HopefulFuture

I can because I believed and have always stated that Bush and his henchmen should have been tried for war crimes. Go look back at my posts on it. I'm give them no pass. I've openly stated the government is screwed, and I've stated it's the 2 party system and it's control of the political spectrum that's been the largest part of that screwing. But I also lay it out to the citizens themselves, since we are the ones that keep putting idiots like this in office.

Well, I will say this, if one of those 5 individuals released kills an american, citizen or soldier, I'd sure like to hear what you have to say to that family. "Oh, sorry, we were just treating them humanely". I doubt the family of the deceased would disagree with the fact that this president played on the Gitmo subject in 2008, then kept it open only to use it again in 2012. All the while calling conservatives out for supporting the prison, during both campaigns I might add. And that support base of Obama is what? Conservative? I'm calling a spade a spade on this one, you don't have to like it.

Yes, it was a poor attempt at humor, no biggy though, I've been called a libertarian radical. It should just roll off ones shoulder.

That's the core of what I was pointing out. We don't know, and won't know, in my opinion in any event, until an incident takes place in some cases. That's why I pointed out you'd have to use a broad stroke to try and cripple it, and even then, you won't kill it off, even if every man and woman in america dawns a uniform. Hence my comment that this struggle will go on for generations. I don't agree with releasing the 5 individuals, but I also didn't agree with Gitmo. I would have preferred they allowed their respective nations to deal with them. But what's done is done.

Yes, I am aware those events took place, once again, why should I and millions of my fellow citizens be held accountable for their actions? And I haven't touched alcohol this weekend. I don't do drugs, of any kind. But, I can appreciate those that attempt to attack when there is nothing left to add.

Why? Because I said it's us or them? I think some people here don't fully understand the struggle we are locked in. As I said, this war is going to be going on for generations. Unless this nation is willing to go all in, Americans will continue to die, both at home and abroad. This is a struggle of ideology and power and you can bet it's a fight to the finish.

Yes it was. But in this very thread, I pointed out inner city gun violence while discussing the 2nd amendment and GCoE made an attempt to go in that direction. Since the numbers on gun violence in recent studies showed they were skewed by the amount in those areas. To me it's an attempt to side track the conversation.

Well, good for you for being a patriot, now you can you point out where I ever stated that inhumane treatment was something I accepted? And as for your humane treatment is what we do here bit, I'm calling bs. If you believe that for one second you live in a vacuum. The fact is inhumane treatment, yes, in this very country, is done by citizens and the government itself from time to time. Not that, once again, I condone it, but the fact remains it does happen. How about 4 NYC police officers sticking a broom handle up an inmates rectum a few years back, yea, government muscle, real humane, and the list can go on. Yea, I'm the real problem in this country. People like me who demand responsibility and accountability from it's citizens and for it's government to follow the Constitution, since, ya know, it's THE LAW OF THE LAND! But hey, your right, people like myself are the REAL PROBLEM when it comes to challenging YOUR VISION of the nation. :doh:

It was a quip, that's all. Not meant to be serious since it's not who I am to begin with. As I've stated repeatedly I don't really care if it's left, right or center.

I can relate to this sentiment, the only problem I see with it is that these are foreigners detained on the battle field on foreign soil, as such, they are not subjected to the Constitution. The fact is they are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention, which apply to the rules of war, I do not know of a time in American history where enemy combatants were given rights under the United States Constitution. - John McCain (July 2009) You can look it up, but McCain is correct. Even German POW's held on American soil in POW camps here were not entitled nor were they extended rights under the Constitution.

I agree. Surprised? While I can concur with your thoughts on this, I can think of another way it could have been approached. Instead of putting them in Gitmo to begin with, they could have kept them on Afghan soil and when the time was right, have the Afghans try them in their system. The same end result would have occured (the release in time of the prisoners) and it would have saved our nation some of the embarrassing hassle over the past dozen or so years. As to putting them in the US justice system, it was never going to happen due to the techniques used to garner information from those that really had it such as KSM. In those cases I see no problem with summary executions for war crimes (the killing of civilians for instance) as soon as the interrogations were complete. Then again, the allies carpet bombed in WW2 (once again, the killing of civilians) and I'm sure someone will point this out, but in the end I'll cut that off at the knees by stating that both Japan and Germany's populations were active participants in an effort at global domination and as such were subject to the rules of engagement on a strategic scale where the effort was to defend the free world. That's not the case in either Al-Qaeda nor the Taliban's case. In this case AQ was the aggressor and the Taliban (who by the way was not the governing body of Afghanistan, they controlled a portion, not all of that country) were willing participants by sheltering a group such as this. In short, indirectly they were participants as well. So, with all of that said, how should we have treated them? Under what context do they fall? 911 was an act of war, of that no one can dispute. The stated goal of AQ was to destroy America. Ok, so we treat them as prisoners of war. Now what? Just because this US president is pulling us out of Afghanistan doesn't mean the war is over, not by a long shot. Anyone who attempts to use that logical is just not thinking clearly. Will they magically stop trying to attack the homeland or kill Americans abroad? I don't buy that for a moment and anyone who attempts to state such I'd ask them what they're smoking. The war is not over, we may have killed Bin Ladin, but that means very little to those future Americans who are sure to perish at the hands of this enemy. So what is the correct way? Well, intelligence on this part of the world was known to an extent on that Pakistan/Afghanistan border region. Nothing short of a draft, call up every able bodied american, male and female and invade that area will cripple their efforts to a large extent and even then they would still have other heads of the monster in other countries. You'd have to hunt down every one of them and kill millions to stop them. And so the battle will rage for generations. Bringing us back to the POW or criminal status. Well, I'll be honest if you choose not to I understand. I say if it's us or them in a fight to the finish, I choose us. Really? Hmmmm..........where were you when the race baiting was ongiong? Or are you selective in the quips you respond to?

Well, I knew a comment like that would draw a response, kind of like race baiting does. Putting aside the jesters for a moment, this was a poor decision if one American life is lost either directly or indirectly by these released prisoners. While I realize keeping Gitmo was not practical, releasing these individuals seems to put additional unnecessary risk on Americans.

No surprises here. This president said he was going to shut down Gitmo. Whether or not American civilians or soldiers are adversely affected by that goal he doesn't give a dam about. He's a liberal, what did you expect, he does not have the nations best interest at heart, I've yet to meet a liberal that has.

This deal was bad. 1 of those guys has already stated he's going to continue the fight against our brothers and sisters in arms. Not to mention it most likely increases the threat to the homeland. Just a bad deal. A sniper should take that guy out right away.

I'd like to see Buffalo leak out that they are leaning Ekblad. Use it as leverage with an Edmonton deal. I'd like Yak, but they'd probably dangle Eberle. Not sure though. Wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd overall and Ehrhoff for 3rd overall and Eberle. But, like I said, I'd prefer Yakopuv.

Hehe, I see it's thread after thread of the Al Sharptons coming out. I believe there's an open slot on MSNBC........... :lol:

I know what your saying. I guess it all comes down to what you point out right here. Being around fire arms since I can't remember, it's naturally for me to accept it, even from strangers. Which is why I was bringing up the "product of our environment" topic in the discussion. I'm not the best at trying to use examples, or, at least wording them, so it took awhile before someone posted on this, which was you. Thank you for doing so. I don't have an answer to those fears though. I can't say for sure people wouldn't react differently if they were subjected to a life time of fire arm exposure. I only know that when taught correctly from a young age on about a code of morals that include responsibility and accountability it does make a difference. Take me for example. I've openly stated that I'm a child of rape, however, I was raised from a very young age on by a mother and step-father who not only taught me those values, but did so by examples with their own lives. I know it's made a large difference for me, and personally, I'm thankful for it. I can't sit here and tell people though that if every single individual was taught the same that they would abide by it, because I don't believe that for a second. But surely it makes an incredible difference overall, just my opinion though, I have no scientific data to back that up, just what I've seen in my life time.

I can't speak to situations I haven't personally encountered. So when you bring up the "freak other people out" factor, since I've been around open carry situations, it was more often than not the norm in those instances to see individual citizens holstering side arms. I'm not indifferent to your view however, as weave points out in his post I've cited below, your around people with fire arms more often than you know. I can't quote numbers I don't have, and I don't have the numbers on concealed permits in Erie or any other county. I don't prefer concealed to open carry laws though, It just doesn't matter to me. The only thing that concerns me about the fire arms themselves, when being carried, is the individual's personal responsibility and accountability while carrying a fire arm.

My response was not snark, it merely hit to the core of the counter-point for you with some humor, take it for what it's worth. I'm fairly equitable in this conversation. I'm open to hearing the counter-points to my view of this issue, but as I've stated early on, I would willingly give my only life to defend my rights, for it's been instilled upon myself from youth on that freedoms aren't free. And everything I've seen happen in my adult life only lends itself to that view. Once again, common sense should prevail in your examples. If I were to see an individual carrying a side arm properly holstered and secure in an area where open carry is the law, I would not feel threatened in the least. If however I see an individual brandishing that fire arm in a threatening fashion, whether it be hand gun, shot gun or rifle, then yes, sure I'd feel threatened. There is an invariable difference between the two. As for not knowing who I am, that is not necessary when a citizen is "obeying" the law. As I posted a video of the Portland, Maine open carry stop by law enforcement a little ways back up in this thread. It would appear your fears in that case aren't warranted, and there are thousands of cases just like that each year. EDIT: Oh, and as to your statement on who should own a fire arm, I don't agree. I've stated my reasons why throughout the conversation, so we'll just amiably agree to disagree on that.

What common sense? Where does the reasoning of that derive from? Do you believe if I strap a side arm on in open carry fashion that somehow I'm going to magically lean more toward the usage of that fire arm in a college campus setting? If so, what reasoning do you have that I will do so? Is there some magic bean I eat that takes me down that road? With that said, I do agree with the Supreme Court that there are rules that can be put in place for public safety reasons, but the mere carrying of a fire arm is not one of them. For example, if you are in a drinking environment, let's say a bar/tavern, then yes, you should be responsible and house your fire arm in an appropriately locked location. Having immediate access to a fire arm while under the influence is not a wise situation. But then again, that is "common sense" and should fall under both the responsibility and accountability by an individual subject matter. I won't say your comment is dumb, as that adds no value to the discussion, it only breeds discontent in it. I believe the statement you made is ill conceived however, no matter the good intentions behind it. Once again, it all comes down to responsibility and accountability. No matter how you slice it, dice it, cut it, chop it up, only you, as an individual, are responsible and accountable for your own actions.

Exactly Swamp. Just because I pointed out the founders stated these were god given rights, they attack. It's an avoidance of the core discussion at hand. The 2nd amendment, as I pointed out, gives me the right as an individual (in accordance with the Supreme Court, not a militia standing army as some contend) to bare arms. I see this discussion, as it always has, going nowhere fast and actually quickly degenerating into a he said she said type scenario. No matter the material from the past 5 to 10 pages, let's return to the core conversation, which is gun laws. And once again, I point out that responsibility and accountability are more than absent in every instance of gun violence, but the numbers are small in comparison to the size of the population. So I should have one my core rights removed because of the actions of others? No common sense in that notion, none at all. EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget that I was actually on the verge of being called a racist in those 5 to 10 pages. My wife would already like to have choice words on that one.

Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. Nehemiah 4 17 Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon. 18 As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built, whilethe trumpeter stood near me. ... 21So we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared. ....23 So neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me, none of us removed our clothes, each took his weapon even to the water. Esther 8:11-12 11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives -- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions.. Esther 9:1-5 ...the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them. 2 The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could withstand them, because fear of them fell upon all people....5 Thus the Jews defeated all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, with slaughter and destruction, Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him. Oh, and here is the complete verse you fail to post. In there full context, you can see Jesus is telling Peter to sheath the sword, a sword which Peter carried all the while with Jesus on his travels, because he knows his destiny is going to be to die for the sin of all man. Let's not try and half ass a response like a liberal does in an effort to skew what is actually written and more than widely accepted on this matter. Try as you might, Jesus never once tells Peter to turn away from the sword from the very outset. Instead, Peter carries his sword through his entire journey with Jesus. Luke 22:49-53 (NAS) 49 And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50 And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. 52 And Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber? 53 "While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours." Matthew 26:51-56 51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." John 18:10-11 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

I haven't read the gospil's where in they state "thou shall not own a tool". Please, enlighten me as to where this is stated in the King James version of the Bible. I'll sit here and wait for the factual writings on this, that will inevitably never come. Typical liberal, attack what you obviously do not understand and attempt to use criticizing statements with no real substance behind it to such an end.

No, in post #6889 I clearly state I do not believe this at all. As I stated in that post, I am not one of those that subscribes to the "I was born this way" mentalities. What I was questioning was a comment made just after my post there on the European situation within post #6892. I was pointing out that unlike that scenario, the African American community by and large in the US has been here for generations, and hence shares many of the same moral codes handed down through generations. In short, I was asking if there was another reason outside of the immigration or social economic patterns which we see in high density low income communities. Which I might add, not all of that violence is committed by those economically challenged. As I questioned earlier with gun violence data we do have, those that oppose the 2nd amendment don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on when only utilizing the mass shooting situations. While tragic and completely unnecessary, they aren't even 2% of overall gun violence, that honor goes to the use of firearms in large population centers in almost entirely 1 on 1 crimes. Gangbangers, individuals with axes to grind, just felt like waking up and killing someone I hate, I'm sure there are more scenario's in these circumstances. But the point is every time one of these mass shootings come up the anti-gunners come out. Where are they to try and stop the violence that dominates the gun culture in prominently inner-city settings? Edit: And before anyone goes the racial route with me, let me be perfectly clear here, my wife is Japanese and my children are as well. I don't play that game. So notice is given on that end right now. Just for clarity sake.

You don't like the definition given by the founders, you can take it up with them in the after-life. I subscribe to it, as I happen to be a man of faith. While I agree with this, the question many find themselves asking here is whether it is bred into their very being. Not just cultural, but an identity, if you will, of whom they are. After all, most African Americans are generations in to the fabric now. When does that violence end? At what point do they become civilized as humans go, or at least, the definition we are hinting at? I have to admit nfreeman, It appears, at least to me in any event, that social economic factors do play a very heavy role in this. And yet, no matter how many programs are instituted to combat this, the numbers are getting worse, not better.