[Jinto]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

To an American it is true. And our own Government acknowledges such thinking as well, based on the extent the Government will go to protect its' citizens abroad.

And you think this some are more equal than others appraoch is okay? Ever wondered why the USA is a target of international terror?

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Sorry, but stricter gun laws than we have on the books are not the answer. We already have thousands of gun laws in existence. Enforcement of those current laws is far more realistic in keeping people who don't have the right to guns away from them, than putting more restrictions on the average citizen.

Infact, I'm waiting for more cases to hit the Supreme Court to destroy some of the current Gun Laws that I view as Unconstitutional.

If we were talking about common sense decissions, I would agree with you. But we are talking about political decissions here. Politicians cannot enforce laws, therefore you will never find this approach on their TODO list. What they can do however, is introducing laws...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The Contras were rebels trying to overthrow a dictator.
You know, like what Obama is doing with the rebels in Libya.
We're trying to support freedom fighters.

I think you are mixing something up here. Idealism + patriotism + propaganda != real politcs. The people in Nicaragua and Iran were just strategic investment - a little cruel, but with the intention of securing the US-american influence in the region.

Here a short example for american real politics (without the idealism, patriotism and propaganda riffraff):

Once the iranian Shah was a friend of the USA, because he kept the USSR influenced countries under control because of his military, which was thanks to US weapons exports not merely the 5th largest of the world but also very well equiped.
That the Shah (dictatorship, not democracy) had to enslave his own people to pay for this huge military was okay with the USA.
Then came Ayatolla Kohmenei and freed the irians (well freeing is a little bit of an exageration, he transformed the secular dictatorship into an religous dictatorship). Since the USA backed the Shah, the new regime was not exactly america friendly, and a new arch enemy was born.
To counteract this, the american strategy was to uparm another hopeful dictator of its time - Saddam Hussein. The deal was, when he attacks iran and topples their government, he can keep the northern oil wells. Saddam basically a fair business partner attacked iran (gulf war I). Gassing kurds to solve some internal conflicts was also tolerable at this time.
However, the war went on for too long, huge losses on both sides. Saddam realized this approach is too costly. He knew a better place to get oil - Kuwait. While a war against iran was perfectly okay with the US, a war against their own oil suppliers was a very bad idea. And suddenly a new arch enemy was born. Now Iraq and Iran were on the black list.
At about this time the USSR was "helping" their comrades in Afghanistan to seize control of the country. In order to counter this, the US recruited religious zealots to fight for the holy cause - which roughly translates into fighting against russian troops in Afghanistan. Among them Al Qaida, at the time the "freedom fighters" of their time in Afghanistan. After the russians were beaten, Al Qaida turned against the USA, because they basically figured out, that were just misused. Their holy mission just a clever US strategy to regain influence in the region.
Desillusioned about the true intentions of the USA, Al Qaida began to become anti american... and another arch enemy was born.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Drug Cartels aren't freedom fighters, they're organized criminals, and that's the difference.

So whats Al Qaida and the Taliban then? If they are criminals was never an issue for US policies. The only important thing is that the fighters are directly or indirectly supporting american interests. Freedom fighters, haha...

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

It wasn't a matter of whose life was worth more, it was a matter of trying to help people in the case of the Contras,...

to help promote american interests.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

...verses a rogue US agency trying to justify its existence by selling to criminals who use terroristic methods.

which is not exactly out of the norm for american foreign politcs.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

ATF was trying to create a problem(sell assault rifles to criminals), to offer a solution (more gun control), to further their agenda (a larger budget for their agency to enforce the new laws).

The only thing that bugs you is that this agency was operating so closely to the US border. And their screwing up (which is not uncommon for US agency's foreign aproaches - see Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan) has consequences that actually touch the USA. While this is not new (see 9/11), it is admittedly undesirable. But I have this feeling you are against this agency for the completely wrong reasons (your egomanical ones).

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I also don't see this as a "right-left" issue.
Many Democrats own military style handguns and rifles in this country.

Well I talked about so called core competencies of parties. And I think we can agree that you can derive a left side/right side difference here very clearly.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Indeed, and that is troubling. Alexander Tytler once wrote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

This is pretty much exactly what we're seeing... though I think times have changed a bit. In his day we would have seen a dictatorship. In our day, we'll see 80s-cyberpunk style megacorps.

Which is a twisted form of "selective" democracy. As a stockholder the more stocks (money) you own the more influence you have in this "selective" democracy (where your voting power is measured by your wealth).