New Mars Forums

Ok, we are getting way off what Kerry would do for the space program.

I will be a gentleman and end this debate right now. 

Guns kill people. Guns are bad. Get rid of guns. 

Just because nothing is going to stop criminals from using guns is no reason to permit them. Criminals don't kill the most with guns, ordinary people do. I would rather worry about a home-invader with a possible gun than worry about my son playing with mine while I'm at work one day.

Good point Algol. By placing a total gun ban in effect time will indeed do most of the work. In the meantime when police raid a place and find guns but no drugs they can still make a decent arrest and net the force some cash.

I believe in freedom of individuals, but there is no such thing as total freedom. Our system requires us to yeild some freedoms in order to preserve civilized society. For instance, I am not free to take my neighbors big screen tv because that would impose on his freedom. Guns do the same thing in a round about way. Their very existence is for one purpose, to kill.

Is there a place in civilization for a weapon that kills? The answer is no. In the past a gun was very useful for defending property from Indian raiding parties, pouchers, squatters and putting down lame animals. In today's world all these things can be accomplished with non-lethal tactics and tools.

Most deaths from guns result from accidents. Right now, somewhere in America, a child is playing with his dad's pistol or rifle. Is it worth putting our children at risk today to guard against some possible threat tomorrow, if it ever comes? No. Guns are obsolete in modern society. Ban them all.

Well yes and no. Machines don't commit crimes (yet....) people do, true, but that is the point. Criminals come in many shapes and sizes. Some are theives, some rapists, murderers, etc. So what often happens is Joe the theif breaks into Smith's house and steals his DVD player, jems, cash, puppy and in the bedroom closet he finds a 9mm. Now Joe has no use for this 9mm but his friend (the homocidal Duke) has offered him $50 for any gun. Joe pawns or sells the electronics on the black-market (ebay) and sells Duke the 9mm for $50 (don't ask what happened to the puppy). This scenario happens way too often in America.

Yes, correct. However the doctrine that gun advocates use to keep the gun trade thriving is seriously outdated. In the 'good ol days' if the government suddenly became corrupt and the people wanted to rebel against it, the playing feild was rather level. A rifle in the hands of well trained men could mount a defence against a few men with cannons and rifles. Today the tale is different. Our military has incredible technology all the way up to nuclear weapons and the little guy has a rifle (albeit it has a nice firing rate now).

The constitution also provides that if the people see the government as unfit they have the right to leave it and create a new government. This is something that the South tried in the Civil War and was forced to remain part of the United States of America. No one ever notices that what the North did was illegal.

I have long had the view that as long as you are hurting no one besides yourself, it is not the governments buisness what you do. Therefore we shouldn't have laws forcing us to wear seat belts, prohibiting us from taking drugs in our leisure, or a law saying that suicide is illegal (if you succeed, what can they do?). However, I draw the line with guns. As I said, they are often stolen and enter the black-market. Their only purpose is to kill. They have no place in modern society.

I understand your point of view Cobra, but let's look at it another way. Take nukes for instance. In the right hands they just sit there and decay slowly. In the wrong hands they can start a war and kill millions of people. By your reasoning it isn't the nuke that kills but the person that uses it right? Somethings are just too dangerous to allow in society.

Just think of the size of our flag in 100 years! Where are we going to put all those stars?!?

This just in, the US has claimed the entire inner solar system as its 51st-54th states!

Seriously though, why not? If we can put people on Mercury, Mars, Luna, Europa and other places, who is to tell us stop? If we wait too long, then other countries will go as well. Then you have do deal with potential embarassing situations like trying to explain why our rail guns 'accidentally' shot down the third Russian colony ship.

The time has come, my fellow Americans, to devote our minds and hearts to a new Manifest Destiny! We have settled this great country from sea to shining sea, now the seas of space becon us.

We have the technology and resources to open up a new frontier for American occupation. We have the will to open new oppertunities for our children and grandchildren.

We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because we want English spoken throughout the solar system. We want a McDonald's on every crater and Survivor: Olympus Mons!

Seriously, isn't it time for our government to lay the 'traintracks' to new frontiers? Phase out NASA over 10-20 years and begin a new Department of Expansion. What do you guys think?

oops

Dramatically tossing ping-pong ball into the air and swinging viciously! 

True. Nasa is capable of greatness when given orders and ten times the funding it should need thanks to 'juicy' government contracts.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the words 'taken care of'. This tends to conjure up the image of drooling vegetables in bed. What I mean is that the government has the obligation to provide basic services to the people it taxes oh-so heavily. As we have both agreed, Social Security and Medicare among other programs aren't likely to provide enough assistance to elderly Americans because they are often dipped into in times of war.
Our government has a responcibility to provide a chance to suceed to anyone who honestly gives it their all. They tax us for the promise of these benefits, is it wrong to expect them to keep their word?

So perhaps we should start holding lying politians accountable? 'Iraq has WMD','I fufilled my commitment to the National Guard','I had no knowledge that terrorist intended to attack our nation.'

Don't feel bad, I didn't like Bowling much either. It is a hard message to swallow, that self-gratification and consumption are the main drives of our American lifestyles.

What would I do? As president, I would feel obligated to get more information, and that isn't going to happen in a school classroom. My point is, there is no action by Bush to critisize, he did nothing. He had his advisors telling him in advance that this could happen and he didn't have the time for it. Clinton even told Bush that terrorism would be his greatest challenge as president, but what does Clinton know....

Good point. Our laws aren't fair. Even when they are, our court system favors whites and the rich. It is a little know fact that many major police forces sell their old weapons (many high powered rifles) to traveling gun conventions. Criminals or people that are likely to commit a crime get many of the most dangerous weapons from such shows. It is also hard to enforce waiting periods at such shows because they are always on the move.

Come on now Cobra, is that fair? Bush has made 'terror' his whole re-election campaign and Kerry isn't supposed to have an opinion? How is he supposed to offer himself as an alternative to Bush if he can't challenge Bush on these terms? Frankly, I am suprised how quiet Kerry has been on this. He has only issued a statement saying that his heart and soul goes out to the families of those lost soilders.
So we have lost 1,000 of our smartest, bravest youth. You have to ask yourself, are we any closer to ending terrorism? The answer is no. So how many more have to die? How much more are we going to spend on defeating poor men and women with a assualt rifle?
Iraq is not terrorist central. But if we continue occuping Iraq for years, it will be.

Scrap NASA! Most private buisnesses aren't using them to launch their payloads anyway. Give NASA's facilities to the DoD and start a new Department of Expansion thats main goal is to settle areas of the solar system for future use by America. If an empire ceases to grow, it decays. We need to grow.

Rxke, GWB wasn't wisked away because he is a liability to those that run this country not an asset. Does anyone honestly think that a man with an IQ bordering retarded is capable of leading people in times of crisis?? His entire presidency has consisted of prepared speeches and photo ops. He can't even keep his own so-called ideals straight let alone instill them in others. He is an embarassment to the this country and a joke around the world. I can only pray that America wakes up in time to throw this puppet president to the curb.

We have just reached a sad milestone. Over 1,000 Americans have been lost in Iraq since the war began. Just so you know, I don't think this is 'great news for Kerry!'. This a truly sad day for America and I can only hope and pray that in the end it will be worth all those young lives.

Well I notice you didn't say you had seen it. 

I have only seen Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me, and his latest, but until this last one, I didn't find any of his films amusing. The feeling is something like swallowing nasty medicine, it's good for you, but man does it taste like crappola.

I'm glad you feel that way about Clinton, it shows that you can look at real issues and make your judgements on important facts not character assisination.

What disturbed me most about the 9/11 film wasn't Moore's commentary (he goes overboard at times) but images and footage that never once aired on television. For instance, the corporations holding a meeting to talk about how much money they can make and how the government is going to pay all their expensces. The footage of Bush just sitting there in that classroom was the most disturbing. I know he couldn't fly through the sky like superman and save the day, but I felt hurt that he didn't seem to care that a lot of Americans just died (granted he couldn't know the full scope of the disaster but he had to realize it was at least 100).

However, I couldn't disagree with you more about policing the world being needed to be a superpower. If a nation is fair and just it shouldn't need a massive army to keep the peace.

Am I against a huge military force, not really. What I am against is a huge military cost. Out of the roughly 2.2 trillion our government pulls in, 1/4 is spent on our military at peace, and another 1/4 is spent on the interest of our debt. I'm not saying through it out (although we could do without the debt) but surely we can do better can't we?

And wgc please don't be offended by anything I say. No matter how we may disagree on politics we both want to see humans speeding around the universe don't we?

I personally feel it is time to scrap NASA and start a new space program. We need a space program that will bring industrialization to the final frontier and this isn't even NASA's charter. I feel they are just getting in the way really, there's no hostility to it.

I did read the article, but I'll be honest, I didn't grasp a lot of it. Am I correct in assuming that these 'pebble' reactor use unrefined fuel which is much safer than processed uranium?

Thank you Euler, as always, you are the voice of reason 

I love ya Cobra, please know that I enjoy our games of ping-pong very much!

Good points SpaceNut. I've been saying for years how out-dated NASA is. What we truly need is a new organiztion devoted to expanding America's territory. Instead of a Department of Homeland Security, I would like to see The Department of Expansion. It could have its roots in the White House and report directly to the President with progress updates.

Hmmm, there may be something to that. I've always said, and polls have shown, that people are more interested in space settlement than exploration. Exploring is a never ending goal with hard to define criteria.

Perhaps we should get our space advocacy groups to push this?