to objective strategic interpretation, without value judgement, of the world's nations. I've read several articles of theirs and I always walk away with too much to think about. Their knowledge base is impressive, whether or not you agree with their assessment. From Net Assessment: United States (December 31, 2007) They make their money off of membership, so this link is probably worthless. A friend of mine has access and he prints articles for me, otherwise I'd subscribe. So, the theme here seems to be keeping the groups fractured. I guess Saddam was doing that too, but not nearly at the same intensity. And of course, none of this acceptable to me. I understand the tendency to want to secure global hegemony, but I'm one of those that fears that pursuing that goal - in that way - has the very likely potential of polarizing a competing power into existence that otherwise may not have. AND, a competing power created out of need to counter the intrusive US will most surely be a hostile one to the US. Anyway, I said I'd follow up with a better explanation on the 'fracture' theory, so here it is. Just food for thought, if nothing else.