CCW

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505723
Alcohol, drugs and junk food will have their day in court. All you can do is address the challenge to the item at hand. And go...
It's already been discussed. The problem is that there are many people out there whom for whatever reason cannot understand the fact that there are clear differences between something like an Uzi vs an AR-15. It's like your argument that alcohol, drugs, cars or french fries have no reason in being compared to one another. There needs to be a more clear definition on what is chosen to be regulated and why it is being regulated.
You can't hunt with an Uzi like you can with an AR-15. It's pretty much getting a bad rap for being a popular weapon simply because it's fairly accurate and reliable. Though some parts are produced elsewhere it's pretty much considered an American gun. But by the time it's already legal for some of us to own it has already been castrated. The only way that most of us are able to even own one is if the "assault" has already literally been taken out of them. All we are able to do is dress them up a little bit to make it "look" tougher.
The argument against the capacity of how many bullets a magazine can hold is also a very slippery slope (at best). Because everyone knows that if you are every going to be terribly effective with a weapon then you have to first know how to use it. Somebody skilled with a hand gun could be equally deadly at close range than someone else with a legal AR-15 could be. Of course the hand gun is going to lose accuracy fast at greater distances. But still, I've seen no talk about banning those guns or other types of semi auto's. All you're really talking about doing is taking away the ones that "look real tough".
If any one is for an assault weapons ban then let them first go out and shoot some different guns so that they can have a much clearer understanding of what it is that they trying to make decisions on before they just go out and do it. Why doom ourselves to repeat history because we made rash decisions while we were still angry or hurt? Our nation, states, cities are all desperately hurting for resources as it is.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393837/ccw/80#post_3505724
Now they justify that 30-round weapon because they like to drop $25 to shoot some dangerous target in the time span of around 5 minutes (If they take their time to actually aim at that inanimate object). At least when I spend $25 on a bottle of Jack Black, that will last me at least a couple of months.
You really got me with that one...

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff
You should read the conventions. The requirement of following the rules of war is what grants combatants the protections.
So, a number of our presidents and secretaries of defence and state are, by this definition, war criminals.
I've read the conventions. Why do you think I'm citing them? There's nothing in them anywhere where it is said, "As a signatory, you are excused from the Conventions if your enemies (as determined by you and however pathetic) don't comply."

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505740
So, a number of our presidents and secretaries of defence and state are, by this definition, war criminals.
I've read the conventions. Why do you think I'm citing them? There's nothing in them anywhere where it is said, "As a signatory, you are excused from the Conventions if your enemies (as determined by you and however pathetic) don't comply."
You need to put down the crack pipe and re read them. To gain and retain the protection combatants must follow the rules of war.

 

[darthtang aw]

Define "need" any way you want. It doesn't even specifically have to use the word "need"... use want, desire or any other word you want... just do a real analysis... balance your right to have an assault weapon with the public interest in limiting their access. But the catch is that the court doesn't decide every issue in one case. Alcohol, drugs and junk food will have their day in court. All you can do is address the challenge to the item at hand. And go...
I am not against limiting access. Requiring a tax stamp I would be fine with. So if we are debating limiting access I am fine but banning them I am not. Which are we discussing?

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505742
You need to put down the crack pipe and re read them. To gain and retain the protection combatants must follow the rules of war.
Ad Hominem aside, let's assume I've interpreted the Conventions incorrectly.
So, let me get this straight. If, so called, enemy combatants violate the Conventions, then its ok to use Mustard Gas on them?
How 'bout depleted uranium?
How 'bout Zyklon B?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505814
Ad Hominem aside, let's assume I've interpreted the Conventions incorrectly.
So, let me get this straight. If, so called, enemy combatants violate the Conventions, then its ok to use Mustard Gas on them?
How 'bout depleted uranium?
How 'bout Zyklon B?
We have signed treaties that we will not produce, stockpile nor use chemical weapons. Different animal.
The Geneva Conventions SPECIFICALLY STATE what conditions must exist to be considered a prisoner of war in article 4. Islamic terrorists are not covered. The Iraqi troops we fought during gulf war 1 would have be. If you've read the conventions, as you claim you know full well there are conditions that must be followed to gain the status of prisoner of war. That is why we refer to the terrorist trash as enemy combatants. They don't follow the basic rules of war and therefor have no protection under the conventions.
That doesn't mean we should ooze down to their level but if we needs to use harsh interrogations where appropriate there is no reason not to.

 

[darthtang aw]

That doesn't mean we should ooze down to their level but if we needs to use harsh interrogations where appropriate there is no reason not to.
Rephrase this. There is no international law preventing it.

 

[uneverno]

Ok, so the determining factor for us then is that, because it is not prohibited under international law (ironic reference, but ok), it is therefore, allowed, correct?
Palestine, not being a recognized nation, is unable to be a signatory to the conventions. By that same logic, they are therefore, under no obligation to uphold them, correct?
"That doesn't mean we should ooze down to their level but if we needs to use harsh interrogations where appropriate there is no reason not to."
That's a double standard. We exonerate ourselves of something which we have agreed not to do - under the terms of a treaty - because others don't comply with the treaty. This despite the fact that they are unable to be signatories, specifically and precisely because we refuse them the opportunity.
Furthermore, define Islamic Terrorism.
Are the rebels of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, who started the Arab spring, terrorists?
What about the rebels of Syria?
How about those in Bahrain?
How about Yemen, Pakistan, etc.
Our definition of terrorism and terrorist organizations suspiciously follows our government's alliegiances far more closely than it does similiarities in ideology and common cause. The definition is, in other words, far more consistent with US interests, than it is with our rhetoric.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505907
Ok, so the determining factor for us then is that, because it is not prohibited under international law (ironic reference, but ok), it is therefore, allowed, correct?
Palestine, not being a recognized nation, is unable to be a signatory to the conventions. By that same logic, they are therefore, under no obligation to uphold them, correct?
Wrong. Had you read the conventions you would be aware of the provision that even a non signatory who adheres to the rules of the conventions are eligible for the protections. As long as fighters are in uniform or have a recognizable symbol to identify them, Are under the control of a commander, carries their arms openly etc. they are granted the protections.
"That doesn't mean we should ooze down to their level but if we needs to use harsh interrogations where appropriate there is no reason not to."
That's a double standard. We exonerate ourselves of something which we have agreed not to do - under the terms of a treaty - because others don't comply with the treaty. This despite the fact that they are unable to be signatories, specifically and precisely because we refuse them the opportunity.
Again, all they have to do is follow the rules.
Furthermore, define Islamic Terrorism.
Islamic terrorists are those who don't fight under the flag of any country and instead follow the radical interpretation of a religious belief. They purposely target civilians and don't adhere to the protections granted POW's under the conventions.
Are the rebels of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, who started the Arab spring, terrorists?
What about the rebels of Syria?
How about those in Bahrain?
How about Yemen, Pakistan, etc.
Some follow the rules of war, others don't.
Our definition of terrorism and terrorist organizations suspiciously follows our government's alliegiances far more closely than it does similiarities in ideology and common cause. The definition is, in other words, far more consistent with US interests, than it is with our rhetoric.
The whole idea of the conventions was to prevent POW's and civilians from being mistreated. If you want the protections for your people you must adhere to the rules yourself. Someone who purposely targets civilians is a terrorist, period. I really don't get the hug a terrorist attitude. I am not say we should line them up and shoot them but if the proper people think harsh interrogations are warranted have at it.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505928
The whole idea of the conventions was to prevent POW's and civilians from being mistreated. If you want the protections for your people you must adhere to the rules yourself. Someone who purposely targets civilians is a terrorist, period. I really don't get the hug a terrorist attitude. I am not say we should line them up and shoot them but if the proper people think harsh interrogations are warranted have at it.
Ok, let's talk about civilians then. The Iraqi civilians, subjected to our depleted Uranium radiation munitions were not to be afforded protection, why? The Iraqi army was uniformed. How do we justify having targeted their civilians?
Another part of the Conventions was to prevent wars of aggression. We invaded Iraq, why?
Yemeni civilians are also subject to US drone attacks. We're not even at war with them... I guess the conventions don't apply there, since nothing is official. Kinda like Laos, huh?
How about American citizens, specifically targeted, in the complete absence of due process? What of them?
And who are the "proper people" in whom you place so much trust? Do you trust them not to eventually target you or yours?

 

[uneverno]

I'm not attempting to be an apologist, I'm simply looking for logical constistency and failing to find it.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ok, let's talk about civilians then. The Iraqi civilians, subjected to our depleted Uranium radiation munitions were not to be afforded protection, why? The Iraqi army was uniformed. How do we justify having targeted their civilians?
 
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/du.html

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505967
Ok, let's talk about civilians then. The Iraqi civilians, subjected to our depleted Uranium radiation munitions were not to be afforded protection, why? The Iraqi army was uniformed. How do we justify having targeted their civilians?
Another part of the Conventions was to prevent wars of aggression. We invaded Iraq, why?
Yemeni civilians are also subject to US drone attacks. We're not even at war with them... I guess the conventions don't apply there, since nothing is official. Kinda like Laos, huh?
How about American citizens, specifically targeted, in the complete absence of due process? What of them?
And who are the "proper people" in whom you place so much trust? Do you trust them not to eventually target you or yours?
There is no ban of DU weapons I am aware of and the WHO has found none of the claimed effects.
We invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait. Iraq agreed to numerous conditions as part of the cease fire. They violated said conditions on numerous occasions. That gave us the right under international law.
Is the Yemen government protesting our attacks on AL Qaeda members in their country or working with us?
You mean the American citizens who make videos bragging of their terrorist acts and work with the terrorist group that attacked us on numerous occasions both within and outside the US? Citizens which are not in this country? I think it's wrong to vaporize them. I'd do a little power sander and blow torch work on them first. Thank God I am not in charge. I take attacks on women and little kids seriously. I don't think those people deserve a quick death. You notice those caught within this country are given their due process. Those fighting against the US on foreign soil don't have due process.
Proper people are those in the intelligence who have specialized knowledge and training in special interrogation techniques.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505972
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/du.html
"I am not claiming to be sure that DU is not harmful. We found out that even sugar kills, so it may well be that DU also kills. But, so far, I have seen no scientific or statistical evidence that DU is more dangerous than sugar, even if people routinely quote the "thousands" of civilians (usually, children) killed by DU-weapons."
Really?
You're going to claim that DU, because it is less radioactive than U235 or U238, there is some equivalence to be drawn to sugar?

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3505989
There is no ban of DU weapons I am aware of and the WHO has found none of the claimed effects.
We invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait. Iraq agreed to numerous conditions as part of the cease fire. They violated said conditions on numerous occasions. That gave us the right under international law.
Is the Yemen government protesting our attacks on AL Qaeda members in their country or working with us?
You mean the American citizens who make videos bragging of their terrorist acts and work with the terrorist group that attacked us on numerous occasions both within and outside the US? Citizens which are not in this country? I think it's wrong to vaporize them. I'd do a little power sander and blow torch work on them first. Thank God I am not in charge. I take attacks on women and little kids seriously. I don't think those people deserve a quick death. You notice those caught within this country are given their due process. Those fighting against the US on foreign soil don't have due process.
Proper people are those in the intelligence who have specialized knowledge and training in special interrogation techniques.
Ok, we're good on the DU thing.
You'll have no objection to us burying what we didn't use on your property then, right?

 

[darthtang aw]

W"I am not claiming to be sure that DU is not harmful. We found out that even sugar kills, so it may well be that DU also kills. But, so far, I have seen no scientific or statistical evidence that DU is more dangerous than sugar, even if people routinely quote the "thousands" of civilians (usually, children) killed by DU-weapons."
 
Really?
You're going to claim that DU, because it is less radioactive than U235 or U238, there is some equivalence to be drawn to sugar?
way to discount the rest of the article and scientific data.
Pssst, I didn't write it so I am not claiming anything.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3506086
Ok, we're good on the DU thing.
You'll have no objection to us burying what we didn't use on your property then, right?
If I am properly compensated. Besides in this area it isn't going to make a difference. We have enough naturally occurring radioactive material in the ground many houses have to have special vents to keep radon gas from building up. I guess we should sue mother nature.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393837/ccw/100#post_3506142
If I am properly compensated. Besides in this area it isn't going to make a difference. We have enough naturally occurring radioactive material in the ground many houses have to have special vents to keep radon gas from building up. I guess we should sue mother nature.
Tell that to the Iraqi civilians upon whom we unleashed the depleted uranium. Naturally occuring radioactive material argument is a red herring.
There's a huge difference between: "Stuff happens" and "We made stuff happen."
How are the Iraqi civilians in any way at fault for receiving our depleted uranium munitions and what level of compensation do you imagine can make up for it?
Please tell me what the proper compensation for your cancer and your children's birth defects is. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[darthtang aw]

Tell that to the Iraqi civilians upon whom we unleashed the depleted uranium. Naturally occuring radioactive material argument is a red herring. 
There's a huge difference between: "Stuff happens" and "We made stuff happen."
How are the Iraqi civilians in any way at fault for receiving our depleted uranium munitions and what level of compensation do you imagine can make up for it?
Please tell me what the proper compensation for your cancer and your children's birth defects is. I'm genuinely curious.
 
What reactions did they have to receiving our depleted uranium?