New Mars Forums

Hasn't that already happened? ???

To start,

Clark, well said.

Now, Dickbill:

It seems to me that if Mars were habitable and populated by some Martian equivalent of the American Indians, we would have been there for decades and be well on our way to wiping them out... in the most politically correct way, of course. Making them dependents on the new Human government, most likely. Would that be "wrong", or just natural? Animals migrating to new areas and wiping out other species isn't unusual, is this really any different?

I see. It seems we may have another point of complete agreement. If the enforcement were carried out without determining the crime and circumstances surrounding it, it would cease to be law enforcement and would be vigilante justice. The controlled and consistent application of force is the backbone of law, which implies review in its execution.

That's usually how it seems to work out, but there is a deeper problem, and I speak from personal experience on this, so I'm only referencing what I've seen in courtrooms in Detroit. It may not apply to the entire country, but it's probably pretty consistent.
Most people don't want to serve on a jury. It's a pain in the ass, they lose several days of work and are only compensated $5. It costs twelve to park for the day. Consequently, most people find any way they can to get out of it. Those that are left are not people that I'd want making decisions that affect
my life. Usually only half of them are awake for the entire trial, and nearly a third of those conscious don't know what's going on half the time. Sure, there's always a few reasonable people that actually pay attention, but they are the minority.
On a related note, a cop gave me this advice once: If you're going on trial and can choose a jury trial or to have a judge hear your case, if your not guilty, pick the judge. If you are, pick the jury, your lawyer can probably fool them.
The solution is complex and maybe unworkable, but I would suggest compensating jurors an amount equal to a day's wages for every day they serve and, more difficult, trying to create the impression that jury duty is a civic responsibility rather than something to be avoided. I actually know people who don't register to vote to avoid being picked. Joke's on them, I was informed that the jury pool is pulled from drivers licenses 
We'd have a hell of a time doing this here, but if we've gotta build a new system for Mars anyway, we might as well fix a few bugs.

Here's a politically incorrect, polarizing, but relevant idea. The United States has already moved against Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and against Hussein's regime in Iraq, for a number of reasons. Our present enemy is not from a single nation, but simply extremists who are predominately Arab. Hamas and their Palestinian ilk certainly qualify.

If we want peace, then perhaps we should throw our full support behind Israel, discarding the less-than-convincing attempt to be unbiased. Many Palestinians won't accept any peace agreement because they will not accept a single Jew on what they see as their land. They can't be negotiated with, there can be no peace. This element must be eliminated. Maybe we should move to wipe out every muslim extremist group in the region. They are already attacking Israel and they'll never be won over by America. It might be time to face the possibly that "crusade" was the right word after all.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this idea. It will mean heavy casualties on all sides, decades of occupation of a huge area of land, and a radically altered global political enviroment with much of the world aligned against America, in words though likely not in deeds. America would acquire a collection of Arab vassal states, and Israel's security would be assured. The price would be too high, but if such a course should prove necessary we should do it whole-heartedly. If we have to be militant imperialists, we should be the best damn militant imperialists we can be.

Of course there's a nuclear option, but no one wants that. Let's just put that back under the table. But make sure everyone knows it's there.

Here's my two cents. What do we get from our support of Israel, besides frequent policy headaches? We get an ally in the Middle East (just mis-typed "Meddle East", hmm) although it is an ally that is not always desirable. They tend to be a little uncontrollable and uncooperative at times. We also get to sell them our new military equipment, which they promptly test against Palestinians in desert conditions. That provides useful data before our own troops have to take the gear into the field. Limited, but useful to a point. Other than that, we don't get a whole lot, idealogic obligations to support "democracies" not withstanding.

This seems to indicate that it is not in our interests to find a peaceful settlement, which is virtually impossible at any rate. But assuming we do want to end the fighting, we will have to withdraw our blatant pro-Israel stance.

Disclaimer: I am not anti-Israel or anti-semitic! I am sick of being called a Nazi by ignorant jackasses! Not that there are ignorant jackasses on this board. :;):

If we really want peace, we'll essentially have to say "we're leaving, we'll be back in a year to talk to the winner." Otherwise, not much will change.

In short, I agree with Cindy that it would probably have been best to stay out of the whole debacle from the beginning. But, since we're involved now we have four real choices:

Continues as we are, trying to broker an impossible peace, in which case we will eventually have to admit our own hipocrisy.

Take an active role in protecting Israel and maintaining order, virtually annexing Israel. Despite being an avowed Imperialist, I think this would be a horrendously bad idea.

Let them duke it out, with no regard for the death toll and atrocities that will be committed.

Make an honest attempt to truly achieve a peaceful sttlement, unlikely as it may be. This means we must truly appear to be un-biased. This means we will have to do things which may not be politically acceptable to many quarters in America. No more sending Jewish women (Albricht) to negotiate with Arabs, expecting them to believe that we aren't biased. Lieberman for President? Nope. No more fat foreign aid checks to Israel.

Quite the mess, and there are no easy answers.

You know, the upcoming election promises to be entertaining if nothing else. Fools on parade.

Now I'm not a huge fan of the Bush administration, namely due to that damned Patriot Act and his signing of McCain's Campaign finance bill (the Incumbent Protection Act)
That said, I think it's safe to say that we'll have four more years, and it's not an entirely bad thing.

Why, you ask? Look at the Democrats! They've always had some ideas that shared no relation to reality, but since Iraq they've gone completely off the deep end. I don't know what Bizzaro world these people live on, but it ain't anyplace I've ever been.

Case in point, Iraq: Lately there's been a chorus of whining that we haven't found any of the weapons we went in for (which isn't entirely true), sometimes going so far as to imply (or outright claim) that Bush lied. Enter the magical fantasy land of the left.

Let's say that Bush lied and the real reason we invaded was to avenge the assassination attempt on Bush 41 (weak) and to sieze the oil (asinine). If Bush lied, Clinton lied when he was lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq. The UN lied for twelve years. Saddam lied when he admitted he had the stuff. I suppose those Mi-24 gunships were lying when they dropped gas over Kurdish villages too, eh?
Bush is going to win in 2004, and he should. Yes, he has his faults and his policies can be a little scary at times. but look at the alternative: People who plainly say they won't pursue America's enemies without permission from the UN, who bitch and moan about alleged human rights violations at Guantanomo while they stand by as thousands are tortured, raped and murdered in Iraq. They not only did nothing, but they actively worked against efforts to end it, thus prolonging it! Doesn't anyone see this! The thought of these people getting the Presidency back is not only depressing but nauseating.

Hmm, went into another rant. Maybe I'll run for Congress in 2004 as a Democrat. Couldn't possibly say anything more idiotic or offensive then they've been saying lately.

"Every election we vote for people who promise a better future and deliver... nothing. This year, vote Cobra, and you'll never have to do it again."

Think about that.

Two things should be kept in mind with regards to the Second Amendment. Other writings from the time make it very clear that it was meant as an individual right, both as a means of preventing tyrannical government, both foreign and domestic, and more generally as a means of self defense. If I recall some of those writings were quoted a few pages back.

But perhaps more importantly, it must be taken in the context of the Bill of Rights. Of those first ten amendments, the other nine are unquestionably individual rights, not "state rights." That was in fact the whole purpose of having the Bill of Rights. It seems reasonable that if the Second Amendment was, unlike the other nine, meant not as an individual right but as some form of state-regulated militia or National Guard clause, it would have been made very clear. Instead we have not only the wording itself which shows it to be a right of individual citizens, but its place in the Bill of Rights, among individual rights. All the records from the period suppport this interpretation.

The implication is that citizens can not only own and carry weapons for defense but can also own military small-arms of equivalent capability of those used by the army at the time. There was in fact a Supreme Court case (US vs. Miller)sometime in the 1930's that supports such an interpretation. The court ruled that the defendent DID NOT have a Constitutional right to own a sawed-off shotgun because, being that the weapon had such short range and was so inaccurate, it had no military value and therefore was not protected under the Second Amendment. By that intepretation the 1994 assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. Of course it doesn't really ban "assault weapons" in the proper senses, since automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1920's. This doesn't conflict with the Miller ruling as the sub-machine gun and other personal automatic weapons were not considered proper military weapons at the time.

How does this relate to Mars, you might ask? Unless the United States colonizes it and annexes that colony into the union, it doesn't. But the basic principles behind a "right to bear" arms still apply, bringing us back where we started!

Rhetorical or not, yes.

So you admit that gun-control laws don't work.

No. It is due to the fact that now only criminals have guns. Most citizens obey the ban. Criminals, who by definition don't obey the law, continue to have weapons. I'm certain that the number of guns in the United Kingdom has dropped signifianctly since the ban, but they've been taken from the wrong people. Gun bans tell criminals that their victims are unarmed, thus making crime easier and leading to more of it.

The intent is not to "reduce gun related incidents" per se, but to change the outcome of those incidents. Unarmed citizens facing armed criminals are easy meat, this is a very basic concept. Nearly every recent attempt at gun control has led to an increase in crime, any assertion to the contrary is wrong. Recent experience argues against it, all of human history argues against it. To make policy based on the gun-control fantasy is fundamentally flawed, a legend in the Annals of Wrong.

The problem is that projectile weapons are easy to build, and when the population becomes large enough someone will.

Which is to say they will investigate, pursue the perpetrator, and in some cases call for new laws that will be no more effective than the old ones.

One possible scenario.

Again, perhaps. Or the colonists may decide that simpler emergency monitoring systems are preferable. The machinery of the colony can be monitored directly, watching the populace is unnecessary. yes, if a section depressurizes it's nice to know how many people are in there, but it has no real relevance to dealing with the problem. If it's empty or has a hundred people inside, you have to seal it off. Letting Big Brother monitor everyone's vital signs serves no purpose other than to control everyone's behavior through fear. If this is your intent, fine, just say so.

Many murders are "moment of passion" crimes. No amount of surveillance nor the certainty of getting caught will stop them all. Whether the populace will be willing to sacrifice virtually all the liberties we have grown accustomed to in order to prevent many crimes is a valid subject for debate, but to assume that it is already a foregone conclusion is absurd.

I can accept this. If a non-lethal defensive weapon that is as reliable and effective as a gun is available, great. I have not yet seen it.

As previously stated, that suggestion was off-the-cuff and not a serious, well thought out proposal. That it has some merit when taken in the context of drivers-ed being taught in school was really my only point there. Outside of that banter with Soph it's not relevant.

But an idiot criminal... Now that's entertainment.

I have said that the basics of gun safety don't require lengthy classes. I have said that the basic operation of a gun is simple and easily understood. I have implied that acceptably effective operation of a gun can be taught quickly.

I never said that criminals should be allowed to buy guns, no questions asked!

If you want to think of a violent criminal as a child simply because he's a few months under 18 that's your call, but most people won't agree.

I'm curious as to where you're getting this information. Iraq's information minister seems a likely source given the outright falseness of it.

To be blunt, sometimes that is a practical purpose.

I take it you've never visted the Detroit area. The traffic is horrendous in many areas. While I've never been to New York I can safely say from personal experience that overall Detroit has heavier traffic than Chicago or D.C. and Everyone I know whose been to New York did not find it any worse.
Recently, A few years back I ran across an NTSB study that showed Detroit's traffic was second only to L.A.

Now here's the problem with analogies: just because there's a comparison on one level doesn't mean you carry it over on all. Software piracy is theft. It is illegal simply by nature of what it is and serves no purpose but to cheat the maker out of money. Firearms ownership is not harmful in and of itself. If I have a bootleg of Windows XP I have deprived Microsoft of what is rightfully theirs. If I have a gun I haven't harmed anyone in any way. If I carry a gun I haven't harmed anyone.

Might as well get this out the way too. Let's not even get into the comparison of gun registration with car registration. In the latter case it has nothing to do with safety, it's about taxes. Not applicable.

Soph, I can tell from your previous posts that you're an intelligent individual, but on this issue you're misguided. I blame the public education system... 

While I don't really want to keep batting this topic back and forth I'm sure it's going to continue. Just can't not respond, it's like asking Democrats not to whine about 2000, or Hitler not to talk about Jews. Everyone's got that one button I guess. ???