SkyDekker

Really, how many official languages are there? It was mandatory for me to take 6 languages in high school. How many are offered in US High Schools, never mind how many of those are mandatory. The whole point is that so little people are aware of the world outside of the US and that it can create problems. Learning the language is the first step in learning some of that culture.

Well, thank god they had access to guns then.

And how many kids would they have killed without guns?

Not completely true. But funny enough it was the British who created the monarchy in Iraq. They did not succeed in putting a viable democracy in place (which a monarchy can be), why do the americans think they can do it now?

Your trading partners, your enemies, those you are trying to resolve conflict with among many others. Learning a language is a great step in learning more about the culture you are dealing with. This whole issue of only thinking within the boundries of your own country is exactly what this article addresses.

Great, so you would have no trouble going back to that? That also means not being allowed to transport weapons and no target practice. And, when there was a democracy, no guns kept it there. Nor did guns facilitate the process, help create a democracy, kept anyone safe or free.

Actually the ruling now is that they are allowed to own small arms, yet they are only allowed to keep them in their home or their place of business. They are not allowed to carry them anywhere. Maybe that is a good compromise for the US itself.

I am sure you will dispute this as proof, ut i have some work to do. it is clear that gun ownership was veyr much a part of the Iraqi culture, which makes it pretty damn unlikely that it was restricted. As a matter of fact, Saddam used to give guns for free to citizens. "Coalition forces are making a concerted effort to strip the country of its small-arms cache, but they face a Herculean task. The country has an entrenched culture of gun ownership. “Give everything to your friend,” an old Iraqi saying runs, “except your car, your wife, and your gun.” Given the complete breakdown in law and order following the collapse of the Hussein regime, Iraqis are particularly reluctant to give up their weapons now." from: http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1200.cfm exactly and the fact that almost every Iraqi owned a gun did not prevent a tyraniccal leader coming to power. The same holds for Afghanistan.

very true

That still doesn't answer the question. Turtle, you were harping about the basics. It is a pretty basic question.

***Imagine it this way, the little blue cross on the pregnancy test is Pro American The little pink Dash is Anti-American. If you were to take the test, would you have a plus sign or a minus sign. I know it's difficult, but I think you can do it. *** Actually, even the pregnancy test has an option called inconclusive. Once again, life isn't that simple, but now I know I can't ask you to try and grasp that. What if my feelings regarding the US are neutral. You tell me, does that make me pro or anti?

And then it can be terminal or not, treatable or not, all different kinds of treatment and all different kinds of cancer. pretty complex, I guess I can't ask you to try and grasp it.

That is the most laughable statement I have reda in a while. Dr.: Sir, you have cancer Patient: Ohh no Dr.: but fear not, you only have it if you want to, if you don't want to, you wont have it

Guns do not guarantee freedom though. The underlying thought behind the 2nd amendmend is not correct in my opinion. Try to follow me with a somewhat open mind. Your argument is that your right to carry arms is what keeps you free and is a sufficient deterrent to the goverment not turning on its citizens. However, we will never know what would have happened if the US citizens did not have the right to bear arms. We don't know if the US government would have turned on their government. We do have documented cases of the opposite. Namely Iraq. Saddam Hussein never restricted Iraqis when it came to the ownership of weapons. Iraqis were free to own guns and rifles and many certainly did. Yet, we can all agree that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical leader, who completely dominated his subjects. We can all agree that Iraqis did not have many freedoms and it certainly was not a democracy. Now the US invades Iraq. I won't go into the reasons since that is a whole different argument. The US gets rid of Saddam and starts trying to build a democracy and giving Iraqis their freedom. What do they do, the tell Iraqis to hand in all their weapons. They completely restrict the ownership of firearms. They see it as a deterrent to the establishment of democracy and a hindrance to the establishment of freedoms of the Iraqis. It is the complete opposite of the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment. It also proves that it wasn't that difficult for a tyrannical leader to get to power while the citizens are armed. It did not provide any freedoms to the Iraqis and now the US is saying that they have to hand in their weapons to establish freedom and democracy. Your own government is saying the thoughts behind the 2nd amendment are not true. (As to your proof. I am asking for something scientists would agree with. Not a report where the authors agree that they do not have enough valid information to come to a conclusion. What part of that do you not understand?)

Ain't that the truth

ROFLMAO

Well, that is a whole different discussion. I do find it sad that many americans feel the same way. They had no trouble going in and stirring the pot, but I really hope the Americans continue with the responsibilty they took on when they invaded Iraq and not leave until a stable, viable government is in place.

Nope, but the french kicked your (and our) ass, so maybe they are preparing to invade the US.

The Americans

A joint has been proven to provide medical benefits for people suffering from certain medical conditions. Would you approve legalizing it? You can't ban medical use, just because other people use it for a different purpose. Funny what happens when you use some arguments in different scenarios.

Actually arms ownership was rampant in Iraq since there were no restrictions in place and arms were readily available. Funny enough, it is the Americans who are banning Iraqi's from owning guns. Isn't that ironic? People were/are heavily armed in Iraq, maybe even more so than in the US. Those stats would be next to impossible to find or verify I would think. But does this mean that you are implying that the US will not win the War in Iraq? Anyways, I have to get home. I'll try and pick this back up tomorrow.

No, I argue that with the arguments brought forward in this thread, the constituional right to bear arms could be construed as no longer valid. Since the reasoning behind it is no longer valid. And I say that no one seems to be able to come up with scientific proof that that statement is valid. I personally believe that the posisbility of reducing deaths from firearms is more important than some one's right to carry them. Specially since that reasoning behind that right is no longer valid. That is my personal opinion, obviously yours is different and we are both entitled to one. As stated above, that is where you and I are different. Whatever I do or say, it is not going to restrict any of your freedoms. I can't vote in the US, nor do I have any law making powers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) I do enjoy the argument however.

I could not agree with you more. But we were talking about the US Army not 5 soldiers.

I agree, I did not come forward with that interpretation of the 2nd Amendmend. PhillyKev a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms did. (I hope I recal that correctly) I am assuming that the average soldier has the ability to only carry so many weapons at the same time. I don't know what average would be, nor what the average footsoldier carries as a weapon (again some one else put forward the m16). I would think that the wise men who came up with the interpretation can decide what it is.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe the US army would not invade New York because citizens have guns? Do you really think that would deter them if that was their stated objective? They invaded a country which they were convinced had Weapons of Mass Destruction and you think citizens with weapons would stop them?