I have never seen DU so bloodthirsty or vengeful

[cali]

there's talk of blowing the backs of the pirates heads off and talk of bombing Somalia, of blowing up the lifeboat, and on and on. What's going on here? And it's more than just a few posts and posters.

I want a peaceful resolution of this mess.

[Orrex]

1. I propose that we firebomb the southern and eastern hemispheres

That'll teach the bastards!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. And the northern and western ones, too,

just in case they get any smart ideas ...................

[Orrex]

7. One can never be too sure!

[Wiley50]

75. Right! And Firebomb Vermont Twice just to be sure n/t

[Orrex]

87. Well that should be obvious

Those godless ice cream eaters!

[Ken Burch]

36. And let's not let those OTHER planets off the hook!

God knows what they've got planned.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

41. Oh, I think we ought to start there .........

You just KNOW they're watching, making plans...........................

[Ken Burch]

43. ...preparing the anal probes....

n/t.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. NO!

None of the fun stuff for those bastards.

Waterboarding, and taps full on!

[malaise]

61. It's the residue of eight years of Bush

and it's frightening.

[MUAD_DIB]

89. Operation Ragnarök.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. LOL!

Funny stuff on a Sunday morning. Good post, Orrex.
GAC

[dem629]

2. Maybe we should give the pirates a lifetime supply of marshmallow peeps.

Then they will be our friends.

[annabanana]

10. I personally hope that someone manages to help them develop

some sort of infrasturcture wherein piracy isn't the primary source of income. Solmalia is a basket case.

[LynnTheDem]

46. Because of course there's no possible in-between-ness.

Right.

[dem629]

79. Well, someone did propose that we find "common ground" with the pirates.

I'm just trying to help.

[rug]

3. Just like the primaries.

[Ken Burch]

37. The Somali Pirates ran in the primaries?

n/t.

[dweller]

52. aka ,

libertarians.

they were blown outa the water too.
dp

edit: libations, sigh

[tavalon]

131. No, a similar contingent was over the top here in the primaries

[cagesoulman]

146. Only in Texas.

:)

[annabanana]

5. Boy! I thought I was all over this place today. . I missed that

Don't bother linking... Not in the mood to knee jerk.

[ddeclue]

6. Ummm what do you expect people to think about low life criminals who kidnap, kill and extort money?

:shrug:

and apparently you've missed some of the commentary about the "pirates of Wall Street"...

:shrug:

[Arctic Dave]

14. When did the pirates kill someone. I have not heard that.

[ddeclue]

42. Yeah right these Somali Pirates never kill anyone...

:eyes:

http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2009/3/30/somali-pirates-kill-yemeni-fisherman/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6719091.stm

http://www.theaviationnation.com/2008/12/13/somali-pirates-kill-three/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/french-hostage-killed-by_n_185650.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Somali-pirates-kill-ship-crew-member/2007/06/04/1180809414506.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21842522-1702,00.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/pirates-kill-hostage

http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Dec_08/20Dec26.html

[Arctic Dave]

76. Thanks for the info. This hasn't really concerned so I didn't keep up on it.

However you shouldn't do the eyerolly thing too much it might tickle your stomach after a while.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Are you serious?

[Arctic Dave]

Yes I was serious. I have been out inthe field and am a little behind abou

The outrage dujour.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. I thought it was common knowledge, sorry.

[tavalon]

132. It's not. I didn't specifically know I just tend to assume that when people carry automatic weapons,

violence and death ensues.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. Clearly that's not true.

Though It is usually assumed that people using machine guns, rocket launchers to commit crime on the high seas will result in some amount of death.

David

[TorchTheWitch]

98. They killed a French hostage on Friday

Just last Friday the French Navy rescued one of it's ships and in the process the pirates killed a hostage. Two pirates were killed and three others are being (or have been already) taken back to France for trial. The French have their ship back, but lost a hostage.

Apparently, there's been one or two others over the past year.

[Arctic Dave]

114. Someone knowed me up already. Thanks though.

However, the French mishap seems like it could have been different if they didn't go in guns a'blazin.

[Prometheus Bound]

182. How do you know the pirates killed the hostage?

All the French have said is that they don't know who killed him.



Asked to elaborate on the circumstances of the tragedy, Morin admitted on Saturday he "could not rule out" the possibility that Lemaçon had been killed by a French bullet during the crossfire.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/13/tanit-yacht-somali-pirates-france


Mr Morin said on Saturday that officials "cannot rule out" that Mr Lemacon was killed by French fire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7996072.stm

Two pirates were shot dead as commandos stormed the yacht, while three others were taken prisoner.

Morin has said he "cannot rule out" that Lemacon was killed by French fire, saying a inquiry would determine what happened on board the Tanit.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=nw20090412182853214C838976&set_id=


French chief of defence staff General Jean-Louis Georgelin said Mr Lemacon died in crossfire between the pirates and the elite troops when they 'went down into the cabins,' adding that the pirates were using Kalashnikov assault rifles.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_362253.html

[Political Heretic]

18. Yes, wanting robber barons fired or prosecuted is exactly like wanting pirate heads ripped off

[imdjh]

59. I actually wanted the robber barons dispossessed and sent to the mines.

In chains, along with the entire YOUKNOWWHO family, but that's just not fair to the real miners.

[Political Heretic]

64. hahahahaaa

nice :)

[Djinn]

80. maybe they could swap

each miner displaced by a Bush gets a chunk of Bush fortune and a nice big house to live in, I reckon the miners I've worked with would be cool with downing tools for that ;-)

[Chulanowa]

158. The robber barons are white. Somali pirates are black

Not just that, they're also Muslim!

Sadly, these sort of differences make as much a difference on DU at times as they do on Freerepublic.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heidi]

95. Two deaths in 2008 according to International Maritime Organization statistics.

From a 2008 report in The Maritime Executive,based on IMO statistics.
A total of 440 acts of piracy and armed robbery have taken place off the coast of Somalia since IMO started compiling relevant statistics; more than 120 attacks during this year alone. Of the 35 ships and 600 seafarers seized by pirates and held for ransom, at least 14 ships and some 280 seafarers from 25 nations are still being held hostage in Somalia. Two deaths have been reported.
See Page 2 here: http://nautik-web.fk5.hs-bremen.de:81/img/pool/The%20Maritime%20Executive%20Magazine%20__%20Piracy%20off%20the%20Coast%20of%20Somalia_%20No%20Easy%20Answers%20__.pdf

[bkkyosemite]

8. These pirates do not want peace they want money at the expense of 250 hostages.

Don't blow this ship up with the hostage in it. But in the future if Pirates start for a ship they blow them out of the water. These people do not care about anything but their money. If it is not stopped it will continue. Blow them up enough and they will stop that is only what they understand.

[Political Heretic]

12. Funny I feel the same way about Wall Street.

[rhett o rick]

116. That was going to be my comment. Just substitute "wall street" for pirates in the response. nm

[Renew Deal]

28. You know the "shores of Tripoli" thing?

Well, the first time the US engaged the pirates they blew up their own boat rather than giving in to them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

115. Cool! Get them to blow up their OWN boats.

Problem solved.

[Political Heretic]

9. Some DUers are viloence cheering assholes. Most are not, best to focus on them.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. So many of us are here just for the cheap sexual thrills......

[Orrex]

17. That's totally hawt!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. It works,

and working it here always produces very fine results ................

[Renew Deal]

29. lol

:rofl:

[paulsby]

168. there is nothing wrong with properly directed violence

if there is anybody who deserves violence, it's these assmunches

[rwheeler31]

11. Ok give them Oklahoma maybe they can fix it.

[babylonsister]

15. I do, too. And yes, bloodthirsty would be the word. I don't get it either. nt

[HughMoran]

16. I enjoyed the "nuke 'em" post

You hardly ever hear that these days, it was very refreshing :)

[tavalon]

136. Wow, I picked a good day to not be here!

I've got an idea! Let's send our robber baron bankers over to Somalia and see if our pirates and their pirates can, um, find common ground!

[Skink]

19. The reason they won't mess with a Cruise ship is they know the crew has

access to an Armory.The passengers don't know this.

[BlooInBloo]

20. You're surprised? DUers are Americans.

[liberalmuse]

21. Face it. Most Americans are arrogant assholes.

Who've watched one too many 'Die Hard' movies. I didn't see too many people out in the streets just before we blew the fuck out of Iraq.

[Downtown Hound]

30. You obviously weren't in San Francisco

We protesters shut that city down when the U.S. attacked Iraq. It was nuts. I'm not disagreeing with you overall. I'm just saying that there were massive protests against the Iraq War, and not just in liberal SF. The media attempted to marginalize them as much as they could, so the full weight and size of them was never really known to many Americans. But if you were there in San Francisco when the war broke out, I guarantee you you would never forget it. Or ever doubt just how effective mass civil disobedience can truly be. The mayor eventually made a public plea with us to stop what we were doing because we were bankrupting the city. LOL.

[tavalon]

155. I'm failrly sure I was in Austin then.

I remember the protest was so crowded it was claustrophobic. I hate when I have no choice to move or not because I'm being carried by the crush of people. But I went and I stayed in that hoard of people.

I've been to too many huge and yet marginalized protests in the last 8 years. The most disheartening to me (after the fact - during it was a blast) was the one I went to in DC. I didn't have the heart to go again. We were almost a million strong that time and we were called tens of thousands afterward, by the fucking DC local media. I bet we were called hundreds by the national media. After that, I continued going to local protests but gathering in DC just didn't make any sense to me any more. If I ever go to another DC protest it will likely be to hang with the DUers. DUers in person rock my world. They are great people. On this discussion site, some can get a little weird, but I can't remember meeting a single one face to face who wasn't just a stellar human being.

[Deja Q]

105. So that's what President Obama meant when he called Americans 'arrogant'.

In that context, I agree.

While the pirates should be locked up, I can't deny I'm curious as to what incites their hate. Let's prevent future piracy, if the reasons for inciting it are worthy of reflection and change. If they were just being militants, then don't expect an iota of sympathy from me.

[tavalon]

157. I don't think they especially hate

This is a mafia. It's not our mafia but it works much the same as our mafia or our gangs. Yes, there is violence but at least at the upper levels, it's just business, bloody business, but just business.

[tavalon]

138. We were out there in huge numbers

No MSM press coverage so you could well have missed it. Millions out in the US. Many more millions throughout the rest of the world. The rest of the world got press. We didn't. That doesn't say that your first two sentences aren't right. I think they are.

[Codeine]

164. Of course, you're not -- right?

You're much smarter than most Americans; wiser and more intelligent than the people around you. :eyes:

[bkkyosemite]

23. There is no law in Somalia. There is no peaceful resolution to be had. These people know

nothing else but yes you can or no you can not. So what do you people suggest? Let's just talk and let them keep killing, kidnapping and extorting.

[tavalon]

141. These people, hmmm.

I've taken care of many a Somalian immigrant as a nurse. I know a different set of these people.

[swt_nd_smpl]

24. In my opion...

Somali is a failed states, so they need someone in their group to rise up and fix their failed states, then they wouldn't have to resort in to a life of a criminal. No bloodshed and no bombing.

[bkkyosemite]

27. They may be criminals even if it was not a failed state. Lots of money to be had.

They are not just some people who are poor with no guidance no law. This is a well organized operation a mafia of sorts. They will not stop doing what they are doing if it stays the status quo.

[swt_nd_smpl]

67. Well if you look at other country like Cuba, Venezula and Indonesia they have no pirates

lurking in their midst. And all of them are a successful states you don't see any of their citizen resorting to life of crime.

[ForrestGump]

97. Are you kidding me? You skipped the sarcasm tag, right?

At the risk of going ahead with a refutation that's misplaced, in reference to aforementioned potentially implied sarcasm tag, I have to point out that pirates are most definitely alive and well in both Indonesia and Venezuela. I don't know about Cuba, nowadays (obviously it was a bit of a pirate haven way back), but I doubt Fidel would've stood for any of that kind of nonsense.

Venezuela-based pirates are responsible for attacks on many vessels, most far smaller and thus lower-profile in the news than the leviathons taken off Somalia. So, no, Venezuela is hardly a pirate-free paradise. I know a ton of people who work in the Wider Caribbean Area and, although piracy is not rampant, pirates are definitely a concern, especially further from shore and especially within range of certain areas, Venezuela definitely being one of those.

And Indonesia is, in many ways, Pirate Central. In fact, the Straits of Malacca may well be the most pirate-dense area in the world, ever, and is arguably the most dangerous maritime passage in terms of the pirate menace. It's been that way for a long time. For that matter, the Bugis people of south Sulawesi were once so feared (they were great sailors, mostly traders but sometimes turning pirate) that it's long been said that the word "boogeyman" derived from their name (it most likely didn't, however). Indonesia is a risky part of the world for sailors, and not because of its natural features.

As for the topic under discussion, I tend to side with the posters here on DU who want the situation to involve at least some action worthy of a Bruckheimer movie. By that I don't mean nuking Mogadishu, or even blowing the lifeboat and any other possible target out of the water, but dealing with the pirates in decisive and severe fashion. I've got no sympathy for pirates, regardless of the alleged motives for their choosing that path (I'm interested in the old-time pirates, and recognize that not all were of a kind, but many of the kind extant these past few decades seem particularly nasty). I've known too many people who have had brushes with them or lived or worked in areas plagued by pirates. I've long led a life closely tied to the sea, too, and things maritime tend to occupy a more significant spot in my mind than is probably true of many, especially the landlocked. So, yeah, I've got zero tolerance for the scum. Loved Johnny Depp's Captain Sparrow, of course, but wish appropriate fates for the kind out there in the real world. No amount of misplaced 'bleeding-heart' agonizing over their supposed status as oppressed proletariat driven to a life of crime by international corporatism excuses, in my eyes, their actions. This one, for instance, I take very, very personally (and, as it turned out, my best friend from childhood was aboard his boat not long before, hitching a ride from South America to the Antarctic Peninsula):

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1206-05.htm

So where are the Navy SEALs? Seems like this is their turf, at this point.

[Renew Deal]

25. Democrats have never been pussies about defending this nation.

Unlike the republicans.

[David Dunham]

31. Piracy is an international crime like skyjacking. They need to be punished.

[bkkyosemite]

34. Kenya said they would take them and prosecute but they can't prove anything so that is a wash.

How do you punish them?

[MrSlayer]

32. We're not all pacifists here.

I make no apologies about it. Being liberal doesn't mean you have to take shit from people and it doesn't mean you won't defend yourself. A peaceful solution would be the pirates giving up their hostages and receiving nothing in return. They don't deserve to be paid off for their hostile actions. If they do not agree they should be killed. There is nothing wrong with righteous retribution.

[dem629]

40. I think the pacifists think their words make them seem like better people.

But their philosophy is one that endangers more than the few current participants.

[me b zola]

66. Why does it have to be retribution? Why not criminal justice?

Hostage takers are prosecuted all of the time. I don't understand why the same can't happen here.

[swt_nd_smpl]

70. That 2 million for ransom is nothing compare to a life

Its not being a pacifist by negotiating with them, its being caring and not reverting to a neanderthals(party of No) where they resolve things with a club, we are more advance and better than that.

[TorchTheWitch]

100. It's hardly just ONE life either

The Somali pirates currently hold over 200 people of various nationalities hostage. We kill the ones holding our one American hostage and what happens to them? Clearly, there will be retaliation and probably violent. Normally, the pirates have not been violent because they've been paid off. They DO kill when they aren't paid or when hostages are attempted to be rescued by force (as in the French hostage that was killed last Friday).

Though it disgusts me, I think the wisest course of action is to get our hostage back by peaceful means even if that means having to let the pirates go free. Then get together with the international community to form a plan that works in stopping this escalated pirating (arm the merchant ships). Apparently, the international community has come to the realization that merely trying to patrol the area in search of pirates is not nearly enough and something more needs to be done.

This has been a very easy and very profitable enterprise for the pirates as merchant ships are not armed, and so far they always get paid off and allowed to escape unharmed. Arm the merchant vessels and it is no longer an easy nor profitable enterprise for them.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. A peaceful resolution

seems to me the only way to resolve this with a still-alive American captain.

[David Dunham]

35. Free the captain and then hang em high

[bkkyosemite]

39. or sink them deep.

[David Dunham]

47. Sink them deep would be easier to do. One shell from a navy ship would do it.

[bkkyosemite]

38. I see no way for a peaceful resolution.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

45. Either they get their money,

or everyone dies.

What are the alternatives? They give up the captain and are allowed to sail away? That's not gonna happen.

It just sucks in every possible way, but I'm glad the US has formed the blockade. Chimpy Fucknuts wouldn't have known it was happening, let alone what to do ....................

[luvspeas]

44. I guess you've never ventured into the gun forum...

It's some crazee shit in there

[David Dunham]

48. No. Thomas Jefferson, the first Democrat, had US forces destroy the Barbary pirates.

[bkkyosemite]

49. I wish this captain safety from these criminals but I fear this situation does not look

good. If he gets away they need to pay for what they did to him and what they have been getting away with for sometime. It has to stop.

[David Dunham]

51. Right approach. Obama needs to have US forces take decisive action to stop this piracy.

[dem629]

54. Agreed.

But it might upset the people who are looking for common ground with the pirates. WARNING: Do not have any kind of drink in your mouth when you open this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5437249&mesg_id=5437444

[cali]

90. guess what? what the poster is suggesting is what's been going on and

what many experts endorse as the best avenue to get back Captain Phillips. Why do you think a negotiating team is handling things?

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. My mouth opened when you suggested shelling the boat with the captain in it

Your solution to this is to kill the captain, so the Somalis realise that Americans don't give a shit about anyone's life?

Yes, that truly is jaw-dropping. cali is right - this kind of bloodthirstiness is new to DU.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

139. So your solution is 'Blow the Captain Up". ?

FFS

[Raineyb]

72. Let me get this straight, piracy has been a problem for quite some time

in the area but now that an American has been taken it's time to start taking people out?

I'd laugh if it weren't so fucking pathetic.

You don't give a goddamn about piracy. So you might as well give up that pathetic pretense.

[tavalon]

130. I think nationalizing the banks would be a great start

Oh, wait, you aren't talking about that piracy, are you?

[omega minimo]

53. Don't forget there is a nasty

troll infestation fanning all kinds of flames these days. :hi:

[David Dunham]

56. We are Democratic realists. Thomas Jefferson knew you have to use US military to stop piracy

He had the US navy go and destroy all the ships and ports of the Barbary pirates in North Africa and it worked. No more piracy by them.

[omega minimo]

58. I'm not taking sides, I'm reminding that some of it may be attributed to intentional troublemakers.

[ret5hd]

57. Maybe some people just like stirring shit in threads about certain topics...

Do you think anyone would do that just for fun?

[hlthe2b]

60. some are trying to out-testosterone the RW idjots...

and are watching far too much Faux news...

[marmar]

62. Bombing Somalia? Es serioso?

I haven't been reading the Pirate threads, but WTF? Bombing Somalia because of some loosely organized pirates? Have people not learned anything from the last 8 years?

:wtf:

[babylonsister]

63. No kidding. They're batshit crazy out there.

:scared:

[notesdev]

88. More than just the past 8 years

You would think they'd have learned from the LAST mess we got to in Somalia, thanks to Bushole Sr., messed up further by the stained dress maker in chief that followed him.

[madokie]

65. I'm totally blown away with some of the things I've been reading here of late

[TorchTheWitch]

101. You can say that again

For awhile I can't even believe I'm actually at DU anymore and hardly because of this one issue.

[madokie]

160. This morning I made a decision

to start using the ignore feature. I'd rather not have to, mind you, but this Obama bashing for the sake of bashing has got to stop one way or the other. So far all its taken is about a half dozen added to the list and viola, no more Obama bashing on DU for me.

splchk

[jody]

68. How many of those bloodthirsty, vengeful DUers want to ban guns so citizens can't defend them self?

Anti-RKBA groups want to disarm victims and pro-RKBA groups want to disarm criminals.

[marmar]

69. Mon dieu.......

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

92. -----

This place is going crazy.

[Trajan]

71. OF course .... You mistake the intent ....

The intent is to deny weapons to criminals who would hurt innocents, NOT to 'disarm victims' ...

That is a purposeful characterization .... and quite typical, I might add, for the high roaders of DU ...

I would ask you to provide evidence that ANY gun control advocate has ever said "I want to ban guns so citizens cannot defend themselves" - Otherwise: This is simple bullshit ....

[jody]

74. One example, Feinstein wants to ban semiautomatic firearms misnamed assault weapons that are among

the most common choice of citizens for self-defense.

See DU thread “Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control" Obama still supports AWB>

Feinstein expressed her real views on 60 minutes in 1995. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

I suggest you take your "This is simple bullshit" and roll it into a tight gun-grabber ball.

[Trajan]

93. AGAIN misdirection ....

One doesnt need those specific weapons to defend one's self ...

It is also noted that no evidence is provided where she says to 'ban guns so citizens cannot defend themselves' .... which was your initial misdirection ....

You know what to do with the 'tight ball' ....

[jody]

104. I said “ban guns so citizens can't defend them self” and you replied

“provide evidence that ANY gun control advocate has ever said ‘I want to ban guns so citizens cannot defend themselves’.”

I cited Feinstein and If that’s not enough, read D.C. v. Heller, “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”

SCOTUS held the ban was unconstitutional saying “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

The list of gun-grabbers who wanted to continue D.C.’s ban on handguns for self-defense and their statements can be read at Amici for Petitioner

The evidence I provided above overwhelmingly answers your challenge “provide evidence that ANY gun control advocate has ever said ‘I want to ban guns so citizens cannot defend themselves’” since the question in Heller was self-defense in D.C.

[varkam]

106. Did the court hold in D.C. v Heller that semi-automatic weapons were necessary for self-defense? eom

[jody]

109. Read the decision for your answer. All rights both enumerated and unenumerated protected by our

Constitution are choice in that each person decides whether or not to exercise a right.

Our Constitution obligates government to protect the right of any individual to exercise a right even though the majority of the people oppose that right.

That's why the Declaration of Independence and many state constitutions acknowledge them as inalienable/unalienable rights.

Do you think SCOTUS would say "that typewriters are necessary for freedom of speech?"

SCOTUS might say that government cannot ban typewriters because it infringes on one's freedom of speech.

[varkam]

112. It's just that you seem to be saying that semi-automatic weapons are necsesary for self-defense.

You further seemed to say that the court agreed with that assertion.

First, firearms are not necessary for self-defense. Self-defense is a concept and a right that exists to all, irregardless of whether or not you own a firearm. Conflating self-defense and firearms is a handy rhetorical tool, but it is a non-sequitur. In other words, if you ban all guns - much less all semi-automatic weapons - then it does not follow that citizens won't be able to defend themselves, as you have claimed. But that's really just a minor point.

I believe what the Heller court was saying is that handguns are a constitutionally protected arm under the 2nd Amendment, and that the D.C. ban on handguns was violating Constitutional rights - not that semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense. I know it's kind of a fine point - sort of like our discussion about the Due Process Clause - but it's an important one.

[jody]

113. I've never said that any specific arm is "necessary" for self defense so why do you use that word?

[varkam]

120. True enough. Hence, I used the word "seem"

I was reading between the lines. For example, Trajan said:

I would ask you to provide evidence that ANY gun control advocate has ever said "I want to ban guns so citizens cannot defend themselves"

To which you responded:

One example, Feinstein wants to ban semiautomatic firearms misnamed assault weapons that are among the most common choice of citizens for self-defense.

Even if all semi-automatic weapons were banned (or, indeed, if all weapons were banned in general) it would not mean that citizens could not defend themselves, as you had originally claimed.

[jody]

122. #68 "ban guns so citizens can't defend them self". I could have said

"ban the Internet so citizens can't exercise their freedom of speech" or "ban twitter so citizens can't freely communicate".

I oppose all infringements on inalienable/unalienable rights protected by our Constitution unless SCOTUS has ruled there is an overwhelming social benefit from a specific infringement.

Even in those cases, I oppose a group of infringements that in total effectively prohibit any right.

That was the case with D.C.'s gun laws that effectively banned guns for self-defense, SCOTUS overturned those laws in Heller.

[varkam]

123. Even if you ban the internet...

that doesn't mean that you don't have a right to the freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you a platform on which to voice your opinions - if it did, we would be living in a society that looks a whole hell of a lot different.

It could be argued that it is an infringement, depending on how you interpret that word to mean, but it doesn't mean that you don't have the right - just as it means that even if all guns were banned that citizens would no longer be able to defend themselves. Banning guns doesn't prohibit a right of self-defense, just as banning the internet doesn't prohibit a free speech right.

And I don't believe that the DC ordinance banned guns - it just banned handguns. You could still own a rifle or a shotgun - which presumably can also be used for self-defense.

[jody]

125. You pose several issues, but I'll discuss handguns. They are the most effective, efficient tool for

self-defense and the choice of over 825,000 sworn law enforcement officers for that task.

It's not surprising that handguns are the overwhelming choice for self-defense and that includes those who are unable to use other arms such as clubs, batons, stun-guns, or even brute force.

Merely showing a handgun helps many homeowners convince criminals attempting to break into a house to take their criminal activities elsewhere.

In D.C. the laws requiring trigger locks and separation of shotguns and rifles from ammunition infringed upon use of those arms such that they were not effective for self-defense.

[varkam]

126. But there is a distinction between semi-automatic weapons and handguns, correct?

As, I believe, a revolver is not classified as a semi-automatic weapon but is classified as a handgun.

Merely showing a handgun helps many homeowners convince criminals attempting to break into a house to take their criminal activities elsewhere.

How is that any different from a rifle or a shotgun? I've heard many security experts say that the distinctive sound that a shotgun makes when you rack the slide scares people off. You don't even have to show them.

[jody]

166. Some handguns are semiautomatic including the most popular for self-defense. n/t

Once you understand that, then I'll go to the next issue.

[varkam]

171. Perhaps I should have been clearer - I recognize that many handguns are semi-automatic weapons...

and that not all handguns are semi-automatic weapons.

Are you saying that semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense? Or are you saying that handguns are necessary, or are you saying that firearms in general are necessary for self-defense? (Note that the Court in Heller said none of those things).

[jody]

172. None of the above, I know that govt. is not obligated to protect an individual and self-defense is a

personal responsibility.

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right, see constitutions of PA (1776) and VT (1777), and as such government is obligated to protect that right unless SCOTUS recognizes an overwhelming social benefit to infringe upon such rights.

SCOTUS recognized such rights and RKBA specifically in D.C. v. Heller and called them pre-existing rights.

It happens that firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense and among them, handguns are the number one choice.

Whether a person decides to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a personal decision and handguns are one such choice.

SCOTUS said in Heller:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru¬tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi¬trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

[varkam]

174. That's actually not true...you do remember our Due Process Clause discussion, right?

All the cases that you cited in that discussion said was that the DPC imposed no such obligation - which makes sense seeing as how it has traditionally been interpreted as a restrained on government and not as a positive obligation. Furthermore, the DPC only applies to the federal government. One area that is traditionally left up to individual states is...you guessed it...the police power. So even if SCOTUS ruled that nowhere in the federal constitution is there an obligation of the government to protect its citizens, it really wouldn't matter because that's what states are all about. I mean, when you call the cops, the FBI usually doesn't respond, right? It's going to be state LEOs that fall under the state executive branch which is governed by the state constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right, see constitutions of PA (1776) and VT (1777), and as such government is obligated to protect that right unless SCOTUS recognizes an overwhelming social benefit to infringe upon such rights.

SCOTUS recognized such rights and RKBA specifically in D.C. v. Heller and called them pre-existing rights.

There is, of course, a major difference between the assertion that the right to bear arms is a pre-existing right and the assertion that semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self-defense.

It happens that firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense and among them, handguns are the number one choice.

Whether a person decides to keep and bear arms for self-defense is a personal decision and handguns are one such choice.

So now we're talking about handguns and not semi-automatic weapons? Okay. It also seems to me that rifles, shotguns, and revolvers work pretty well for personal self-defense.

I'm assuming though, that you agree that there should be limits placed on the choices that one can make insofar as the hardware that they can have?

I'm not arguing that they are not constitutionally protected arms, or that people don't use them for self-defense. My issue was your implied assertion that they are somehow necessary for self-defense (or, indeed, that firearm ownership is somehow inexorably tied to the right to personal self-defense - as I have defended myself on many an occasion without the aid of a firearm, and so presumably I still had the right to do so).

[jody]

180. Suggest you read very carefully both DeShaney and Gonzales. You say

"that firearm ownership is somehow inexorably tied to the right to personal self-defense" which is precisely what PA (1776) and VT (1777) said in their constitutions.

SCOTUS addressed the issue in Heller, see Page 19 of SCOTUS' decision on Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

By referring to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, it’s clear that SCOTUS used "pre-existing right" in the same sense that PA and VT used “natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights”.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA - 28 Sept. 1776 "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT- July 8, 1777
“I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

NOTE PA and VT statements differ only in the use of “inalienable” versus “unalienable”, a difference that occurred when the Declaration of Independence was written with Jefferson using “inalienable” and Adams using “unalienable”. Apparently Adams had the final say and the DOI used “unalienable”.

PA said "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

Firearms including handguns are one of the tools included as "arms" protected by the Second Amemdment

SCOTUS said in Heller re arms:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[varkam]

185. I believe I have explained at length what those cases mean, and precisely how it is that you are...

misinterpreting them. I don't think that me going over it again, especially not when I did it in the post previous, is going to make much a difference with respect to our interactions - but I'll try. Suffice it to say, protection of citizens is generally left up to the states except in instances of war where the federal government needs to mobilize. So if you're looking for cases that are going to support your hypothesis that there is no obligation on the government to protect citizens, then you'd have better luck looking at cases that are construing state constitutions. Additionally, you'll also have better luck if, instead of looking at the Due Process Clause (or some analog in state constitutions), you look at something else - seeing as how the DPC imposes restrictions on the government, not obligations.

that firearm ownership is somehow inexorably tied to the right to personal self-defense" which is precisely what PA (1776) and VT (1777) said in their constitutions.

So you are seriously asserting that owning a firearm grants the right to self-defense? Does that mean that if one does not own a firearm, that they do not have the right to self-defense?

By referring to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, it’s clear that SCOTUS used "pre-existing right" in the same sense that PA and VT used “natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights”.

I agree - I'm not arguing that - nor am I arguing the fact that there is a right to bear arms nor am I arguing that self-defense is not related to that right. You seem to be arguing against a bunch of relatively weak straw-men. Notice that in none of the material that you posted is it even implied that owning a firearm is necessary for self-defense, or that if you take away the right to bear arms then the right to defend ones self somehow goes away (much less if you take away the right to bear semi-automatic weapons).

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

See - there it is again: the conflation of a self-defense right with a right to bear arms. They are not, and I repeat - not - one in the same. There may be a relationship between them, but a self-defense right and a right to bear arms are not synonymous with one another, as you seem to be using them. Nor even is the right to bear arms synonymous with the right to bear semi-automatic weaponry.

Firearms including handguns are one of the tools included as "arms" protected by the Second Amemdment

Where have I said that handguns aren't protected arms under the 2A?

In the Heller quote, in the portion that you bolded, the key phrase in that sentence is prima facie which to me means that there is a presumption that arms are protected but that it can be overcome (as the court says in the passage prior to the portion that you bolded - firearms intended for military use are not arms to be protected under the 2nd Amendment).

[jody]

187. You really don't read very well. You ask "So you are seriously asserting that owning a firearm

grants the right to self-defense?"

Up to this point I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you wanted to discuss pros and cons of the right to keep and bear arms. No longer!

Nothing I've every said remotely resembles your twist and spin.

I repeat for anyone who might read my post and be comprehension-challenged, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as recognized by PA and VT as a "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" right and by SCOTUS as a "pre-existing" right.

My position is now soundly grounded on SCOTUS' decision in D.C. v. Heller

Have a good day and good bye.

[varkam]

188. Apparently not, since I have no idea from where you are drawing your conclusions.

Because, with respect to the DPC, it sure as hell isn't the cases that you cited. With respect to Heller, nowhere to do they say that firearms are necessary for defending oneself nor do they say that self-defense and the right to bear arms are one and the same nor do they say that semi-automatic weapons are necessary for self defense. I guess I must have missed that, given that my reading comprehension levels are so far below yours - you genius you. Apparently, your best retort is to just completely ignore the substance, shift the goalposts, and finally start off with the ad hominems.

Up to this point I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you wanted to discuss pros and cons of the right to keep and bear arms. No longer!

Nothing I've every said remotely resembles your twist and spin.

My "twist and spin"? My friend, you are the one who seems intent on conflating self-defense with firearm ownership. How's that for twist and spin? If you don't like what you yourself have written, then I suggest you think a little more carefully about what it is that you want to say.

I repeat for anyone who might read my post and be comprehension-challenged, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as recognized by PA and VT as a "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" right and by SCOTUS as a "pre-existing" right.

Question: do you farm all that straw or do you buy it at market? That was never what was at issue, but don't let that stop you. In addition, I already addressed that point in my previous post - which I assume you didn't actually, you know, read.

My position is now soundly grounded on SCOTUS' decision in D.C. v. Heller

You know, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Have a good day and good bye.

Oh no! I won't get to have any more enlightening interactions with you. Pout.

[Bluebear]

91. Oooh, see all the pretty colors.

:eyes:

[marmar]

94. Teehee......It's amazing how any thread can be turned into a plea for more GUNZ.

n/t

[Bluebear]

175. A recipe thread could turn into that.

[jody]

183. If it got your attention, it took a tiny chip off of a block of ignorance. n/t

[mudesi]

142. Go The FUCK AWAY

Jesus. You have the gungeon. Stay there.

[jody]

167. Your vocabulary doesn't speak very highly for your desire to discuss divisive, polarizing political

issues.

[rucky]

73. I'm really tired of people taking the opinions of a few and using them to trash DU. n/t

[stillcool]

77. Blood lust, and a lack of desire..

to question anything. I can not believe how one report, one newspaper article, or one post on a blog can have people screaming for blood. I don't believe there will be a peaceful resolution, because I do no think it is desired. There is more to Somalia than pirates.

Somalia: Another CIA-Backed Coup Blows Up
by Mike Whitney
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/42/Somalia_Another_CIAbacked_coup_blows_up.html

Up until a month ago, no one in the Bush administration showed the least bit of interest in the incidents of piracy off the coast of Somalia. Now that's all changed and there's talk of sending in the Navy to patrol the waters off the Horn of Africa and clean up the pirates hideouts. Why the sudden about-face? Could it have something to do with the fact that the Ethiopian army is planning to withdrawal all of its troops from Mogadishu by the end of the year, thus, ending the failed two year US-backed occupation of Somalia?
The United States has lost the ground war in Somalia, but that doesn't mean its geopolitical objectives have changed one iota. The US intends to stay in the region for years to come and use its naval power to control the critical shipping lanes from the Gulf of Aden. The growing strength of the Somali national resistance is a set-back, but it doesn't change the basic game-plan. The pirates are actually a blessing in disguise. They provide an excuse for the administration to beef up it's military presence and put down roots. Every crisis is an opportunity.

[tavalon]

145. Someone happened to have a paper at work and on my break,

I was reading the article about Somalia and I thought to myself, how can they think a two page article with only one view could encapsulate such a complex situation as has developed in Somalia over the years? And I didn't manage to even know about what you mentioned above. I'm not up on the situation in Somalia and even I, uneducated reader (of this particular topic) could tell I was being handed a con job, a ham handed con job.

[stillcool]

156. I'm not up on it either..

it's one of those vague areas that I know to be of U.S. interests and interventions, but when a story blows up like this one, I have to wonder why.

[tavalon]

159. I think the why this time is distraction

But it is kinda of ironic that they used pirates to distract us from our own pirates closer to home.

[madrchsod]

81. here`s the guys we need to take care of these pirates

[krabigirl]

82. I find it odd that no one gave two hoots about the pirates before this.

They've been going after French boats, for example, for a couple of years.

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. I guess the French government should step up to the plate then and see that their citizens are

safe on the high seas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. You did hear about the French commando raid yesterday, didn't you?

Good news - 4 hostages freed.

Bad news - 1 hostage killed.

It is the third time in a year that France has freed hostages from the hands of pirates in Somalia, but it was the first time any hostages were killed during a rescue operation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/12/french-hostage-rescue-from-somali-pirates

[cherokeeprogressive]

165. Good on them. In this rescue, they had an 80% success rate.

Bonus if you count the dead pirates.

I was under the impression that in one instance though, the French government paid for the release of the hostages and cargo. I could be wrong.

We can NOT sit on our hands and then expect this to be the last time an American flagged ship is hijacked, and its crew (all or any part of it) held hostage.

[paulsby]

169. well, duh

americans should be more concerned about pirates that take americans hostage than those that take french people hostage.

contrarily, a french citizen should care more about the french taken hostage.

[Uzybone]

83. Anything to make Obama look weak

brings out the idiots and trolls.

[aquart]

84. Now or later we're going to go in and kill them.

And, I expect, quite a few women and children who had no choice whatsoever to be there. But there really isn't much choice. They're human just like we are. They prefer to ransom than kill. But we cannot allow it.

The millions they are collecting in ransom here and there will enable them to be very well armed. WE CANNOT ALLOW IT IF WE HAVE ANY POWER TO STOP IT.

They have no real alternative. We won't either. It will be bloody and deadly OR IT WON'T WORK.

There is no peaceful resolution to piracy on the high seas.

[TorchTheWitch]

102. Arm merchant ships - problem solved

The whole reason piracy has become so prevelent is because merchant ships are not armed, therefore piracy is easy and profitable. Arm the merchant vessels and it is no longer easy or profitable.

[tavalon]

148. We can't allow it today but we could allow it for the last decade?

How does that work again?

Yes, piracy is a problem in Somalia and you are being gamed. This is the enragement funnel for today, boys and girls. Let's not be enraged about our own pirates, let's be enraged about _______________, instead! Please try to use your critical thinking skills and don't let them manipulate you so damn much. You'll be calmer and better able to think more effectively. Which they don't want, BTW.

[cherokeeprogressive]

163. I'd say that's exactly how it works.

Where is it written that because a law has been diregarded, it's no longer a law?

My critical thinking skills tell me that once this situation has been resolved, ships on the high seas carrying American flags will no longer be deemed untouchable. Pirates will know that they have nothing to fear in the way of retribution from the US Government for piracy, hostage taking, or at some point, murder of US Citizens.

I think that what this party needs is a few good snipers. It's what the next piracy party needs, and the next after that.

[elocs]

85. In the open sea if these pirates want to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind

I wouldn't shed any tears over their demise. I'm surprised that their sailor victims would allow any of them to live.

[babylonsister]

86. Recommend. nt

[DFW]

103. I propose the following:

Have some diver swim up under the life boat, pull the plug, and wait for their
rations or their toilet paper rolls get too soggy to use. They'll come along
quietly. No need to get violent.

[varkam]

107. That's sort of what happens when you play Keyboard Kommando.

:shrug:

[H2O Man]

108. Respectfully disagree.

I've seen many DUers being this bloodthirsty a number of times.

I also would like to see a peaceful resolution. That includes justice, which is best accomplished without violence, in my opinion. But I have doubts that this is likely to happen.

[WI_DEM]

110. I agree. A freeper would feel at home on DU because either it's attacking Obama here or wanting

more violence in the world.

[BlooInBloo]

128. Yup.

[tavalon]

150. Few Freepers feel at home here as evidenced by the easy flushing out of them

A few people here have always been over the top. Some of them leave, usually in a drama queen huff, but they are always replaced with others. This place is way to diverse to even come close to being defined by any one statement, especially a hyperbolic statement like yours.

[seemslikeadream]

111. oh please

:eyes:

[Hubert Flottz]

117. "Bomb The Ban!"

[formercia]

119. Let's destroy the Planet

Wait, we're already doing that......

[tavalon]

151. Damn, stole my comeback.

[datasuspect]

121. they neeed to send in the Navy SEALS, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, and Steven Seagal RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

[tavalon]

143. Definitely on the Mel Gibson!

I'm unsure on Steven Seagal but I still like Bruce Willis, so let's not send him. :rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. ZAP! POW! SMASHO! The comic book fans are out in force. K&R

[Joe Fields]

127. Peaceful resolution? They're pirates, just as bad as looters.

Shoot them on sight. No questions asked. No negotiations except for one: YOU HAVE SIXTY SECONDS TO RELEASE THE HOSTAGE AND GIVE YOURSELVES UP, OR WE WILL BLOW YOU OUT OF THE WATER IN SIXTY-ONE SECONDS.

[cali]

134. insane. really insane.

[muriel_volestrangler]

149. "Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n***** gets it! "

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes if you don't get the context.

Yeah, the US killing the hostage would be a swell way to do things. :eyes:

[tavalon]

129. Cali, you have a short memory

At least they aren't calling for the absolute destruction of any DUer who supports ___________________ candidate. Seriously though, there has always been a shit stirring small minority around here. Same as it ever was.

As we said during the burning times, I mean, the primaries, still stands. Let It Sink. (Not the seafaring vessels - the offending threads)

[cali]

133. I'm really referring to those who are devolving into the blow them

up mentality, not to the very personal warring that went on during the primaries, but the rah, rah, go kill our enemies thing.

[tavalon]

140. Granted, but I think it comes from the same hyperbolic fountain

That's what I was trying to say.

[Hugabear]

135. No surprise that many of these are regulars in the Gungeon

Gotta kill 'em all!

[RBInMaine]

137. In the long run, the Somali nation needs to some help for sure. In the meantime, if this can be

resolved peacefully, great. If not, you have to take them out. It just isn't a perfect world.

[flvegan]

144. As one of the posters you directly refer to

(I'm the one that suggested snipers lie in wait and take out the pirates...your first "there's talk of..." point) riddle me this...isn't that specifically what our military is trained to do? If some lawless group of crims kidnapped for ransom someone here in the states, that's what the police would do as a last resort. Our navy has tried just about everything short of violence. If we pay a ransom or let this go unpunished, scenes like this will only escalate and multiply.

I'm not a bloodthirsty person, I'm a realist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. Several times, I have seen "blow up an Somali boat that gets close ...

... to any foreign boat, and don't bother asking questions, let alone doing anything like boarding them". Your suggestion is highly subtle in comparison to the 'pink mist' solution (and yes, that phrase has been too).

[flvegan]

154. Yeah, that's unreasonable.

I certainly could never condone that sort of thing.

[saltpoint]

152. I'll just chime in by saying I hope Long John Silver's goes out of business soon.

I never did like anything on their menu one damn bit.

[joshcryer]

161. Come on home, Captain.

[DS1]

170. We need to buy 50,000 Shamwows, and soak up that whole area, so pirates can't float!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

176. lol...

[sarcasmo]

173. I take it you didn't like the result of today's events?

[cali]

181. You take it wrong. I'm thrilled that Captain Phillips is safe.

I'm neither happy or sad about the deaths of the pirates. If that's what had to be done to save him, than that was the right decision. And I'm hardly in a place to question said decision.

[slackmaster]

177. What's wrong with killing pirates?

:shrug:

[opihimoimoi]

178. There are times when diplomacy fails....and a time for Force to prevail

Some heads were lost in the equation but this is a harsh and cruel world...esp if ya put yourself in the predicament such as the attempted hijack of an American Ship.....stupid fools....now Obama got his name on the line.....and thats what happened....

Obama and America had to save FACE and end this shit....asap...which they did....

This will save more incidents from happening.....

[Taverner]

179. I'm glad the SEALs took them out

They were about to kill the captain.

[hughee99]

184. Michael Vick comes to mind...

I'm not defending what Vick did at all, but I was surprised by some of the comments here about it.

[ChazII]

186. I was taken aback by some of the posts. n/t

[Hanse]

189. Well, with declining SUV sales...

sexually insecure people need to find some other way to feel adequate.