- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
No! Free trade allows international economic competition and allows other countries to import things they need and can't produce themselves. For example, Taiwan. It doesn't have a ton of natural resources like iron or precious metals, so it trades its electronics for those resources.
Maybe he was. Either way I think Martin jumped on him. Truthfully, I don't know why they are trying to prosecute him. It's obvious it was self-defense, and the defense is tearing a hole through the prosecution's case with ease. All mathematical factors are in favor of the defense as well as both the prosecution's and defense's witnesses.
Shouldn't people have the right to decide if they want healthcare or not? I don't liked being forced into it, and being taxed for not wanting to use it. Truthfully, I should be thanked for not wanting to use it! It gives someone else more money for healthcare. Obamacare was supposed to decrease insurance rates (but it actually increased it quite a bit), it violates many beliefs that Christian based companies hold (like Hobby Lobby) by forcing them to provide financially for contraception and abortion, and many doctors don't like having to work under it (hence many states having a shortage of doctors due to them retiring early). The NFL refused to support it, a majority of Americans don't support it, and it financially burdens even more people!
But America showed how fast they could mobilize their forces and factories toward the war effort. They could easily defend and turn an invasion. Germany and Japan never had that much power to do it that fast. They had to take around a decade. America did it in less than two years.
It taxes people for not using it (shouldn't that be good? More money for other people? They should be thanked!), forces businesses to provide healthcare, forces religious groups and companies to go against their beliefs (mostly on contraception), and has forced massive rate hikes when Obama said it never would and would actually go down (never happened)! It's failed already before it even starts, people won't endorse it (including the NFL), and should we really trust the IRS with it? Yeah, kill it before it is born (this is the ONE TIME I AGREE WITH ABORTION! Abort Obamacare). They just delayed it a year, so it gives us more time to end it! So do it!
If there wasn't any country to supourt, the USA would have fallen too.
If they weren't any countries to support, that would mean more supplies for the USA to use.
Germany had almost all Europe to itself, that is a lot of resources.
North America still has a lot more.
If Britian wasn't there, he would have focased completly on Russia.
That's true. And probably could have taken Moscow for that matter.
One of the reasons Hitler didn't invade America, is because Britian was between them both. Germany, along with Japan, would have quite easilly invaded together, both were stronger than the USA, especially Germany.
And I'm saying that they couldn't do it because of the distance between Japan and Europe from America. They wouldn't have been able to support the manpower needed for invasion, plus America was the same militarily of both countries combined in 1945. Naval power and supplies would be stretched thin, and the USA has numerical and technological advantage.
However, another fact was it's strengh. Iceland and Greenland were weak.
Yes, but Canada and the US wouldn't just let them waltz on over via Greenland. They would halt them either in Greenland or in Northern Canada. Use the terrain to their advantage like Russia did.
America's millitary was no where near Germany's.
I beg to differ. By 1945, America had the same number of men that Germany had at its peak, vastly bigger navy and Air Force, plus better technology in certain areas.
Now, as for thin and strong suply lines, remember the U-boats? Also they could just take a lott of suply's with them for a quick invasion of Greenland and Iceland.
You should know this better than anyone that U-Boats did squat in trying to besiege and starve Britain during both World Wars while keeping Germany's open. America's coast line is way bigger than Britain's, plus America's larger navy, would make that impossible.
Now, you must understand my arguement. No doubt was the USA and Russia a major factor, however I am argueing that the United Kingdom was as well
They were during WW2, they were a part of the Big Three. But if things went they way we are discussing, Britain would have put up a good fight, but eventually been steamrolled.
I said that if America had no part in supporting Britain and Russia, I thought that they would have fallen, I'm not saying it is guaranteed. America was weak in the military sense compared to Germany, but America was superior in material wealth and goods. America had more factories, mines, land for food, and financial wealth. America used this to her advantage by helping out Britain and Russia. Then she later committed troops. Plus Hitler never listened to his Generals, so that helped out the allies a lot.
I know Russia took the most beating from Germany. Really 75% of the war was fought there. They took over 22 million casualties. And you are right, because Germany was facing against 3 World powers it was defeated. However, The reason Germany had an army of 3 million to invade is because, well, Russia was right next door. They were neighbors. America had the Pacific and Atlantic to cross to get anywhere. That usually prevents a lot of invasions. And if America was ever threatened with invasion, they would use that to their advantage. Truthfully, I could never see Britain just surrendering after London falls. They would just high-tail-it to Canada, India, or South Africa and continue fighting. And Canada would have no reason to just give up. They haven't been invaded, or attacked, or lost that many men. If Germany did invade via Greenland, it would be like Russia all over again. Harsh winters, icy terrain (all year round), fighting in a foreign land. Guerrillas. Both the Canadian and American army facing them with more advanced and better weapons than the Russians (except tank wise, the Russians sure knew tanks). Thin and long supply lines. Really, I can't see it. If they did do it, they would have failed.
I think they could do it with ease because North America is far away from both Europe and Asia (plus Hawaii for that matter). The supply line for an invasion force would need to rely on the navy, which in the pacific and Atlantic is spread very thin. It can easily be broken, therefore cutting off any invasion force that landed. The Americans/Canadians would have a numerical and technological advantage as well as being on home terf on the defensive. The Axis would have never been able to occupy North America.
Naval escorts are a different matter compared to a full-on armada.
Germany wouldn't have any air support because they wouldn't have land based aircraft in range and they didn't have aircraft carriers.
Yeah, I see a whole bunch of Frenchmen and Britons jumping at the chance to join the Nazis and fight America.
I'm not making up numbers. Based on WW2 figures I am making guesses of what could face America. The population of America plus Canada was about 180,000,000 people. The combined armies would entail about 4 million Americans in 1942 and 2.5 million Canadian soldiers. However, by 1945 those numbers went up to 15 million trained soldiers. This shows how much America and Canada could muster up.
The Japanese had about 1.5 million soldiers in 1941 and 5.5 million in 1945. Germany had 15 million soldiers during WW2.
Now comes the technical aspects. Assuming Germany occupied all of Europe, including Britain and Russia, it would need an occupational force. The same goes for Japan in Asia. This takes away from the invasion forces, thus bringing the numbers down. However, I could see the Axis fielding around 12 million men to take on America (though I dont know how they would be able to get them there). Germany would need a very large navy to be able to invade America. In 1942 Germany didn't have a large enough navy to transport several million troops ocross the Atlantic. They could count on the French navy for help, but not Britain. I would have guessed that the British navy would have sunk their ships before capture or sailed them to America or their colonies in Africa and the Carribean. America and Canada had around 1400 naval war ships in 1942. Plus America would have probably wooed the British navy into helping them.
The supply lines for the Axis would have been stretched very thin (as stated before). This leaves them weak. The Ocean has been America's greatest ally for preventing invasions. It wouldn't let them down.
North America also has a rich amount of resources, like oil, coal, minerals, and food producing areas. This makes their supply lines shorter and easier to handle.
From these figures I can see no success for an Axis invasion of North America.
When they first started, yes. But you can see how fast and how much they produced in such a short amount of time when they did enter the war.
If they invaded the USA from Britain, they would probably have to do it from the Atlantic. Britain is an island, surrounded by the Atlantic. They have an ocean to cross. They wouldn't be able to have land based air support, because they have to cross an ocean.
Failed miserably? It wasn't because they launched early. The terrain on Omaha had more cliffs and rocky terrain than the other landings where they had a nice beachfront to lounge on. There also were more defenses on Omaha, it actually went better than expected. The commanders thought they would lose way more troops than they did, so it was actually a major success.
No, the USA wasn't, that's true. However, Germany wouldn't have been able to invade North America because their navy would have had to traverse the entire Atlantic, without much air support (unless they built some carriers), but the air forces of America would be able to knock them out. Once a force set sail, America would have known they were coming, and at the beginning of the war America was already starting to conscript troops, so they would already have a large army. Plus the 200 million armed citizenry. Yamamoto didn't want to invade the US because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Same reason Germany didn't invade Switzerland immediately, it would cost too much. It would be just like Russia, but with more people in their way.
Canada would have had no choice. Germany would have made them a target since Canada would still be at war with them, Mexico is iffy, but that's why I said maybe.
Yes, you can cross the Atlantic with boats. But, Germany didn't have a super large navy compared to Japan, and I don't think they had aircraft carriers either. America would be able to just bomb them to oblivion. No German air support, no invasion.
If the Axis had waited, they still wouldn't have been able to. Germany wouldn't have recruited a large amount of soldiers in their occupied territories because having a whole bunch of ticked and angry soldiers would not make a good army. They could field an army of maybe several million. Plus Japan's couple million, against a several million manned army and 200 million plus armed citizenry. Pretty good odds for America.
The argument was what would happen if America didnt support anyone in WW2. I seriously believe if we hadn't given Britain planes, money, and supplies they would have lost. One of the main factors that helped you win the Battle of Britain was American financial and military support (plus some pilots).
I know America didn't win every battle, but the British forces suffered many defeats that prevented them from taking over the entire colony. Saratoga, Washington's Christmas attack, the Carolina campaign, and Yorktown were won with American troops in the lead. Spain really didn't do much. They just annoyed Britain.
The same applies for the War of 1812. Though the Candadian invasion was botched up, most of the land battles were claimed by the Americans. Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power for America, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed.
Okay, onto WW2.
Your navy may have been able to stop a NAVAL invasion, but not necessarily an air one. Granted, invading Russia was an error on Germany's part because it focused attention away from Britain. If Germany never invaded Russia, they would have eventually come knocking on the Queen's door. They would have been able to take Britain over by air if they really committed the resources to it. Plus, Goering was being a hard-ass and not thinking like a soldier. But because of Russia and Germany dragging America into the war (and Goering's stupidity), Britain still speaks the Queen's English.
If the UK fell, the US wouldn't have fallen. Canada, the US, and maybe Mexico, would have united their forces to defend North America. Japan and Germany would have never been able to get troops across the Atlantic and even if they somehow did, the North American military plus the hundreds of millions of armed citizenry would have beat back any invasion with ease.
(1812 stuff in other argument).
We didn't initially want Canada. Our primary reason was because of the illegal impressment of American sailors in the British navy and the damage of trade the UK caused. We achieved that by defeating the British navies in various battles (hence Old Ironsides, Don't Give Up The Ship) as well as land battles (New Orleans, Tippacanoe, Boston). Even though the war never produced any physical effect in land or power, it was a victory more for America because it united the country more than the past, made the British take notice of American naval power, and showed that any European encroachment in the Americas was a threat (later creating the Monroe Doctrine). It didn't benefit the British in any way and hurt their naval pride, but the Canadians won't stop reminding us that they think they won, even though their invasion also failed.
The Revolution we won the land battles and France helped us out with her navy. Spain, didn't really do much in the way of support other than give us some money and a pat on the back.
The second time we did it during the War of 1812. We won a lot of ocean battles as well as battles on the Great Lakes, New Orleans, and "Old Ironsides". We got what we wanted from it and Britain lost a few thousand soldiers and sailors and their pride.
The training wasn't all British. Most armies worldwide (especially special forces) derive their training from American, British, Russian, German, and Israeli tactics. They combine all of them, it's an international deal.
First in the Revolution, we did beat Britain in the battles, and the French gave us Naval support! Other than that we took loans from the Dutch and Spain. Then during the War of 1812. Scared the British navy, and slaughtered them on the Great Lakes and New Orleans.
I'm not saying they didn't bore the brunt of the war, they did, but I really do think that without support from the US, Britain would have succumbed to Germany. We gave them money, planes (and pilots), tanks, ships, and arms. Without that Britain would be speaking German. Britain may have had a more powerful navy, but you guys were spread thin across your empire, and the Germans would have concentrated it more locally. And even if the navy prevented a landing, Germany would have taken to the air and either bombed the navy or just airlifted the army over the channel.
Not necessarily. I like the NFL just fine thank you (even though Football is an incorrect term for it). A bill of $200,000 is like you getting cancer treatment for 10 years! Nobody charges that much for a visit. It is more expensive than other countries. But we have the best doctors, that's why people come to America to get surgery and treatment. America did kick Britain's butt twice, and saved them during WW2, so we've got that. We have a more powerful military. You guys do have Scotland, which is nice (but is going to end soon). We aren't all jerks. Depends on which state you go to, like Nebraska! Nebraska is awesome and has great people!
Okay, I'm up for a good debate. Even though I disagree with both Liberals and Conservatives (hence me being a Libertarian), I am going to rebuttal as much as I can this author argued. Here it goes:
1.Leeches do cure ailments and doctors continue to use them, and some early states did allow blacks and women to vote (they were Northern States, very conservative at the time while the slave states were very Liberal and voted that way, Democrats voted against the 14th Amendment while a Republicans passed it through).
2.Touchy issue. Not going into that with the time I have.
3.Conservatives are actually very anti-war. I don't count Bush as a conservative because he did very liberal things during his presidency that convince me otherwise, but that's what started the stereotype. But the Civil War was started by liberals (the southern democrats), World War 1 the USA entered it with Woodrow Wilson at the helm. WW2 was entered by Roosevelt. Korea by Truman. Vietnam started by Kennedy and expanded by Johnson. Obama entered Libya and soon-to-be Syria and is still going full steam into Afghanistan, plus his Drone use and international spying. The only true wars I can see started by conservatives is the Spanish-American with William McKinley. That's it. And some conservatives are pro-gay, and yes they do want to end healthcare and social security (which I agree with).
4.The author is correct in his opinion.
5.We also buy a crap-ton from the Middle East, so why not stop buying it there and use ours here? Less transportation cost and cheaper prices for the whole country! The reason it fluctuates is because all the world relies on the Middle East, getting the same prices. Better to just not buy from them anymore.
6.Democrats did the same thing when Bush was elected for 2 terms. Both parties do it. Nothing too surprising there.
7.I hate it when people call me a racists because I don't like Obama. I DON'T CARE THAT HE IS BLACK! HE COULD BE PURPLE FOR ALL I CARE! I just don't like his policies.
8.They didn't have income tax until the 1920's and 30's. Before then we were a booming economy, without income tax or social security or universal healthcare. Better to just get rid of it and make everyone happy by paying less.
9.Use our tariffs and other taxes to pay for those. We don't need our income tax to do that.
10.I got to hand it to the conservatives. They have the right idea. Only citizens of the USA have the right to vote on our issues, not an illegal Mexican, or German, or Frenchman. They have to get their citizenship first, then they can vote. What is the issue? All they need to do is present their card.
11.Now I'm not saying privatize the military, but the government doesn't need to get involved in the private sector. Taxpayer dollars? The government already steals them, not businesses. Corruption? Government takes care of that too. Corruption is bad for business. Businesses actually do care for their customers. Not the old lady at the DMV.
12.I believe in nixing the Department of Education, and giving it to the states to decide how to educate their children. That gives the parents more power to influence how their children are taught.
13.The American sense of socialism is different than what the rest of the world believes, and yes, those are social programs. And I want to get rid of social security and education. The other items can be payed for without income taxes and other absurd taxes.
14.Yep, they were. And Democrats becoming Republicans? Not all of them. Why do Liberals believe in forcing people to hire or accept blacks and other minorities? Isn't that racist? Preferring one race over another? Hmm.
15.All people lack morals. It's humanity. Grow up! Do Liberals threaten political violence? OH YES THEY DO! Boston Bombings, media blames the tea party and calls for them to be listed as terrorists. Anti-gun liberals call for guns to be removed BY GUN POINT (seems contradicting to me). Both sides do it. That's why I don't support either side.
16.Yes, that's all true. But Obama also sent us even deeper into debt than ALL of the Presidents COMBINED! Republicans are not the only criminals. Both parties believe in more taxes and funding to their respective areas. And I want to end that. It's out of control due to the fault of BOTH PARTIES!
17.Not just Republicans, but Democrats also throw infantile fits when they don't get their way. Both parties are babies. Remember the background checks that failed in congress? Man did Liberals throw a fit! Haha, it was comical!
18.Conservatives don't believe in hating others. Thankfully our country has mostly grown out of it.
19.There are verses condemning gay-relations. The verses used are in reference to how a rich person is not humble before God. And his last verse, doesn't really relate to rich or poor.
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act.
And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. (Hence the term sodomy)
20.I would agree to that. Makes sense. The government doesn't belong in the bedroom, or insurance companies.
I'm done. Thank you for reading this if you reach down to here.
But the thing is, there is no good reason to ban them. I have shown you that more people would be victimized and killed if guns are banned and instead of 32 deaths daily, it would be around 2,000. Guns are the first line of defense of your home, your person, and your country. If you are enough of a scholar, you should know that histories greatest atrocities and genocides were not caused by citizens, but by governments. All of whom disarmed their populace.
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you have much faith in people. Some people will not do the right thing, true. But the vast majority of people are smart, informed people that can make logical decisions. If they are smart enough to handle your stocks, teach your children at school, advise you on your health, advise you on your financial future, you vote for them to represent you, and care enough to be your friend, then they are probably smart enough to safely handle a firearm and have the right to defend themselves and their families. They just need to have the opportunity to be shown how if they choose to own a firearm.
If you seriously want to forcefully disarm people, you are going to have to put a gun to their heads, or a gun to the heads of their wife, or daughter, or son, or husband, because they would probably rather die than give up their right. That would make you a person equal to Hitler if you decided to do something like that.
And seriously, you just defeated yourself. If you ban them, people will not follow that rule. It isn't because they won't follow the rules, it's because it gives power to the government under the cover of protecting you. Why make 150 million Americans criminals and have them not follow the rules? They are not doing anything wrong. Banning them will not make them just give up and follow the rules, but the complete opposite, making it way worse than before.
Which would be nice, but it is never going to happen in humanities history, so why do you want to try it? It is not going to work. Teaching them the safety is important, but whether they follow it is up to them, it's free choice. Making people actually follow the rules is impossible, I know that. So what makes you think Americans will follow gun-control laws when the government tells us what to do? According to human behavior, they won't. So why make it hard on everybody and ban them?
It isn't human behavior I'm wanting to fix. That would be like trying to make everyone less violent, or feel a certain way. Teaching someone to keep a firearm unloaded and help them get a safe for it isn't changing human behavior. People don't have a natural urge to leave guns around where others can grab them, or keep a firearm loaded and in reach of children. Behavior is how someone acts to someone else or how they react. Teaching someone how to keep a firearm safely is more of a physical situation rather than a behavioral one, actually teaching them how to handle a weapon and store it safely. It would seriously be the same if I taught you how to use a blender and not get your fingers caught in it.
Actually, in a situation where a citizen stops a shooting compared to a police officer, the citizens have an average loss of life of 2.3 while police have an average of 14.3. 32 people may die daily, but an average of 2,191 people save their lives daily by using a gun. Or around 2 million people yearly! The reason guns are more dangerous to be around is because they are dangerous. Plain and simple. It's the stupid person who leaves his guns around unlocked and loaded in reach of others. It's the smart gun owner to keep it unloaded and locked up in a safe. The solution isn't banning guns, but showing people how to properly care for them. Then we can prevent negligent killings.
That's your opinion. I may disagree with it, but I respect your decision. However, guns are here to stay in America, and I'm going to fight my hardest to keep them here.
Also, this has been a good debate. I've havent had one like that in a while. I appreciate a good intellectual battle. Thank you.
Criminals do kill. I am not saying we should bow down to their level though. It depends on values, morality, and logic to make a decision. The problem with criminals is that they have none of these when they kill another human being. When a citizen kills a criminal in self-defense it is legal to do so if he has probable cause of fear of death to him, his family, or a bystander. The decision to pull that trigger and to end a mans life is a heavy one. The difference between citizen Joe and the criminals is that Joe thinks about what he has done and lives with that for the rest of his life. It takes a part of his being for doing that. A criminal makes no thought of it, conditioned to feel no remorse, regret, or pain when killing another person. It's just another day.
Unfortunately, the world is never going to be peaceful enough to end all violence. Criminals are still going to kill for the rest of eternity. We, though, should never bow down to their level. They kill for pleasure, thrill, or because they felt like it. Joe kills only for necessity because he fears that that criminal is going to end his life, or his wife's, or his daughter's. It is better to have it now and use it, then to have never had it and die by the hands of a killer.
Ah, you've gotten right to the root of the problem. We could make a law preventing either of us from carrying a gun, from either of us purchasing one, or even owning one altogether. The problem is...
Criminals don't follow laws. Never have. Never will. That's why they are criminals. There will still be smuggling, black markets, and shady deals. All these opportunities give a criminal to obtain a firearm. Gun-control laws only hurt the law abiding citizen, because the criminals will just ignore it a anyway. All these past mass-shootings have occurred where carrying a firearm is illegal. They are illegal in schools, governmental buildings, and most public places. And that's where it happens. The one thing they try to prevent is a mass shooting by putting up gun-free zones. That's where mass shooters go because they know no one will be armed. College campuses are a good example. Every collegiate mass shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. Every college that allows staff or certain students to concealed carry, has never had a mass shooting. Ever. Why make the vast majority of US citizens criminals with gun-control laws when they have done nothing wrong? It's like punishing the entire class because one student threw paint on the teacher.
In crime, there are very useful. Why do you think the police has them? During the LA riots, a man's house was being attacked by the mob. In defense, he hid his family, then climbed on his roof with his AR-15 and showed himself to the mob. The mob avoided attacking his house, thus saving him and his family. In home invasions, AK-47's and AR-15's are used to defend the homeowner (they also make great hunting platforms).
Many studies have shown that the vast majority of crimes happen in more poverty stricken areas. Living in there is dangerous. A group in Texas is conducting a study with homeowners in rougher neighborhoods. They are giving a free shotgun and training to anybody who qualifies, and studying whether it reduces crime in that neighborhood. Letting law-abiding homeowners own firearms lets them defend themselves, making the criminals more afraid of doing crimes in that area. If we can keep a neighborhood safer, then we can start doing other programs, like youth camps, better schools, and community projects to help the local area.
People do learn other skills, but it doesn't help if you are being attacked with a gun. If I become the villain by carrying a firearm, then the police and government officials must be Hitler. Protecting yourself is protected under our constitution. I don't become a villain for shooting someone who is trying to kill me or my family. I regret I had to shoot him, but he gave me absolutely no choice. Also, in a vast majority of cases of self-defense, the gun actually ever being discharged is less than 5%. The mere presentation of it deters crime.
It is not rare. It happens to thousands of people everyday. Over 2,100 use a weapon in self-defense. For example, Chicago has the strictest gun-control in the country, yet leads in murder rates. I just got back from a trip there and while I was there there were 11 people shot in half-an-hour. None of them could defend themselves because it was illegal! Looking at Japan versus the USA is like trying to find similarities between an apple and a zucchini. The cultures are completely different. Japan is very homogenous culturally which prevents many race-related crimes, Japan has a more invasive and prominent police force, and crime in general is looked down upon socially. America, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Japan socially and culturally. There are more racial divides in crime, the police are very good but can't protect everyone in America, and the culture has de-sanitized Americans towards violence. You can't fix it, it is there and it's going to stay. The answer is not guns, but fixing up poverty, violence, and hatred between Americans, which is going to take a long time.
A Texas Ranger pulled over an elderly woman for a traffic violation. As expected, he asks her if she has any weapons in the vehicle. She responds yes and says she has a Colt 1911 in her glove box, a 12 gauge shotgun in the back seat, and a Smith & Wesson revolver in her purse. The Ranger asks what she is afraid of to justify that many weapons on her person. She replies, "absolutely nothing".
It's not a paranoia, per se, but a basic emotion of self-preservation. You don't want to die, I don't want to die, she doesn't want to die. The security is not a huge problem. Our police are very effective at what they do. However, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. They can't react to every situation immediately. So citizens take it into their own hands to defend themselves, because it takes seconds for a criminal to decide to end your life and seconds to defend yourself rather than seconds calling 911 and a few minutes waiting for the police to find your dead body.
Really, if we have the opportunity to try to maintain our racial and cultural identities we should try to keep it. These traits make us human and identifies us. My family is not 100% one trait, but a vast majority of Scottish, then English and a little bit of European Jewish. I identify mostly with Scottish though and I try to maintain it as much as I can. Even though we are a more globalized culture, people like to maintain their culture, race, and creed. We should support this. And even if we become more globalized, new cultures will spring up anyway so it will never end.
Actually, civilians are known to be very prudent and observant when they draw a weapon. In all mass shootings prevented, those stopped by civilians averaged around 3 deaths, while those involving police involved 14. Thus, maybe disarming the police would be better? Trigger-happy gun owners are a stereotype. A vast majority of crimes prevented by guns involve the gun not being fired. The mere presence of the gun being drawn against a criminal is enough to prevent whatever is occurring. Civilians are known to be very well-trained in trigger-control, as well as police. But, civilians are very non-violent. Also, I looked at your previous statements, and many people do claim that guns are primarily used for crime prevention. However, that is not the main purpose. Crime prevention is a main proponent for allowing people to own firearms, but the main reason is to prevent the government from overpowering the people and oppressing them. In crime related subjects, states and cities that allow looser gun laws have been shown to have lower gun-related crimes and most crimes in general, like Wyoming which has the largest gun-ownership per capita, and has the seventh lowest crime in the US. Cities and states that do NOT allow firearms have been notorious for crime. For example, Washington D.C. has the highest gun-murder rate in the entire US, and Chicago where just today 9 people were shot and killed in a half-hour span. The victims had no way to protect themselves, and gangs are now forming large groups that are harassing people in DOWNTOWN Chicago! And the cops are saying that gun-control is a bad idea, even Chicago cops.
The UK with the best navy? Sorry, this isn't the age of empire any more. The US navy is numerically superior and has more aircraft carriers and submarines to take out any surface fleet. I'm not saying it would be an easy fight, but...
Counting out the French would be a mistake. The French have a good military that is well trained and supplied. Russia? I don't know. They don't have the greatest relationship with Western Europe, and would most likely stay neutral in a European conflict. Also, Iceland has no military except one navy frigate. Easily conquerable. Denmark would be able to provide support, but their navy and army is small and not much of a worry. The US would most likely take out their bases in Greenland, and as well as taking out Iceland, would control the North Atlantic. This would leave the UK navy open for attack before France or Germany could react effectively. With the UK navy out, the French, Germans, and Spanish would not be able to take on the US together with the UK navy gone.
Now, if this doesn't work, but we still take out the UK, German, French, Spanish, and Denmark forces, the rest of Europe would have lost their major military powers, thus losing their ability to effectively attack. Frankly, the US would really only need to destroy the combined navies, take over the British Isles, then continually bombard mainland Europe with free reign, not necessarily invade it.
1. We would have an ocean to separate us, and our Navy is the largest and most powerful. The British would have the next biggest navy, but they have been ramping it down in the last decade. They don't have any "real" air-craft carriers. France is decent, but wouldn't last long. Without control of the sea, no landings would occur on US soil. The US has superior air cover on the east coast and Canada, so no air-attacks. Naval combat would be won by the US.
2.Land battles. The US has the largest manpower compared to any European nation, combined though it would be pretty even. For the US to invade Europe, we would need superior air-cover on the West Coast of Europe. This would be achieved with the take-over of Iceland, covering and neutralizing Britain's air power, this would leave Britain and Ireland open for invasion, which could be achieved in time. Or just Ireland would be sufficient. Then with that jump-platform for invasion, the US would start to neutralize France, Belgium, and Germany military power, mostly with airplanes. An actual ground invasion would be very difficult due to us not knowing the terrain, and most of Europe would expect a Western invasion, thus mobalizing to the West. It's difficult to tell who would win that.
Conclusion: The US would win the naval and air campaign against Europe before the EU could invade the US. However, the US may be able to take over Ireland and the UK with some time, but mainland Europe would be almost impossible unless there is consistent bombardment from the air and sea against cities and industrial centers. Invasion could be successful, but only after a prolonged siege of Europe.
Libertarians fundamentally believe in less government involvement in everything. Most everything else is debated, but that is the core belief. Most Libertarians just want to completely eliminate the income tax, some don't. However, most Libertarians believe in no government involvement in healthcare, citing that individuals know enough to care for themselves and make the choice of what they want for healthcare. However, some can't afford it, period. There is no perfect median in politics I'm afraid. You just have to pick the closest ideal that fits you and go with it. Mine is the Libertarian party. I personally disagree with their views in allowing abortion and hard-core drugs, but I agree with them the closest to any other party (other than the constitutionalist party, but they NEVER win anything).
Even without the UN, the US would never be able to. Alliances would form, and they would use it to defend themselves against the US. It's impossible for the US to take on the whole world. The UN was designed, at first, to help prevent atrocities similar to Nazi Germany (which didn't really work), their "police actions" were all US led (Korea, Somalia, Vietnam), and they guard demilitarized zones. That's it. Nothing much else has been accomplished by them. The UN is held up by the US. Without the US, it would have never formed. Without US funding, military, and supplies, it would fall apart. Controlling the US? The US controls the UN! That's the scary part.
Even with all of this technology, the US wouldn't be able to take over the world. They could wipe out everything, but take it over? All the other countries would be able to beat the US back and rip them a new one. Population advantage, superior firepower (even though it is less advanced), and more resources would let them win. Plus, there is really nothing to take over in space. It's space. No one is out there except us and maybe the Russians and Chinese.
It's a try to create a one-world government. They dictate laws that usurp other countries' laws, including the United State's and they stick their heads where they are not wanted. They don't realize that the UN exists because the US lets it exists. If the US pulled their support, the UN would have no credibility, reduced military presence, and lower financial income. Personally, I think it needs its powers reduced. There is no one to monitor it, which is scary.
Lower taxes help the economy. When you have lower taxes, employers can pay their employees more, and the consumer can buy more things with the excess money. It would help the economy to lower taxes and let it take its natural course, instead of higher taxes and relying on the government to bail you out, with your own money. Some businesses would fail in the beginning due to lost government funding, but others would pop up in their place once people started to buy stuff again. A flat tax all around would be a nice start, say around what you said of 5-9%. Truthfully, I feel I shouldn't pay the government more than I pay God.
Pretty much. It's the free-market. The Insurance companies would be happier too because they wouldn't need to pay as much to cover health, and we would be happier because we wouldn't have to pay both an arm and a limb. I don't really think it would be doctor versus doctor though. It'd probably be more like hospital versus hospital. They would run it more like a business providing a service.
Well, it would depend on their financial situation. Current healthcare rates are pretty high making healthcare for a lot out of reach, and are going to get higher when Obamacare takes effect. In a Free-Market system, the different providers would need to be able to compete with each other, naturally driving prices down to a more reasonable level, thus giving more people the ability to afford healthcare. It wouldn't be perfect, mind you, but it would be better than the current and future situation.
Oh, okay. It can be confused easily. Still, fully-automatic weapons are legal and should stay that way, and they have been used in a crime twice since 1934 that involved a legally-owned full-auto. The problem is that they are very hard to get, expensive, and are taxed. Really, I don't see what the problem is of loosening up some regulations and allowing full-auto manufacture again. It would be the same as the current semi-auto weapons, but more fun! It's easier to obtain it illegally on the black market than legally. Seriously, I knew a guy who could get a full-auto AK illegally. He gave me a price too, though I declined for obvious reasons. But I can tell you it was cheaper. Bad guys have it, why can't good guys?
They give the responsibility of healthcare to the individual. Libertarians believe in Free-Market healthcare, without government influence. This allows the indivual to decide what kind of care they want, how much, and to what kind of sofistication. This better tailors the healthcare instead of the government deciding who gets what. It also keeps prices down as health related companies will need to compete with each other. Obama's idea will increase some rates to go up 100%! Nobody knows how to take care of yourself better than yourself.
For defense. Semi-automatic weapons are great for home defense as well as defending one's family. It is used for hunting purposes as well. A minescule fraction of a percent of semi-auto weapons are used in a crime. More people die from table utensils than semi-auto. There is no reason to ban them.
It needs to be replaced, and fast. Impeach Obama, clear out the Congress and Senate, and have a new round of elections for everything! Nix the IRS, Department of Education, Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security and some other laws and curtail the NSA, the Department of Justice, and the Drone Programs.
I'm guessing you are referencing to the recent Supreme Court ruling. I believe that the ruling is unconstitutional. Police should be allowed to take DNA, but they shouldn't take it by force unless it can be used to solve a serious crime, especially before conviction. If the Police really think he did it, they can convict him and take DNA for evidence and investigation for court. This may be limited now to violent criminals, but its easy to stray and get DNA from everyone in a database. A national DNA database is a scary thought.
I have no doubt she is intelligent, and could do a decent job. However, she can not be taken seriously. She could have learned from her mistakes, but society is not so forgiving of mistakes. No one would take her seriously. I think there is another motive, either to stick it to Republicans, or some other agenda.
Everybody knows it is harmful. But people are adults and can do what they want with their bodies. It's probably too engrained in the human culture, so it won't go away. We don't need to say what they can and can not do. I don't really want to be their nanny. Now, there is absolutely no problem with anti-smoking campaigns.
I agree, but I kinda view this issue not as one with homosexuality and equality, but as a religious and constitutional battle. I feel like the BSA got pressured against their will to do this. The Supreme Court upheld their right to ban gays due to their right of religion and free speech, but the BSA was attacked for it instead of respecting their decision. The BSA came out as the enemy and that they hated gays (which they don't).
The dispute was a religious one. The Boy Scouts is a Christian organization, which is against homosexuality. They fought this in the Supreme Court a few years ago, and the BSA won. Now they allow gays and lose support from their donors and supporters, as well as membership. I feel they have a right to refuse gays, as well as atheists. It's within their freedom of religion. I think they felt forced into the decision by the media and a very vocal minority, when the vast majority wanted to keep it status quo.
If it was a restriction on race, religion, and creed, why are there restrictions in colleges, scholarships, clubs, and organizations? They have a right to do so, protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Yet, the BSA is excluded from it suddenly? I feel they were pressured into it unwillingly. It seems to conflict with their pledge of being "morally straight".
I like the idea, especially being a third-party supporter myself. I feel I don't get any representation and my vote doesn't count.
However, when they said it prevents minority rule, that made me pause. Our current system prevents that as well, since majority rules in the Congress and the Senate for issues. A problem I foresee is that a majority rule of one party or a coalition would trounce on the rights of the minority or the individual. A Republic prevents this. I don't like how the definition you used defines a Republic. A Republic is a country ruled by law. We create the laws democratically. Your definition could apply to both a Republic or a Democracy, which the two have great differences between them.
Personally though, I like the idea you have proposed. It would make me feel better as a voter and a citizen.
I like this video because it explains the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.
One problem with that. We are not a democracy nor a representative democratic. We are a republic, more specifically, a republic with a democratic system of voting.
However, a true democracy can never exists. It's a great idea, but then you have the problem of majority rule trumping the rights of the minority. The Greeks tried it for a while, and it didn't work out so hot for them. The Romans democratically elected the Emperors, who just took over. It just never seems to work in history, so I don't think it will in the future.
Concealed weapons are not against the law. Concealed carry is a very popular option for gun owners. A vast majority of states support concealed carry and offer permits. Open carry is an option, but one that I disagree with. I own firearms, my family carries concealed, but open carry "carries" to much of a fear from the public, making them, you, and the cops uncomfortable. It's better to conceal it and make everyone happy.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I paraphrased a bit, but the meaning is the same. The people make up the militia, hence the right of the people/militia to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
They may not have known about AK-47's, AR-15's, or FN-FAL's, but they sure did prepare for their protection under the constitution. The nut jobs that used these weapons either 1:got them illegally or 2:used them illegally. Laws were put in place to prevent this. Did it? No. They just ignored it. You know what happened after 9/11? Pilots started carrying guns. Guns in the right hands prevent crime, terrorism, and dictatorships. The idea was for the citizens to have the same weaponry available to the government as well as the citizens.
It isn't clear because people make it unclear. The Founding Fathers themselves have quotes upon quotes defining its meaning, and depended on the common sense of the citizens to correctly interpret it (which failed).
The militia is defined as the people as quoted above. You, I, him, her, they are the militia.
The way arms are to be used it quite clearly defined by the founding fathers:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
So, 1. to prevent crime.
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
2.To protect themselves.
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
3.To prevent enslavement
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
4.Assertion of Liberty and Rights
"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story
6.To prevent tyrannical rule and destroy those who try it.
That's what the second amendment means.
That's the problem. People put too much thought into it. People take it way into the extremes when it was created to be used with common sense. Not like "so everybody can haves Nukes!".
1."A well regulated militia, the right of the people to bear arms."
This references to both groups. The people, and the militias, hence the commas. It doesn't mean you need to be a part of a militia.
2.Arms is usually in reference to firearms and other small arms. A Nuke is not considerd an arm, even in modern terms. Arms could be rifles, muskets, machine guns, knives, swords, pistols, etc.