FreeBSD developer terrorizes his tenants

[allix]

You know, it's very strange that so many of these liberal gun law backers who kept saying that Iraq was another vietnam because we had a huge fight on our hands from the locals sure miss the importants of people having weapons. I would rather us have guns and be able to fight than to just be helpless to an invading force. No matter who is on the right or wrong side. I'm just saying at this point there are a lot of American streets that could put up a nice fight against an opposing force. I say we keep our guns and learn from Iraq and Vietnam. But at the same time let's not forget that the USA are the good guys in both of those instances. But there is a good lesson to be learned about armed citizens in both as well.

I disagree , an army is made to defend a country , individuals should join them as one united front . Sure in times of war having access to arms is needed, just join the army and your get them. Also joining the army creates a legal framework where any issues that arise can be quickly noted down and adapted.

[MattKingUSA]

You know, it's very strange that so many of these liberal gun law backers who kept saying that Iraq was another vietnam because we had a huge fight on our hands from the locals sure miss the importants of people having weapons. I would rather us have guns and be able to fight than to just be helpless to an invading force. No matter who is on the right or wrong side. I'm just saying at this point there are a lot of American streets that could put up a nice fight against an opposing force. I say we keep our guns and learn from Iraq and Vietnam. But at the same time let's not forget that the USA are the good guys in both of those instances. But there is a good lesson to be learned about armed citizens in both as well.

I disagree , an army is made to defend a country , individuals should join them as one united front . Sure in times of war having access to arms is needed, just join the army and your get them. Also joining the army creates a legal framework where any issues that arise can be quickly noted down and adapted.

You're dense. In America we are ensured the right to have guns to fight against our own established military for one. And just because it's good to not be a pansy and not know how to kill another person. It's should be clear to people that the number one reason that we have gun rights is to take the lives of those who oppose our freadom no matter who that may be, even if it is our own government.

[Tsuroerusu]

You know, it's very strange that so many of these liberal gun law backers who kept saying that Iraq was another vietnam because we had a huge fight on our hands from the locals sure miss the importants of people having weapons. I would rather us have guns and be able to fight than to just be helpless to an invading force. No matter who is on the right or wrong side. I'm just saying at this point there are a lot of American streets that could put up a nice fight against an opposing force. I say we keep our guns and learn from Iraq and Vietnam. But at the same time let's not forget that the USA are the good guys in both of those instances. But there is a good lesson to be learned about armed citizens in both as well.

I disagree , an army is made to defend a country , individuals should join them as one united front . Sure in times of war having access to arms is needed, just join the army and your get them. Also joining the army creates a legal framework where any issues that arise can be quickly noted down and adapted.

You're dense. In America we are ensured the right to have guns to fight against our own established military for one. And just because it's good to not be a pansy and not know how to kill another person. It's should be clear to people that the number one reason that we have gun rights is to take the lives of those who oppose our freadom no matter who that may be, even if it is our own government.

If you actually need that, your democracy is weak!

[MattKingUSA]

It's just that men are weak and easily tempted by power. And sometimes is is neccesary for people to unite and slay those who are in power and restore control and power to the people.

[Tsuroerusu]

It's just that men are weak and easily tempted by power. And sometimes is is neccesary for people to unite and slay those who are in power and restore control and power to the people.

You just basically made the same arguments for revolution as Mao Zedong did during the Chinese revolution essentially. During the Chinese civil war, the argument of the maoists was that they represented the people, and Chiang Kai-chek's nationalist party did not, and therefore they needed to wage a way against them in the name of people, and yeah, we all know how that turned out. Oh, and just so you know, I am extremely anti-Beijing in terms of politics.

I think that if you truly want power to rest in the hands of the people, you should ensure a properly functioning democracy, where a government is accountable and responsible for it's actions. Personally I think that is best achieved through a parliament, like we have in Denmark, and pretty much all of Europe has. Our constitution says this:

§ 15
(1) A Minister shall not remain in office after the
Folketing has approved a vote of no confidence
in him.

(2) When the Folketing passes a vote of no confi-
dence in the Prime Minister, he shall ask for the
dismissal of the Ministry unless writs are to be is-
sued for a general election. Where a vote of cen-
sure has been passed on a Ministry, or it has
asked for its dismissal, it shall continue in office
until a new Ministry has been appointed. Minis-
ters who remain in office as aforesaid shall per-
form only what may be necessary to ensure the
uninterrupted conduct of official business.

(Folketing is the name of the Danish parliament, which is Old Norse meaning People's Assembly)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand it, the only way for the US Congress to remove a president from power is through impeachment, which doesn't seem to be a straight-forward process at all.

In my opinion, if you've got a properly functioning democracy, it should be possible to dismiss any government abusing it's power, without the use of violence.

Our parliament rarely uses it's ability to dismiss the government, because we just don't generally get governments bad enough for that (Last time when parliament really didn't like a certain prime minister was in 1947 when it forced him and his government to resign). And no, the party I support is not the current governing party, in case you were curious, in fact I don't like our current prime minister and his policies at all.

While I am not a total pacifist, I think the idea that I have heard from you and other Americans, that citizens must bear arms to protect against a bad government is utterly ridiculous. If you're so afraid that government is going to abuse it's power, how come your system gives so much power to the president, yet the president is not responsible for his or her actions. Seems totally backwards to me, that the guy actually holding executive power at the federal level in the US, is not responsible for his or her actions. But hey what do I know!

[MattKingUSA]

Really good points, all of them. I guess you win this argument. But we're still the wild west, we have to have our guns. It would be un-american to be without firearms.