Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment...

[Al Agnew]

Yes this is off topic but, is kind of related. Having the right to bear arms allows us to defend our homes against foreign invasion which is what the terrorists would like to do.

The whole 'cost' argument is a matter of perspective. Yes the war is expensive but, what would it cost if we fought them here? The strategy is a very simple one that has been used for centuries. Attack them with a strong force on their home turf they have to pull their fighters in to defend their home turf and are hence are put in a position of defense rather than offense. Simple and effective and costs much less in infrastructure damage to our country.

The argument you use was also used in the 1930's when Hitler was taking over Europe and sinking our ships off shore here in America. The argument was Ohhh, the cost! and we don't need to get involved. Long story made short is history now tells us how much it cost to wait and deal with it later.

I have to disagree with you and anyone else who believes this argument. The argument is flat wrong.

The part of your argument that I don't buy is that by "fighting them there" we are precluding them from coming over here. If our enemy was and is Islamic radicals who are terrorists, there weren't any of them with any sort of ability to do harm to the U.S. in Iraq before we got rid of Saddam. Iraq was not "home territory". Yep, our government (and not just the Bush administration) believed Saddam to be a threat two ways--to Israel in the immediate future and thus a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and as a possible source of WMDs to terrorists. At least that's the original rationale for invading. If the intelligence was pretty solid, and not just a convenient rationalization for invading when the real reason was what I stated before (gaining a stable oil source for the future), I could support the invasion. When it was getting ready to happen, I thought, and hoped, that our government knew stuff we didn't and had good reasons for invading. I even think that, geopolitically, the oil justification made some sense. But we all know what has happened since. The thing I'm most disappointed in the Bush administration in this matter was the way they bungled the aftermath of the invasion and caused most of the problems we've had ever since.

I think we did the right thing invading Afghanistan. I'm not advocating staying home and burying our heads in the sand. I'm not even sure that getting everybody out of Iraq at this point is a good idea. But I'm pretty pessimistic that we're going to have a good outcome in Iraq. And I'm pretty sure that we're not keeping them from attacking us here by fighting them over there, given that the al Queda types are still a very minor part of the problem in Iraq. I simply don't buy that.

Your equating this attitude to the 1930s doesn't hold water. We are not facing a country that we can fight face to face. We are, in effect, facing a bunch of very loosely united multi-national groups. We aren't fighting those groups in Iraq, we're trying to fix a mess that, in large part, we made ourselves there, and getting little or nothing accomplished to fight the terrorists that threaten the U.S. In fact, it could easily be argued that we are making things worse. Our presence in Iraq is probably one of the best recruiting tools we could give the radicals, and I think we're making more committed enemies than we're killing, giving them a heck of a propaganda tool--not to mention replacing a government that was a pretty good counterbalance to Iran with one that is developing close ties to Iran.

[Trav]

I am not saying that there were not deceptions in our move on Iraq. I am saying we wanted a clear battle ground in wich we can fight over there instead of in a very difficult terrain such as Afghanistan. We needed a foot hold in the Mid east and the whole Saddam factor was a good excuse to set roots in the region. The Bush Admin will be looked at as aggressive and determined but I for one respect that and years from now the history books will say the same. If being a forceful adimate war time legislation after an attack on our own soil is wrong, so be it. At least we can be grateful that we didnt have a passive Clinton admin at the wheel when we needed a can of whoop arse!

Gonefishin was absolutley correct when he stated that hitler pulled us out of being an isolationist nation. And it was Japan that lit the fire under the arse of a giant!

If the key motivation on picking Iraq as "THE" battle ground was backed by oil then all the better. In time we will be compensated for our costs with Iaqi oil! Its a win-win! Call it a tyranny but I say it is cheaper to take what you need than to pay for it. What is the point of being the most powerful nation on the planet if you cant throw your weight around? I may think like a bully, but I always bring a gun to a knife fight! Work smarter not harder.

Sorry Al,

With all due respect, I think that our presence alone draws more of them to hit the hard target in Iraq than it does here at home. They are a bunch of organized cowards and fight with cheap shots. And lets not forget what I have said before...In Iraq we are close to Iran if they need a licking. and if we need to spank syria or Saudi we are close and dont need thier oil if we got all we need from Iraq!

Its a good thing I wasnt the leader of this nation. I would make sure there is a gun in every house and we would walk all over the world like we were building WalMarts!

[Al Agnew]

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, Trav. Everything I've heard and read about Iraq says that the al Queda terrorist types are a VERY small component of the problem we're having there. Mostly it's home-grown Iraqis that are either fighting each other as much as us, or trying to blow us up simply because we're in their country, with the Iranians egging them on and smuggling them weapons. Those people would never have attacked us at home. Like I said, I tend to see the point in invading Iraq geopolitically, but I don't think we're accomplishing a darn thing on the war on terror with our presence there now, instead making more enemies and wasting a lot of time, effort, money, and blood that could have been better used in concentrating on the real enemies. Afghanistan is getting to be more and more of a problem while we're concentrating on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but if we'd done things a lot better in the initial aftermath of the invasion, we probably wouldn't be having the problems there we have now.

I have no problem either with using our power, but I think we also have to realize its limitations. Every time we've fought a "limited" war or tried to do nation building, it hasn't worked out well. And like it or not, we do have to live with a hundred and some odd other nations because we can't bulldoze them all.

The "war on terror", which is a really stupid title for what is actually a war on Islamic radicals bent on hurting us any way they can with the eventual dream of making the whole world follow their medieval religion (with them in control), will not be won until so-called moderate Muslims all over the world get really serious about ostracizing and even actively fighting against those idiots. That ain't the way things are going now...we're making more of them radicals than there were before with our adventure in Iraq. We can't beat them all by ourselves, because we can't go in and bomb the heck out of every Islamic nation on earth--even though I wish we could. Make no mistake about it, this is largely a religious war. Unless we're willing to declare war on Islam, in the end it's a war of ideas. Being a bully doesn't win that kind of war. Don't get me wrong, I think we should seek out the radicals that are threatening us and kill them wherever we find them, but it has to be attacks specifically on THEM, or maybe on the leaders of nations that actively support them if we can show strong enough evidence that is the case.

[Trav]

Well,

As an Athiast, I can care less about thier beliefs. They are a threat, and if we could just paint a big line and dare then to cross it, I say lets rumble!

As scattered as they may be, we have to kill enough people that when it comes down to it they start purging themselves. If thats the way it has to be then so be it. Have to weed out the bad by killing some of the good!

[gonefishin]

Doesn't really matter what a person thinks either way. The fact is we went in to Iraq and the terrorists, if they weren't already there, quickly followed. The argument being made about the cost and it not working is simply a way to make a grab at power. Deep down everyone knows that on 911 things changed and we were going to have to spend money and people were going to be at risk. Anyone who says different is lying to not only their self but to the people they say the serve.

Read up on some military tactics. We gave then not one but two fronts to defend. In defending those fronts they have less manpower to create havoc elsewhere. Again it is very simple and very old military tactics. Not only did it force them into a defensive position we took away a lot of their financing and a prime location for them to work and train others to attack the US. Further it gave us a very strategic position to monitor and keep a close eye on other terrorist minded nations.

Somehow some people in this country think the US went to Iran just to be a bully or some such. That makes me breath hard. The US went there for good reason. Others argue that it is all George Bush doings. Hardly, the senate had to vote on it. Now some of them turn like a bunch of rabid wolves. I don't call it unpatriotic, I call it un-American.

I still think it is time to take a serious look at what the cost would be to our country if we hadn't took the fight to them.

Making things worse? I have no idea how a person figures that. There have been no terrorist attacks here in our homeland since we started. Looks like it is working to me.

My argument about the 1930's was twisted into something I did not say. I was talking about the people who wanted to not do anything, to not get involved. We didn't until we had no choice. History tells us how big of a mistake that was and that the cost of doing nothing was extremely high.

Of course what do I know I am just one of those uncouth, uneducated, unenlightened, backward, hillbilly, conservative types.

[jdmidwest]

Hey, they are going to start shooting people stealing gas at the dock in Taneycomo.

[Trav]

I just might since there is no law here on lower taney!

[gonefishin]

Works for me. Just shoot em' LOL

[ColdWaterFshr]

I have no problem with people owning guns. Zero, really. However, this country is full of a lot of crazy people. And its also full of a lot of too-easy-to-get GUNS. Bad combination. The Framers could have never envisioned our population as chock-full of illiterate lunatics such as we have now.

I went on a day float a couple weeks ago on a certain river in Franklin county and at times I was afraid for my life. I've never heard so many gunshots going off and at close range. Semi-auto, fully auto, LARGE-caliber stuff, literally for miles down the river, so it wasn't just an isolated yay-hoo or two. I swore that it must've been KKK militia training day in Franklin county.

At some point, and it ain't going to happen overnight, but we gotta start somewhere and get a handle on all the loose and widely available guns. If you gotta take your car in and register and tag it every year, or every other year, why not the same with guns? I hate to add more bureaucracy to our government, and they would surely make a mess of it, but it really should be JUST AS BIG OF A PAIN IN THE ARSE to own a gun as it is to own a car. If having one is that important to you, you won't mind jumping through the hoops.

Then, if you get caught with a gun you don't have properly licensed . . . you lose it forever, simple as that. To buy odd-caliber ammo for your AK's and AR's, you gotta slap your license down on the counter to buy them. It would take many years, but we gotta start somewhere. Eventually, eventually, the illegal supply of street guns would tighten up. When the NRA crowd has problems with this type of stuff --- they lose all credibility with me. Too many kids and innocent people getting shot up for no good reason.

Lets face it, we're all just a bunch of monkeys with money and guns!

[bigredbirdfan]

I have no problem with people owning guns. Zero, really. However, this country is full of a lot of crazy people. And its also full of a lot of too-easy-to-get GUNS. Bad combination. The Framers could have never envisioned our population as chock-full of illiterate lunatics such as we have now.

I went on a day float a couple weeks ago on a certain river in Franklin county and at times I was afraid for my life. I've never heard so many gunshots going off and at close range. Semi-auto, fully auto, LARGE-caliber stuff, literally for miles down the river, so it wasn't just an isolated yay-hoo or two. I swore that it must've been KKK militia training day in Franklin county.

At some point, and it ain't going to happen overnight, but we gotta start somewhere and get a handle on all the loose and widely available guns. If you gotta take your car in and register and tag it every year, or every other year, why not the same with guns? I hate to add more bureaucracy to our government, and they would surely make a mess of it, but it really should be JUST AS BIG OF A PAIN IN THE ARSE to own a gun as it is to own a car. If having one is that important to you, you won't mind jumping through the hoops.

Then, if you get caught with a gun you don't have properly licensed . . . you lose it forever, simple as that. To buy odd-caliber ammo for your AK's and AR's, you gotta slap your license down on the counter to buy them. It would take many years, but we gotta start somewhere. Eventually, eventually, the illegal supply of street guns would tighten up. When the NRA crowd has problems with this type of stuff --- they lose all credibility with me. Too many kids and innocent people getting shot up for no good reason.

Lets face it, we're all just a bunch of monkeys with money and guns!

Have you bought a gun lately?

I have. Bought one to go duck hunting last January. Had to go through a Federal Background check. Did such a through job I never got my gun in time to hunt. Seem restrictive enought to you? A law abiding citizen wanting a new gun to hunt with but didn't get one. I have had enough of my freedom eroded in this country in the name of "common good."

This is the same liberal B.S. that all do gooder liberals think. Pretty soon the only ones left with guns are the criminals you refer to. This country is headed down a terrible path of control and less freedom and my friends if it is not stopped soon there will be no reversal of it.

I will agree with you on criminals with guns. There is the control you so desperatley seek. They are the ones that should be in jail if they are caught with guns.

As far as discharging firearms of any kind they are within the law and I would guess not a whole lot of crime in those parts either.