History Repeats itself if you don't learn

[insertNameHere]

Protege, are you referring to black Friday in 1929 I believe, when the stock market crashed?

[protege]

Protege, are you referring to black Friday in 1929 I believe, when the stock market crashed?

Nope, Pearl Harbor. Interesting guess though. Like 9/11, the threat of the aggressor was underestimated at the time. It was felt that the Japanese pilots couldn't reach Hawaii. From what I understand, it was known that something was going to happen, but the reports were ignored. Something similar happened when 9/11 happened--there were reports of possible terrorist actions, but these (including the embassy attacks in Africa) were ignored by the previous regime, and the then-current Bush one...according to the Wall Street Journal.

Anyway, then 9/11 happened, and the shit hit the fan. When I said it was a "perfect" operation, I mean it. Until the planes hit the towers, it was just like any other day. The weather was fine, the drive to the office was OK, and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Little did I know what was about to happen. What I'm trying to say, is that we got complacent. Terrorism didn't happen here, in other words.

[insertNameHere]

Well we were supposed to get a warning from the Japanese Embassy before the attack, declaring war. However, they sucked at decoding messages. Actually we did have some people who decoded the message and nobody wanted to listen to them.
A lot of it falls into hind sight is 20/20 when you look back and what went wrong and what could have been done to correct it

[bara]

Keep in mind folks... Everytime a freedom is stripped away, no matter how small or trivial it may seem, it is a win for those who are after all of our freedoms. History proves this time and again. In every case that I am aware of freedoms were taken away slowly at first and then with a greater frequency until nothing could be done to stop it. Every chip taken out of a stone makes it weaker.

[insertNameHere]

Keep in mind folks... Everytime a freedom is stripped away, no matter how small or trivial it may seem, it is a win for those who are after all of our freedoms. History proves this time and again. In every case that I am aware of freedoms were taken away slowly at first and then with a greater frequency until nothing could be done to stop it. Every chip taken out of a stone makes it weaker.

And this is why I believe the 2nd amendment is for having weapons with as much firepower as you care to pay for. Screw Commifornia Legal AR-15s that have a fixed 10rd magazine.

The more rights you let become regulated, the more useless they become, and once you let the precedence be set and keep following, it is damn near impossible to get your rights back.

Believe me the terrorists have won when you can't have a real knife at an airport restaurant to eat a steak. When our service members can't board the airplane with a pair a nail clippers, but get an M16.

[Greenday]

Yea! I should have the rights to rape, murder and privledge! After all, taking those away from me means the other side wins, right?

God forbid you can't do whatever the hell out want at the expense of others.

/sarcasm

[MadMike]

God forbid you can't do whatever the hell out want at the expense of others.

Sounds like a politician to me.

[FArchivist]

And this is why I believe the 2nd amendment is for having weapons with as much firepower as you care to pay for. Screw Commifornia Legal AR-15s that have a fixed 10rd magazine.

By that logic, it should be legal for me to have a nuclear arsenal. Or biological weapons. Or mustard gas. Mustard gas is a FAR better deterrent then bullets, y'know.

And yes, before you argue that I'm being extreme, I HAVE had 2nd Amendment proponents argue that we should be able to legally own private nukes.

[protege]

And yes, before you argue that I'm being extreme, I HAVE had 2nd Amendment proponents argue that we should be able to legally own private nukes.

I'm not sure me having a nuke would be a good idea. I'd be too tempted to use it

[BlaqueKatt]

By that logic, it should be legal for me to have a nuclear arsenal. Or biological weapons. Or mustard gas. Mustard gas is a FAR better deterrent then bullets, y'know.

And yes, before you argue that I'm being extreme, I HAVE had 2nd Amendment proponents argue that we should be able to legally own private nukes.

sigh-every group has it's extremists

[Andara Bledin]

And yes, before you argue that I'm being extreme, I HAVE had 2nd Amendment proponents argue that we should be able to legally own private nukes.

This is a straw man, not a defense.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

But that must be an abberation, right? It couldn't happen more than once, could it? And that answer to that is, of course it can. It was not a fluke - it has happened since.

^-.-^

and happened again today

Yea! I should have the rights to rape, murder and privledge! After all, taking those away from me means the other side wins, right?

God forbid you can't do whatever the hell out want at the expense of others.

"doing whatever the hell you want" is NOT in the bill of rights, neither is rape or murder, as those infringe on the rights of others.

bill of rights-simple version

[insertNameHere]

I also want to point out that the reason the Japanese did not want to invade America is because of our 2nd Amendment,

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." is a quote by Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. Of course it was originally stated in Japanese, this is the English translation.

like FArchivist said, every opinion has extremists but you have to also consider the founding fathers of America were considered traitors by the British government, and wanted to leave the American people a legal way to have guns, in case there was ever a need to over throw the newly formed government. sure personal nukes are a bit extreme, but of course How the hell do you expect to take a mad scientist seriously if he doesn't have at least one Doom's day device. (that last bit is sarcasm)

[BlaqueKatt]

and just to add:
filling out the correct forms, and getting the correct tax stamps from the ATF(if-and that's a big if- the forms are submitted and approved), a private citizen can own almost any piece of military hardware. However; there are limitations, and some are only legal to own as "display pieces"-meaning rendered unuseable, and unable to be restored to use. You can own a sherman tank, however the military will not sell you ammunition for it.

Just because you can own something, doesn't mean you can legally use it, or have all the stuff to legally use it(a nuclear warhead requires a propulsion system, and a launching silo, plus detonator). I can legally own a car or a motorcycle, but because I don't have a driver's license I cannot legally operate it, and I have owned two vehicles that I never operated.

[wolfie]

By that logic, it should be legal for me to have a nuclear arsenal. Or biological weapons. Or mustard gas. Mustard gas is a FAR better deterrent then bullets, y'know.

And yes, before you argue that I'm being extreme, I HAVE had 2nd Amendment proponents argue that we should be able to legally own private nukes.

There is precedent. In the U.S., up to the time of the Civil War, some regiments were raised and outfitted, not from the government budget, but by wealthy individuals (who would then command the regiment in combat). In the early years, a large part of America's floating firepower consisted of privateers - privately owned warships with government permission to go after the enemy's maritime commerce (and keep the booty as their payment). There were even a few civilians fighting on the battlefield in the Civil War - some guy named Gatling was making a sales pitch for his new rapid-fire weapon.

Note that the Second Ammendment is about the "right to keep and bear arms", not the "right to keep and bear small arms", with "small arms" being the technical term for weapons designed to be used by an individual. If Bill Gates wants an Iowa-class yacht, why the heck shouldn't he be allowed to hire a shipyard to build one?