How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:19 pm

Saint_;1419968 wrote: Where did you get that idea? Of course I support limiting access. I'd like to limit access as much as possible.
Then either you lie or you're stupid. The Second Amendment is plain and emphatic that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; therefore, any infringement violates the Constitution.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419959 wrote: At what point do you consider that a weapon is no longer covered by the term "arms" as used in the second amendment?
Arms are weapons that can be carried. When the amendment was written, The People only had swords and muskets to carry, but that's all the army had, too. Now the army has much more sophisticated weaponry. It's only right that the citizenry should not be prohibited from the same.

*waits for everyone to finish rolling their eyes and/or spitting and screaming at the computer screen*

This isn't my opinion, and I don't necessarily support such an extreme. It is the law and we don't follow it. We don't honor the rule of law. If we had honored it instead of violating it, this issue would likely have been settled back in 1934 ( ATF Online - Firearms - National Firearms Act (NFA) )

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:07 pm

Accountable;1419995 wrote: Arms are weapons that can be carried. When the amendment was written, The People only had swords and muskets to carry, but that's all the army had, too. Now the army has much more sophisticated weaponry. It's only right that the citizenry should not be prohibited from the same.

*waits for everyone to finish rolling their eyes and/or spitting and screaming at the computer screen*

This isn't my opinion, and I don't necessarily support such an extreme. It is the law and we don't follow it. We don't honor the rule of law. If we had honored it instead of violating it, this issue would likely have been settled back in 1934 ( ATF Online - Firearms - National Firearms Act (NFA) )

Any law is subject to interpretation, in this case of the word arms. You have chosen to apply the definition of "small arms" to the amendment but the term "arms" applies to any form of weapon up to and including ICBMs (as witnessed by the Stratigic ARMS Limitation Treaties which dealt with just that).

Given that you have chosen to limit the applicability of the second amendment in that way, why do you object so strongly to discussing where the boundary should be drawn?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:55 pm

Accountable;1419990 wrote: Then either you lie or you're stupid. The Second Amendment is plain and emphatic that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; therefore, any infringement violates the Constitution.

Perhaps the constitution is lying since we don't allow people to drive tanks? Common sense, accountable! We already limit arms, why not go further and try to stop the bloodshed?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:00 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420027 wrote:

Given that you have chosen to limit the applicability of the second amendment in that way, why do you object so strongly to discussing where the boundary should be drawn?

My point exactly.

And accountable, you're the last guy I thought would be a gunslinger...:yh_think

You're smart and peaceable, shouldn't you be arguing for gun control and common sense?:yh_questn

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:12 pm

If you guys were serious instead of simply using hyperbole to appeal to extremes, then I might carry the conversation further. It's sad that you only wish to prevent meaningful discussion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:22 pm

Ah screw it.

Bryn Mawr;1420027 wrote: Any law is subject to interpretation, in this case of the word arms. You have chosen to apply the definition of "small arms" to the amendment but the term "arms" applies to any form of weapon up to and including ICBMs (as witnessed by the Stratigic ARMS Limitation Treaties which dealt with just that).

Given that you have chosen to limit the applicability of the second amendment in that way, why do you object so strongly to discussing where the boundary should be drawn?I have not chosen to limit anything. You asked me. I answered. I've never heard of anyone referring to tanks or ICBMs as arms when referring to individuals. Have you?

Saint_;1420035 wrote: Perhaps the constitution is lying since we don't allow people to drive tanks? Common sense, accountable! We already limit arms, why not go further and try to stop the bloodshed?We already limit arms in violation of the Constitution.

This is my point. Stop trying to convince me to violate the Supreme Law of the Land. Stop trying to rationalize doing so. There is a mechanism that has been in place longer than the Second Amendment has been that can clear up any ambiguity. I will support the Constitution as written. I will speak out against violations to the Rule of Law.

Saint, your stance is a stance against the rule of law, against the supreme law of the land, and therefore supports anarchy. If you disagree, I suggest you reexamine it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:05 pm

Accountable;1420064 wrote: Ah screw it.

I have not chosen to limit anything. You asked me. I answered. I've never heard of anyone referring to tanks or ICBMs as arms when referring to individuals. Have you?

We already limit arms in violation of the Constitution.

This is my point. Stop trying to convince me to violate the Supreme Law of the Land. Stop trying to rationalize doing so. There is a mechanism that has been in place longer than the Second Amendment has been that can clear up any ambiguity. I will support the Constitution as written. I will speak out against violations to the Rule of Law.

Saint, your stance is a stance against the rule of law, against the supreme law of the land, and therefore supports anarchy. If you disagree, I suggest you reexamine it.

Yes, I am using the standard military definition of arms as I assume that this is what would be used by those drawing up an amendment to the constitution that refers to the militia.

Where are you getting your definition of the word arms from?

It is you that wish to prevent meaningful dialogue by refusing to accept that the wording of the amendment can be ambiguous and open to interpretation. In other words you insist that your reading is the only possible one when that is not true.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:46 pm

1776, call up the militia, what was expected?

Small arms, no different than as thought of today, the best available. The ones they kept at home.

Things like cannons require a team to effectively operate, hence a militia. Not that I have any problem with private ownership of cannons, etc. Just not sure it's covered as a 2nd amendment Right.

It was a few years ago in California they passed a law which forbid real "assault rifles" to the point where Hollywood had another reason to film elsewhere. Of course that got resolved real fast.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:03 pm

tude dog;1420134 wrote: 1776, call up the militia, what was expected?

Small arms, no different than as thought of today, the best available. The ones they kept at home.

Things like cannons require a team to effectively operate, hence a militia. Not that I have any problem with private ownership of cannons, etc. Just don't see it covered as a 2nd amendment Right.

It was a few years ago in California they passed a law which forbid real "assault rifles" to the point where Hollywood had another reason to film elsewhere. Of course that got resolved real fast.

You can only go by the words used. The text reads arms, not small arms therefore one must take it that they are covered by the second amendment.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:48 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420139 wrote: You can only go by the words used. The text reads arms, not small arms therefore one must take it that they are covered by the second amendment.

I believe I went by the text as understood by the people at that time, nothing more, nothing less.

If someone has a different view than I presented, I am always interested in reading it

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:11 pm

Accountable;1420064 wrote: I will speak out against violations to the Rule of Law. .

Ok, sure. Conceeded. Actually, I'm arguing from emotion and you're arguing from logic, so naturally we can't agree. We both have good points in those categories.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 3:19 pm

I always wonder, did they mean only the people in the militia should have guns? Especially with pretty much everybody at the time in a militia of some sort?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:31 pm

Saint_;1420158 wrote: I always wonder, did they mean only the people in the militia should have guns? Especially with pretty much everybody at the time in a militia of some sort?

Peter Griffin explained it all in Family Guy. Seems right.

Attached files

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:15 pm

Saint_;1420158 wrote: I always wonder, did they mean only the people in the militia should have guns? Especially with pretty much everybody at the time in a militia of some sort?

I wonder why you would think that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:15 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420123 wrote: Yes, I am using the standard military definition of arms as I assume that this is what would be used by those drawing up an amendment to the constitution that refers to the militia.

Where are you getting your definition of the word arms from?

It is you that wish to prevent meaningful dialogue by refusing to accept that the wording of the amendment can be ambiguous and open to interpretation. In other words you insist that your reading is the only possible one when that is not true.Cool. I accept your definition.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:21 pm

Saint_;1420154 wrote: Ok, sure. Conceeded. Actually, I'm arguing from emotion and you're arguing from logic, so naturally we can't agree. We both have good points in those categories.
But we can't legislate on emotion any more than we can legislate on religious dogma. Making such decisions in the emotional heat of the moment creates stupid, harmful law that is almost impossible to erase.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:14 am

Accountable;1420194 wrote:

Making such decisions in the emotional heat of the moment creates stupid, harmful law that is almost impossible to erase.

You talking about the 2nd Amendment ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:45 am

Accountable;1420193 wrote: Cool. I accept your definition.

I presume from your response that your position remains the same. If the definition of arms covers tanks and ICBMs then it is unconstitutional to prevent members of the public from owning such things?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:15 am

Bryn Mawr;1420310 wrote: I presume from your response that your position remains the same. If the definition of arms covers tanks and ICBMs then it is unconstitutional to prevent members of the public from owning such things?

Yes.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:40 am

Accountable;1420311 wrote: Yes.

You're nothing if not consistent Sir :-6

Given that, would you agree that, at the very least, the second amendment needs to be amended?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:20 am

Bryn Mawr;1420313 wrote: You're nothing if not consistent Sir :-6

Given that, would you agree that, at the very least, the second amendment needs to be amended?
I could have sworn I responded to this. I guess I didn't hit submit. Sorry.

I don't think the second amendment needs to be amended. I think we need to educate people on why the amendment was added in the first place: defense. Not only defense against the US federal gov't, though that's certainly a concern:

But also so that any enemy who might consider attacking American soil must consider that the military is not the only armed resistance. It's deterrence.

It's foolish to look at a prophylactic measure, consider that whatever it is in place to prevent is not currently occurring, and use that absence to justify getting rid of the measure.

Examples:

Parents are starting to vaccinate their children less because nobody gets those diseases anymore.

Banking regulations in place since the '30s to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business was lifted because nothing has happened since the '30s.

These debates keep coming down to hunting and self-defense against burglars. That's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. Rather than doing the easy thing and restricting liberty, I advocate education and training in firearm safety, and teaching the importance of the Second Amendment as vehemently as we teach the importance of labor unions.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 9:21 am

The gun control pic you used for Japanese Americans during WWII would have gotten them slaughtered. Stupidity knows no bounds if you believe they would have been successful with a government & people at War. "If Slaves had Guns, there would have been No Slavery"/If Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust".

Only Morons make those cases. Morons & Ignoramuses.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:11 am

AnneBoleyn;1420438 wrote: The gun control pic you used for Japanese Americans during WWII would have gotten them slaughtered. Stupidity knows no bounds if you believe they would have been successful with a government & people at War. "If Slaves had Guns, there would have been No Slavery"/If Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust".

Only Morons make those cases. Morons & Ignoramuses.
Why puss out? If you want to insult me, do it directly.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:14 am

Accountable;1420440 wrote: Why puss out? If you want to insult me, do it directly.
Who says I want to insult you? We are fairly close in belief re: 2nd Amendment BUT

examples of what could have been defy what actually happened. The American Japanese, if armed, would have proven that they were the Danger they were portrayed as. They would have been destroyed as a traitorous armed rebellion, loyal to our foreign enemy. The other examples I mentioned are just as inane & fantastical. Just Get Real. Don't make up stuff.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:22 pm

Accountable;1420436 wrote: I could have sworn I responded to this. I guess I didn't hit submit. Sorry.

I don't think the second amendment needs to be amended. I think we need to educate people on why the amendment was added in the first place: defense. Not only defense against the US federal gov't, though that's certainly a concern:

But also so that any enemy who might consider attacking American soil must consider that the military is not the only armed resistance. It's deterrence.

It's foolish to look at a prophylactic measure, consider that whatever it is in place to prevent is not currently occurring, and use that absence to justify getting rid of the measure.

Examples:

Parents are starting to vaccinate their children less because nobody gets those diseases anymore.

Banking regulations in place since the '30s to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business was lifted because nothing has happened since the '30s.

These debates keep coming down to hunting and self-defense against burglars. That's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. Rather than doing the easy thing and restricting liberty, I advocate education and training in firearm safety, and teaching the importance of the Second Amendment as vehemently as we teach the importance of labor unions.

Firstly I find it surprising that you support private citizens owning tanks and ICBMs in order to allow them the right to wage civil war against their legitimate government whenever they feel that said government is out of line. To use you own line of argument back at you, there is a legal way to change the government and civil insurrection ain't it.

Secondly, your examples are invalid, vaccinations and the like have clearly enumerable benefits whereas the current gun culture causes clearly enumerable harm - to cite the absence of armed insurrection as no reason to get rid of guns is to ignore the number of gun related deaths that provide excellent reason to ban them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:31 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420445 wrote: Who says I want to insult you? We are fairly close in belief re: 2nd Amendment BUT

examples of what could have been defy what actually happened. The American Japanese, if armed, would have proven that they were the Danger they were portrayed as. They would have been destroyed as a traitorous armed rebellion, loyal to our foreign enemy.Maybe. Or maybe their stance would have resonated with other American citizens who value liberty and the rule of law. Maybe someone would have noticed that German and Italian Americans still walked the streets of America with impunity ... as they should! If they had been slaughtered, maybe the American people would have seen FDR for the atrocious, despicable war criminal that he was. We just finished with WW2 in US History at school. There is not a single mention of the internment camps anymore.

AnneBoleyn;1420445 wrote: The other examples I mentioned are just as inane & fantastical. Just Get Real. Don't make up stuff.
I've never heard any of those "examples" before, but let's look at them:AnneBoleyn;1420438 wrote: "If Slaves had Guns, there would have been No Slavery"If Africans had had guns in Africa, there might not have been slavery. If you try to take it to the point after they were in bondage, you've lost the parallel. Slaves in fact did fight back, though. So did some Japanese-Americans. The result was similar, though you only hear about the slaves. Shootings

AnneBoleyn;1420445 wrote: /If Jews had guns there would have been no Holocaust".This is a really stupid statement, Anne, and I can't believe you actually posted it. It implies that the Jews were better off being starved, raped, tortured, then gassed or cooked alive, rather than being shot while defending themselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:33 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420455 wrote: Firstly I find it surprising that you support private citizens owning tanks and ICBMs in order to allow them the right to wage civil war against their legitimate government whenever they feel that said government is out of line. To use you own line of argument back at you, there is a legal way to change the government and civil insurrection ain't it.

Secondly, your examples are invalid, vaccinations and the like have clearly enumerable benefits whereas the current gun culture causes clearly enumerable harm - to cite the absence of armed insurrection as no reason to get rid of guns is to ignore the number of gun related deaths that provide excellent reason to ban them.My logic is clear. You choose to try to confound it. The examples are completely valid.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:41 pm

I was giving examples of what I heard from the gun crowd about the Holocaust & Slavery. Those are not my opinions silly. And I have earned the right to discuss the Holocaust, even in ways that displease you.

I don't like insulting you though, that is a fact.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:42 pm

I am concerned about your vaccination attitude, I don't have time now to go into the Whys.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:45 pm

The Jews defended themselves honorably in Warsaw & those who escaped it became guerillas against the Nazis, joined in Resistance movements or formed their own.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:50 pm

Maybe someone would have noticed that German and Italian Americans still walked the streets of America with impunity ... as they should

Nazi's had open rallies in NYC, at Madison Square Garden even. White is Right, that is our History.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:16 pm

Accountable;1420474 wrote: My logic is clear. You choose to try to confound it. The examples are completely valid.

In what way can you compare the attitude to vaccination to the attitude to guns - neither the starting conditions not the outcome are the same.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:27 pm

teaching the importance of the Second Amendment as vehemently as we teach the importance of labor unions.

We just finished with WW2 in US History at school. There is not a single mention of the internment camps anymore.
2 separate quotes from you Accountable. You are the teacher. Why not slip in a mention of the Japanese Americans during WWII? Or can't you be vehement about aiding their knowledge? Just a sentence was all they needed to stir their curiosity. Or is that not allowed in Texas, the state most responsible for textbooks? Is it a coincidence both the state & the product start with TEX? Someone goofed up somewhere. You belong to a union, right? What grades do you teach?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420492 wrote: In what way can you compare the attitude to vaccination to the attitude to guns - neither the starting conditions not the outcome are the same.
I understand what he means.

He is likening there being no need for vaccination because the incidence of illness has lessened, and the dropping of the 2nd amendment because there has been no armed rebellion.

Like cancelling your insurance because you haven't died yet.

I get a lot of the Acc logic, and I like him, I just can't work out how such an intelligent likeable and obviously nice guy can be so very fundimentally wrong.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:40 pm

Bruv;1420495 wrote: I understand what he means.

He is likening there being no need for vaccination because the incidence of illness has lessened, and the dropping of the 2nd amendment because there has been no armed rebellion.

Like cancelling your insurance because you haven't died yet.

I get a lot of the Acc logic, and I like him, I just can't work out how such an intelligent likeable and obviously nice guy can be so very fundimentally wrong.

I get the logic he is applying but, by totally ignoring the self evident harm that the current gun culture is doing in the US he invalidates that logic.

And is armed rebellion any more legal than restricting the types of arms that a private citizen might own? In most countries armed rebellion counts as treason and is the worst crime on the statute.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:40 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420480 wrote: Nazi's had open rallies in NYC, at Madison Square Garden even. White is Right, that is our History.

Hailing our greatest war criminals as our greatest presidents. That is also our History.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:50 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420492 wrote: In what way can you compare the attitude to vaccination to the attitude to guns - neither the starting conditions not the outcome are the same.
I wasn't comparing attitudes. I was comparing facts of action & reaction. People put a prophylactic measure in place; people get complacent because the thing guarded against doesn't happen; people remove the prophylactic measure; the thing guarded against happens.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420496 wrote:

And is armed rebellion any more legal than restricting the types of arms that a private citizen might own? In most countries armed rebellion counts as treason and is the worst crime on the statute.

It's the principle.

I did suggest long ago in this thread I think, that they are giving them the right to bear arms as a cover, they logically have the power to resist bad government, meanwhile they are being robbed blind in other ways.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:07 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420493 wrote: 2 separate quotes from you Accountable. You are the teacher. Why not slip in a mention of the Japanese Americans during WWII? Or can't you be vehement about aiding their knowledge? Just a sentence was all they needed to stir their curiosity. Or is that not allowed in Texas, the state most responsible for textbooks? Is it a coincidence both the state & the product start with TEX? Someone goofed up somewhere. You belong to a union, right? What grades do you teach?
In bringing up links to help me explain. I've discovered that the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) have been updated. (Being a special ed co-teacher, I tend to focus more on learning skills than on following curriculum directives; that's more the general ed teacher's area, but that's no excuse). The internment camps have been restored,

"(D) analyze major issues of World War II, including the Holocaust; the internment of German, Italian, and Japanese Americans and Executive Order 9066; and the development of conventional and atomic weapons;"

and the emphasis on labor unions have been significantly reduced. In fact, the new sample test available online actually has this question:

Questions Asked of Japanese Americans in 1943

[box]No. 27. Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?

No. 28. Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and foreswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power, or organization?[/box]

Japanese Americans were required to answer these questions before they were â€”

A given a dishonorable discharge from the military

B allowed to contest deportation orders to return to Japan

Creleased from relocation centers

D allowed to apply for repatriation to Japan

I've got some co-teacher beating and student tutoring to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the textbooks, our school hasn't gotten new ones in something like 12 years. We don't use ours much.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:07 pm

Bruv;1420495 wrote: I understand what he means.

He is likening there being no need for vaccination because the incidence of illness has lessened, and the dropping of the 2nd amendment because there has been no armed rebellion.

Like cancelling your insurance because you haven't died yet.

I get a lot of the Acc logic, and I like him, I just can't work out how such an intelligent likeable and obviously nice guy can be so very fundimentally wrong.

:wah: :yh_hugs

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:22 am

I didn't mention his fantastic sense of humour (with a U)

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:14 am

Accountable;1420497 wrote: Hailing our greatest war criminals as our greatest presidents. That is also our History.

George W. Bush?

eta----------No, seriously, to whom are you referring?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:05 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420510 wrote: George W. Bush?

eta----------No, seriously, to whom are you referring?
Lincoln, FDR, Truman (arguably), and these last two, except neither of them have been called great.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:54 am

Perhaps war makes criminals of everybody involved. The question I always ask myself is if you had been alive at the time what would your decision, or indeed your if had any choice have been? go to war or not. Then try and imagine not having any knowledge of what was to come. WW1 is the one that gets me. Those soldiers going over the top, especially after the first few battles knew what was going to happen yet they still went over. Even more so in ww2. My father joined up in 1939 because he knew what was coming and wanted to choose for himself what he joined. Nowadays we really do know the cost of war yet we still allow our leaders to take us in to it, so in a democracy whose fault is it really?

Perhaps the presidents were simply men of their times more than they were anything else. Just as we are today so how do you explain it all to your grandchildren.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:34 am

So that includes GW Bush and President Obama? They're just "men of their times"?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:09 am

Accountable;1420599 wrote: Lincoln, FDR, Truman (arguably), and these last two, except neither of them have been called great.

These three men are war criminals? Are you nuts? Why leave out LBJ & Nixon? I can see a case for them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420616 wrote: These three men are war criminals? Are you nuts? Why leave out LBJ & Nixon? I can see a case for them.

How can you not see a case for FDR, who incarcerated US citizens without due process, conviction, or time limit?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:19 pm

& Lincoln for habeas corpus? I'm trying to understand you completely. So, it has nothing to do with the right participation in a particular war? Explain also, please, about Truman.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:59 pm

AnneBoleyn;1420645 wrote: & Lincoln for habeas corpus? I'm trying to understand you completely. So, it has nothing to do with the right participation in a particular war? Explain also, please, about Truman.

Presumably for authorising the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.