drstrangelove71
Patriae Infelici Fedelis
drstrangelove71

The CV-3 Saratoga was one of the ones we had at the start of WWII and it was commissioned in 1927 as an aircraft carrier (It was originally going to be a battlecruiser). It was destroyed in Test Baker explosion in 1946 in Bikini Atoll. The one you mentioned in the 50s was designated CV-60. Since McDonough said CV-3 he

Abortion is an act, you moron. Guns are objects. Abortion has a moral aspect since it is an action taken by people.

The analogies are applicable. My point is that the gun is not evil just as the scalpel is not good. Millions of the unborn have been slaughtered using medical devices, but I don’t call for these to be banned on the account that it would make abortion more difficult. Only people have moral agency, and as such only

But the compromise was not really a statement that slaves are only 3/5ths of a person. Each side violated what would normally seem to be their position in the argument, and it was just a political move, and wasn’t a moral statement. I believe that all other persons counted in the census were 1 regardless of race or

So you’d be fine with any bow-like weaponry man could conceive of? I’m merely attempting to illustrate the principle.

How in the world can you say that after what has happened around the world in the last century? Clearly the vote is not always enough. How many millions died because they were powerless to resist the oppression of the Nazis, Soviets, and others? You take far to rosy a view of government, perhaps because we have been

Why are you ascribing moral ideas such as “evil” to inanimate objects? That’s the problem that I have. Are guns designed to destroy things? Yes, absolutely. But again, it’s about the context. A scalpel is merely a scalpel, whether it is being used by a surgeon or an abortionist. And a gun can be a device for good when

I think you’re reading too much into this. The guy just said it was fun to do. You reduce it to some kind of bloodlust; that he’s always thinking that he could kill the bad guy at that far, and that this is what gives him self worth. You might as well bitch at someone for saying they like to drive fast cars and berate

And you somehow got a totally loyal military to oppose the rebellion? You also act as though the military could be effectively concentrated and supplied, which if they dealt with a hostile populace, is very unlikely. And who would be producing the food and ammunition and protecting all the roads and railroads and

How do you figure that? Tanks can’t be everywhere, and body armor is far from perfect. Small arms are still plenty effective. It isn’t just RPGs and mortars that have caused us losses in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You are quite correct that current tech rules out headlong engagements with heavy forces, but in

I think this shows a misunderstanding of the actual sentence of the Second Amendment, which is:

How exactly is an inert piece of metal in my pocket holster a threat to anyone? The trigger is protected and has a very heavy pull. And for those who carry semiautomatics, these either are carried with the hammer down and round chambered (these may or may not have an additional safety), or with a safety on. All of

I carry occasionally, and I’m absolutely horrified of ever really having to use my gun. I don’t want the spotlight, and I certainly don’t want the potential legal entanglements, and I don’t want to kill anyone if I can possibly avoid it. However, I find the potential of being unable to act and potentially having

Oh certainly, I don’t debate that. I’m mostly pointing out that the nature of the next civil war is likely to be extremely different from the last. It will most likely not look like a traditional war. I don’t claim to think the military would necessarily pick sides, just that I would have trouble seeing it supporting

Please explain in detail the high level of training in gun safety that police and the military receive that is not easily accessible or apparent to the civilian population.

Even if one wishes to live a peaceful life, not everyone else makes that possible. I think it a lesser evil to perhaps have to kill a person engaged in an act of evil than to by my inaction allow my family or other innocents to come to harm. The idea that one will have a peaceful life when not carrying a weapon and

In what way is populace having the power to resist the government and protect themselves anachronistic? How can you possibly believe there is an expiration date on such a concept?

Interesting that you bring up the importance of militias in bringing victory in the revolution. Makes sense then why the founders would constitutionally protect the maintenance of an armed populace.

The 3/5ths compromise did not occur because anybody thought that slaves were 3/5ths of a person. That was all about how they were to be counted in the census for purposes of representation. The non slave states wanted them not to be counted at all, and the slave states wanted them counted. So they compromised on