Does he cry fake tears for them?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Go ahead and side with the racist John. He needs all the love he can get and as for me well.. I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!:

Oh my, we have a celebrity on board . Is it Stuie or Al? Now I know where you get your psychiatric talent...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

2). The second amendment as a way for the people to defend themselves against the federal government has been woefully obsolete (antiquated?) for decades.

Dave, that was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was for the defense of the government in the absence of army. It was also, frankly, to gain support from the southern states where there was a real fear of slave rebellions. The militia in the south those days was, among other things, charged with controlling the slave population and also apprehending and returning runaways.

John

[hatrack71]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Dave, that was never the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was for the defense of the government in the absence of army. It was also, frankly, to gain support from the southern states where there was a real fear of slave rebellions. The militia in the south those days was, among other things, charged with controlling the slave population and also apprehending and returning runaways.

John

Bullshit!

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

first time i've heard the 2nd ammendment was for slave rebbellion. Do you have a source for that?

I have a bogus source. Prof. Carl Bogus, that is.

John

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

I don't even know where to start with this. As soon as some federal court enforces some gun laws on the basis that the 2nd ammendment is based on a now unnessessary requirement to suppress slave rebellion i'll pay it more head.

I do appreciate you sharing the link. Thank You.

Give it a try. It's fascinating subject and a fascinating conclusion on the part of Prof. Bogus. It might make for an interesting subject.

Here's a link to the whole paper - if you're brave enough.

I don't think I am.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Ok Dave, here is your chance to win me over then. I'm no Ideologue so help me out. Can you point to the legal basis that allows the president to kill us citizens without trail? Can you site any examples of this occurring in history beyond recent events? To be clear I'm asking about targeting specific individuals not as a result of collateral damage.

The Civil War?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Ok Dave, here is your chance to win me over then. I'm no Ideologue so help me out. Can you point to the legal basis that allows the president to kill us citizens without trail? Can you site any examples of this occurring in history beyond recent events? To be clear I'm asking about targeting specific individuals not as a result of collateral damage.

With trail, without...........

"Legal basis"? What legal basis did Hoover and MacArthur use to force the "Bonus Army" out of DC? What legal basis did the Reagan Administration use to allow South & Central Americans to peddle cocaine in American cities? (Iran -Contra) What legal basis was used to justify the Tuskeegee Experiments? What legal basis was used to justify the "Trail of Tears" or the forced internment of Japanese Americans during WW2..................Shall I go on?

That's the whole point. Legal basis, or none, these things happen anyways. Always have, and sadly, I suspect they always will. Abolish this government and the new one will pick up where the old one left off. They'll just have a more or less creative way of justifying or covering up.

Regards,
Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

I have to say dave each of those are unique cases with unique circumstances. It sounds to me like your acknowleging that obama has no legal basis for what he is doing. You also didn't cite any examples of other presidents targeting individual civilians for death.

Further... highlighting those cases you point out drives home the fact that any government and including this government can and has in the past turned repressive.

This actually bolsters the case for not watering down the 2nd ammendment in my view.

In this new way of war - terrorism - how does one define a civilian? If one is a ranking official in an organization that has sworn to destroy the US, does that person really come within the definition of a civilian? Is such an individual closer to an enemy combatant? What is the difference between making a target of a military command center, and targeting leaders of an organization that fights its war by killing indiscriminately? Opposing military forces are not fired upon because they have committed a crime, are they?

These questions aren't just rhetorical. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of targeted killings, but I also felt little remorse in the manner in which Osama Bin Laden met his end.

I have heard the argument that organizations like Al Qaeda are more akin to a criminal enterprise, and it has some appeal to it. But I also see a distinction. A criminal organization might engage in violence in order to protect the profit from its criminal enterprise. It seems like the terrorist organizations engage in criminal activity in order to finance their campaign of violence. The lines are significantly blurred. How much process is due to anyone who engages in an organization that indiscriminately kills people in order to advance some warped religio/political aim. Does it make a difference that such leaders are beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement action?

These aren't easy questions - and I don't think that they can be answered in absolutist terms.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Those are all great quesitons D-Ray.. now add to the mix the person being a us citizen.

I am a U.S. citizen but if I went about advocating the murder of other citizens and or government officials I imagine that it would probably take less than 24 hours before my citizenship would be revoked, and rightly so IMO.

[hatrack71]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I am a U.S. citizen but if I went about advocating the murder of other citizens and or government officials I imagine that it would probably take less than 24 hours before my citizenship would be revoked, and rightly so IMO.

Really? I see a lot of folks who fit that profile who are seemingly immune to prosecution of any kind. Most of them being politicians and Federal employee/apointees. Oh, but they don't count right. Just like you guys and your one sided forum IS ALWAYS right.