http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi … cies-areas
Now manufacturers are refusing to sell restricted firearms not only to citizens, but govt. agencies as well.
Fair is fair right?
By that logic individuals should be allowed to try, convict and jail people or own nuclear weapons, it's utterly insane, not that it matters anyway in this case I gurantee the government agencies will have no trouble buying the weapons from somewhere.
"By that logic individuals should be allowed to try, convict and jail people or own nuclear weapons . . ."
I wouldn't have a problem with this.
In which case you are utterly nuts.
It's bad eneough that there are people who want to kill innocents with a gun let alone the destruction that would be causeed by a nuclear weapon.
People trying other individuals without any democratic choice on what the law is would simply become the mayhem of people jailing those they don't like and prisoner abuse etc.
That incredible destruction is a very good incentive not to use nuclear weapons. Nukes did not arise from the free market but from governments, and governments are the only entities that want to use them. It's the military protection that grants the individuals who ordered the nukes from afar safety enough to do it. Even then, there has been only one nuclear attack. Even governments are hesitant to use them despite the protection. In real life, people will not want them.
What I am talking about is private courts that answer to the individuals that voluntarily contribute to it (as part of the street-owner's contract, maybe). They would in fact be more accountable to the people than government courts as individuals only need to withdraw their funds if the court is not fair. No doubt you'll say that big corporations will buy them out. Maybe, but the court's survival still rests on the user's willingness to contribute to it. If government courts get corrupted, there's nothing we can do about it.
So which of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a nuclear attack?
They happened on two separate days so hardly can be described as one attack. The second long enough after the first for the perpetrators to understand the full horror of what they had done.
Irrelevant, whatever I would have done wouldn't have any affect whatsoever on whether it was one attack or in fact two.
No,no,no....it's not going to be that easy.
You said something there about perpetrators or some such.
What would you have done with Japan?
It's far from irrelevant it apparently speaks to your belief that although we were attacked we were supposed to bend over, kiss our butts, and just let them all roll right over us, evil that we are.
No, I just pointed out that rather than one attack there were two.
With Japan presumably John would not have opened Japan by force a few decades before WW2 by opening fire on Tokyo with cannon and John probably would not have threatened to invade unless Japan promised to trade with the USA and John might not have declared an absolute trade embargo on Japan and John probably would not have intentionally lured Japan into WW2 as the US did (proven by the documents sourced below).
"How we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves." Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War.
What's wrong? Not right wing enough for you?
Anyone can write an article there.
Who's editing and fact finding?
The site is constantly edited and you can view edits.
Although anyone can write a piece for wiki, anybody can edit it as well.
References and citations must be listed, if they aren't then feel free to ignore the information but generally it is more accurate than something published by somebody with an agenda and offering no opportunity to correct.
Try signing on as an editor and making a false correction then see how long it lasts.
All right, if you're going to be pedantic about it - two attacks. We haven't seen one since, but we're still in a state of paralysing fear about being attacked.
The only non-governmental institutions with the resources to get a nuke would be massive corporations. Imagine Microsoft building nukes. That would be a smart move . . .
You don't understand, non-governmental institutions have all the resources of government at their disposal.
They don't have the legal power to steal and murder, in the form of taxation and declaration of war. Government is defined by its monopoly on force.
Yes, it suits the government (in the form of corporations) to keep us in a world of fear, we are far less likely to see the junk that is being thrown at us from our own if we believe it is being done so to protect us from evil forces.
Here is your statement. God forbid a nation defend themselves and try to end the attempt of another nation......whose Emperor proclaimed himself God....to subjugate the human race.
What do you think should have been done.
I might be wrong but I have no memory of ever writing that and it certainly doesn't match my "tone of voice" but I may be wrong.
Look at what I posted and your quote I am referring to is there.
You squirm around and try to change things when you don't want to answer a question.
It was about Hiroshima dn Nagasaki and you were talking about the perpetrators(US) should have been horrified by the first bomb. Problem was Japan didn't get the message, not us.
How do you get to "God forbid a nation defend themselves and try to end the attempt of another nation......whose Emperor proclaimed himself God....to subjugate the human race." from what I actually wrote?
"The second long enough after the first for the perpetrators to understand the full horror of what they had done."
That's the last part of your statement.
Obviously you believe the second should have never been dropped.....well either of them.
My question was what would have been your solution to resolve the situation?
I don't honestly know but I would like to think of a solution that didn't involve the death of so many children.
No, I'm not always using children!
Perhaps the answer lies in an examination of the USAs perceived role in world affairs. Japan only attacked the US because they saw them as a threat to their own expansionist policies.
Oh, well then I guess its ok. After all its our fault.
So you reckon the victor is always blameless then?
Wouldn't have been a problem if they had not attacked.
Wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't viewed the US as interventionist.
What? We are now responsible for what others think?
|You don't know very much about your own countries foreign policies do you?
Do you have anything else besides the usual cliches?
Uncomfortable? Not really, I only care about my country not any others.
And that is the big flaw in USA foreign policy - they care not a whit about other countries and other people, only themselves!
And then you wonder why you are attacked!
Which makes it not one bit less frightening!
I heard on the radio the other day that one of Obama's side kicks was going on a foreign tour, the first time he had left the USA! This from a government that sees itself as the world leader, formed by people who have no idea what the rest of the world is like!
And you then wonder why some people get uptight with you and try to harm you!
John how can you disagree with this administration?
Are you racist?
Because that's the only reason....according to the press....that you could possibly disagree with Barack Obama and his administration.
You would have thought they would have engaged Germany who actually wanted the US to get involved.
I agree.............isn't that amazing?
The point being what choice???????
It's a shame that your fellow countrymen are not so keen on upholding the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments as well! Where they to do so there might be less need to fight for the second.
Absolutely! But it's always been one rule for us, another for them. That's what government is all about.
If they want to turn away the business, that is up to them. European makers will be happy to take the contract.
Peggy Noonan said it best.
"It is always cliffs, ceilings and looming catastrophes with Barack Obama. It is always government by freakout. "
Isoroku Yamamoto said
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
That is exactly what they did!
Now that we have gotten all off topic which I suspect was intentional, I hail the manufacturers who want to keep things real.
by Josak3 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist...
by HuntersWhitt3 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
by AngelTrader4 years ago
It is all falling neatly into place for the US to attack Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of...
by Zubair Ahmed4 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is...
by JON EWALL5 years ago
The meaning of SOCIAL relates to individuals or groups. JUSTICE relates to fair treatment, correct treatment or judgment. Simple words that have so many interpretations in our world today. The world today has not...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.