Originally posted by sithsaber408
Here we are then:Fred Thompson: (full speech)
Joe Lieberman pt. 1:
Joe Lieberman pt. 2:
Mike Huckabee: (full video)
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Mitt Romney: (full speech)Rudy Giuliani: (full speech)
Sarah Palin: (full speech)
And here's McCains RNC acceptance speech, which hasn't been posted yet. (it's the one more American's watched than Obama's)
👆
Originally posted by RobtardObjectively speaking, the same could be said of most politicians; including Sen. Obama.
The reason for that, his often conflicting chameleon-like maneuvers.
In general candidates have to appeal to the wings in order to win primaries, and then subsequently move back to the centre for the general election.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Objectively speaking, the same could be said of most politicians; including Sen. Obama.In general candidates have to appeal to the wings in order to win primaries, and then subsequently move back to the centre for the general election.
McCain gives the impression that he does it more often than others.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
LMAO. If the US military were to use it's full force against the US citizenry, and the citizenry tried to fight back against it with shotguns and handguns... the end result would simply be a whole lot of dead US citizens and some very slightly dinged tanks.Handguns against heavily armored tanks, helicopters, planes, battleships, missiles. Good luck.
Plus, you're also assuming the military would be okay firing on Americans. Granted, they'll probably just follow the orders given to them.
I'm not saying we could be able to hold off the United States Military. But people need to not underestimate a determined citizenry that is armed.
Originally posted by inimalist
right, being more than 2-3 generations ahead of them in military technology, having the most mobile army on the planet, strategies determined to maintain air supremacy, one of the largest nuclear stockpiles on the planet and a host of other issues have little to do with it.For instance: aircraft carriers, one of the most important weapons in the entire American military. Their benefits cannot be overestimated.
America has 11 currently in service, with 2 on the way. China has none. Russia has 1. With the exception of Canada or Mexico, or I guess Cuba, a nation without aircraft carriers cannot attack America in any meaningful way (unless it is thermo-nuclear war, in which case locals with rifles aren't going to do anything).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
I'd agree that the proliferation of guns in the country might make it hard to occupy, but that could be said of any nation. Especially given that guerilla tactics almost never resort to direct fire fights. As far as training is concerned, I have heard former soldiers laugh at militia groups. Hell, its likely that the preponderance of security contracting companies in America is a bigger deterrent than hicks with shotguns.
Originally posted by BackFire
To be perfectly honest and objective, I heard more substance from Obama/Biden during their convention speeches than I heard from McCain/Palin during theirs.
Originally posted by BigRedYou can add things like Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, etc. it wouldn't change the outcome.
Why do you assume they'd just have handguns?Plus, you're also assuming the military would be okay firing on Americans. Granted, they'll probably just follow the orders given to them.
I'm not saying we could be able to hold off the United States Military. But people need to not underestimate a determined citizenry that is armed.
The rationale was that people needed their guns to fight back against the Government should it ever go psycho and forcibly oppressed them. I just took it to the extreme conclusion. As noted, the only dent the citizenry and their makeshift munitions would make against the modern US army is in the morale.
That isn't underestimation, it's realism. The 2nd Amendment of your constitution is a relic that does more harm than good.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotEven a country like Iraq manages to kill US Soldiers on a regular basis, why would 300 000 000 Americans with Assault Weapons not be able to do so. Then there's also the fact the Soldiers would have to go agaisnt their own people. I personally think that, in a way, maybe even just a slight one, guns of citizens do help to protect from your government, as well as (more importantly) other threats. It's not my favourite argument for legal guns, though.
You can add things like Molotov cocktails, pipe bombs, etc. it wouldn't change the outcome.The rationale was that people needed their guns to fight back against the Government should it ever go psycho and forcibly oppressed them. I just took it to the extreme conclusion. As noted, the only dent the citizenry and their makeshift munitions would make against the modern US army is in the morale.
That isn't underestimation, it's realism. The 2nd Amendment of your constitution is a relic that does more harm than good.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Even a country like Iraq manages to kill US Soldiers on a regular basis, why would 300 000 000 Americans with Assault Weapons not be able to do so.
Because the military has many well established operational bases in this country and knows the terrain very well. Iraqis that kill American soldiers also tend to have some level of weapons training and planning that makes them much more dangerous.
The argument is that guns serve as deterrent against government oppression.
The government has a massive modern arsenal of conventional weapons; nuclear weapons; I'm not sure of the status of chemical and biological weapons - although it may have those too.
The counterargument is simply that if the full force, or even part of the force of that weaponry was turned on the citizenry they would stand no chance.
Gun owners "cling" to their guns because they feel a sense of empowerment, that doesn't particularly mean it actually empowers them against 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The typical US citizen isn't the Viet Cong or Mujahideen.
The typical US landscape is hardly the Vietnam jungle or the Tora Bora caves.
The typical US citizen is either overweight or obese, and about a quarter of them are myopic.
The typical US citizen is not Agent V or Jason Bourne, despite delusions of grandeur.
Enshrining "gun ownership" as a right, is frankly relatively bizarre. I'm just going to repost this from another thread:
I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.
I don't consider gun ownership an inalienable "right" of the same level as freedom of speech, religion or association, civil rights, human rights, due process; nor the view that it needs to be enshrined in the same way. It's something that you can acquire if you meet certain requirements, like a knife or a car or a toaster or porn.
If you're not mentally retarded or imbalanced, are of a reasonable age and don't have homicidal tendencies, and you're not going to leave them lying around for the children, and have money to burn then sure buy as many guns as you like.
But I don't get the strange view that it needs to be protected as an individual right, there isn't an individual right to machetes or cars so I don't see the comparison. And the interpretation by the Supreme Court really isn't an accurate literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment
Originally posted by lord xyz
To get Sithsaber's approval of being one of America's greatests:1. Christian
2. Not a socialist
3. Running for high office
I like 1 only if they are hell bent on preserving the freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State as much as possible. (Hmm...sounds strangely like the ideals of my "forefathers".)
Add "Republican", a quantifier on one of being "a good Christian and not a self righteous hypocrite", and it would be more complete for SS.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The argument is that guns serve as deterrent against government oppression.
The government has a massive modern arsenal of conventional weapons; nuclear weapons; I'm not sure of the status of chemical and biological weapons - although it may have those too.
The counterargument is simply that if the full force, or even part of the force of that weaponry was turned on the citizenry they would stand no chance.Gun owners "cling" to their guns because they feel a sense of empowerment, that doesn't particularly mean it actually empowers them against 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The typical US citizen isn't the Viet Cong or Mujahideen.
The typical US landscape is hardly the Vietnam jungle or the Tora Bora caves.
The typical US citizen is either overweight or obese, and about a quarter of them are myopic.
The typical US citizen is not Agent V or Jason Bourne, despite delusions of grandeur.Enshrining "gun ownership" as a right, is frankly relatively bizarre. I'm just going to repost this from another thread:
I'm sure the "right" itself isn't really the factor, Switzerland has twice as many guns per capita as NZ and Canada but half as many gun homicide. I would assume it's more the attitude towards guns that results in this discrepancy. The view held by some Americans of the 2nd amendment being sacrosanct is rather peculiar.I don't consider gun ownership an inalienable "right" of the same level as freedom of speech, religion or association, civil rights, human rights, due process; nor the view that it needs to be enshrined in the same way. It's something that you can acquire if you meet certain requirements, like a knife or a car or a toaster or porn.
If you're not mentally retarded or imbalanced, are of a reasonable age and don't have homicidal tendencies, and you're not going to leave them lying around for the children, and have money to burn then sure buy as many guns as you like.
But I don't get the strange view that it needs to be protected as an individual right, there isn't an individual right to machetes or cars so I don't see the comparison. And the interpretation by the Supreme Court really isn't an accurate literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment
Are the guaranteed freedom's of speech, religion and assembly also relics? If not, where do you draw your arbitrary line?
My guns don't make me feel "empowered" as in I can hold off a battalion of Marines. What they do, is make me feel safe at night. The mentality of Americans like myself who support the 2nd isn't to storm Capitol Hill, its to have a defense against others who wish us harm.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaExpression, thought and ergo faith, assembly, my arm, my leg, my life, liberty. These are by their nature inherent and inalienable.
Are the guaranteed freedom's of speech, religion and assembly also relics? If not, where do you draw your arbitrary line?My guns don't make me feel "empowered" as in I can hold off a battalion of Marines. What they do, is make me feel safe at night. The mentality of Americans like myself who support the 2nd isn't to storm Capitol Hill, its to have a defense against others who wish us harm.
Enshrining what is essentially a property issue alongside these makes farce of them. Putting the ownership of a weapon alongside these also likely highlights why that even accounting for gun ownership being disproportionately high in the US, gun related crime is still disproportionately high.
The original purpose of the Second Amendment was that for States to have means of defending themselves against Federal power, should the need arise. The Heller case has attributed this as an individual right, but ignores the preceding preamble regarding a well regulated militia, which should by common sense imply that this article is meant to be enacted by a collective. This original intention is also no longer particularly relevant, thus making it a relic.
One doesn't need to enshrine the right to own a car, purchase a toaster or download porn. Yet fulfill certain legal and monetary requirements made and you can drive, eat toast and jerk off as much as you want.