Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old January 24th, 2013, 08:57 AM   #101 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
That's not use going up. That's recreational users abusing the system.

Legal use would appear to go up, but would those applying for cards still be smoking regardless of the law? My money would be on absolutely.

No, it is more people using it because it is "legal" and easy to get. Most definitely, legalization means increased use.

Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 24th, 2013, 09:12 AM   #102 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Regulating said tools so that less safer tools are not in the hands of the general public is a bad idea how?
Some users are morons and when they can't read the simple directions, they get hurt.

I worked for a professional photographer for many years and we saw what happens when idiots misuse tools. They get hurt and they sue. The costs increase and laws are passed that do not need to be passed.

Some say getting hurt is a tragedy; I say it is a much needed thinning of the herd.

On the lid of my washer is a warning that basically says, if the garmet has ever been stained with oil, including vegetable oil, here is how to treat the stain, but DO NOT Dry in in the Kenmore Dryer because of the risk of fire. Some idiot likely tried drying something saturated with oil and got hurt so we all pay the price.

Thank goodness my right to keep and bear a powder cartridge nail gun is still intact. I am thinking I'll get a contractor's license and then a nice new NG to greet the occasional burglar.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 10:16 AM   #103 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Interesting. I've been given two of the 3 D-cell Maglites as gifts, and wondered who came up with that idea, considering that D-cells are sold in packs of 4, not 3. Then I realized that the battery makers profited from such waste. To think that otherwise innocent people are being punished with criminal penalties, and having their lives ruined for something as crass as to increase corporate profits! That's really twisted.
Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 11:30 AM   #104 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!
I always wondered about that.

Fortunately, the local grocery sells fresh baked buns individually and I prefer real sausages rather than those "hot dogs" made from tails, ears, entrails and innards.

You know, an American hot dog.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 03:34 PM   #105 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!
Yes, good point. Of course nobody has been arrested for possession of buns without hot dogs to fill them. And IMO nobody should. Likewise for flashlights and batteries, or pistols that were designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Although law enforcement professionals and soldiers may carry extra ammunition magazines, and have supply lines to get them even more ammo as needed, the average pistol-for-home-security owner isn't likely to go downstairs to investigate a suspicious noise wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying extra magazines.

So if this person gets ambushed at the bottom of the stairs by multiple gunmen, those extra rounds can make the difference between life and death for the gun owner protecting his or her home. Therefore the claim that "nobody needs more than x bullets" is fallacious for one of the rights that the anti-gun lobby claims that they're not affecting. The problem is that they are affecting honest citizens, and for the worse.

I'm not a hunter, but my understanding is that hunting laws that have existed for a very long time restricts the number of rounds in a hunters rifle for the express purpose of keeping it "sporting". Given that, why do we need another set of pointlessly redundant laws that do the same thing.

I'm as much for reducing the murder rate as anyone, even to the point that I no longer own any personal firearms. But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. The current crop of new gun restrictions have been tried before, and they failed. Repeating the same fear and ignorance-based laws aren't a bona fide solution.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2013, 08:25 AM   #106 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Here is a specific list of guns Diane Feinstein wants banned:

List Of All The Guns Dianne Feinstein Wants To Ban | The Joe Pags Show - NewsRadio 1200 WOAI, San Antonio

She wants all AK types, all Thompson rifels, all AR types, etc.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 01:37 PM   #107 (permalink)
Member
 
rootbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 50 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Here is a specific list of guns Diane Feinstein wants banned:

List Of All The Guns Dianne Feinstein Wants To Ban | The Joe Pags Show - NewsRadio 1200 WOAI, San Antonio

She wants all AK types, all Thompson rifels, all AR types, etc.
Thompsons, as in sub-machine guns, have been illegal since 1931.

This may have been posted already. I've sent this article to all my state representatives.

Send it to yours. Californians/New Yorkers you have the biggest populations, but DiFi and Bloomy will ignore it, but if they get it a million times, maybe they'll get it.

Or not.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13946-china-school-knife-attack-portland-mall-attack-receive-little-coverage
Speed Daemon likes this.
__________________
Maxwell was the first "Smart" phone user.
rootbrain is offline  
Last edited by rootbrain; January 28th, 2013 at 01:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 03:11 PM   #108 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 391
 
Device(s): Thunderbolt(my first smartphone), Galaxy Note 2
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 8
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Same reason hot dogs are sold in packs of 8 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 12. Damn corporations exploiting people!!!

Any time I buy hot dogs or hot dog buns at the supermarket by me its 8 and 8, so, I think they changed that?
Speed Daemon likes this.
JnEricsonx is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JnEricsonx For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 28th, 2013)
Old January 28th, 2013, 07:59 PM   #109 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Guns aren't the issue. People are. If parents teach their kids how to be kind to others, we wouldn't have mass murderers in our nation. I still believe all this gun regulation is just the governments way to make sure they're not used against them.
droidrv is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to droidrv For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 15th, 2013)
Old January 28th, 2013, 08:32 PM   #110 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by droidrv View Post
Guns aren't the issue. People are. If parents teach their kids how to be kind to others, we wouldn't have mass murderers in our nation. I still believe all this gun regulation is just the governments way to make sure they're not used against them.
But guns are the issue; that's the single biggest stumbling block to making any kind of progress!

I don't know if parents teaching their children good values will completely eliminate all of the problem people. I think it's a far more complex matter. But it's a good place to start. The societal norms that say it's OK for parents to indulge their own selfish interests, time that's not being spent teaching their kids good values, isn't doing the kids any favors.

We've done every one of the proposed gun restrictions before (and we're still doing some right now), and they didn't help. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 28th, 2013, 09:39 PM   #111 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootbrain View Post
Thompsons, as in sub-machine guns, have been illegal since 1931.
If you are willing to pay the fees and you can pass a check, you can own a Thompson Machine gun. You can also own silencers and supressors.

Not sure where you get your info, but you are absolutely wrong.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 15th, 2013)
Old January 28th, 2013, 11:07 PM   #112 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 155
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 73 Times in 45 Posts
Default

Auto-Ordnance sells new Thomspons...I'm still waiting for someone to make an out of-the-box high capacity .45 for the AR platform.

The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles. Most of these shootings seem to happen inside buildings, at point blank, ideal range. Why make a hole the size of your little finger when you can do the size of a lemon with buckshot? The 7 round capacity isn't a problem if you practice to reload it properly. But no one is talking about banning shotguns because AR-15s look evil. I'm not complaining... I'm just constantly in-awe of the number of ignorant people.
JohnLaird is offline  
Last edited by JohnLaird; January 28th, 2013 at 11:09 PM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JohnLaird For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (January 29th, 2013), Speed Daemon (January 30th, 2013)
Old January 29th, 2013, 04:06 PM   #113 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
Auto-Ordnance sells new Thomspons...I'm still waiting for someone to make an out of-the-box high capacity .45 for the AR platform.

The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles. Most of these shootings seem to happen inside buildings, at point blank, ideal range. Why make a hole the size of your little finger when you can do the size of a lemon with buckshot? The 7 round capacity isn't a problem if you practice to reload it properly. But no one is talking about banning shotguns because AR-15s look evil. I'm not complaining... I'm just constantly in-awe of the number of ignorant people.
Banning shotguns is on the future agenda, I'm sure, as are all firearms. The installation and advancement of socialism (called liberalism in this country) is done in a step by step process so as to make each baby step seem less threatening. Kind of like increasing taxes... a few cents here, a few cents there... it all adds up.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 06:59 AM   #114 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
The silly thing is...shotguns are more effective weapons at close range than so-called assault rifles.
Excellent point. That further highlights the recklessness of the people who are yelling and screaming, but don't know even the basics about the topic.

In a democracy, the will of the majority should rule. I don't believe that the people who are blindly demanding a repeat of failed prohibitions past or the NRA represent anything close to a majority. Maybe we need a mainstream organization to represent the people who know enough to make informed decisions to raise its voice and bring some sanity to the national discussion.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 08:09 AM   #115 (permalink)
Member
 
rootbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 50 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
If you are willing to pay the fees and you can pass a check, you can own a Thompson Machine gun. You can also own silencers and supressors.

Not sure where you get your info, but you are absolutely wrong.
Yes class III is available. But this is for dealers, collectors etc. MOST people won't pass the check for class III, even if they can pass for purchase of an AR 15 semi. There is then the tax stamp issue, added cost and wait period for any purchase like this.

But I'm not absolutely wrong. Thompson sub machine guns have been illegal since 1931. Are there exceptions? Of course, as in anything.

Don't get your panties in a wad.
Speed Daemon likes this.
rootbrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rootbrain For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 31st, 2013)
Old January 30th, 2013, 08:01 PM   #116 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootbrain View Post
Yes class III is available. But this is for dealers, collectors etc. MOST people won't pass the check for class III, even if they can pass for purchase of an AR 15 semi. There is then the tax stamp issue, added cost and wait period for any purchase like this.

But I'm not absolutely wrong. Thompson sub machine guns have been illegal since 1931. Are there exceptions? Of course, as in anything.

Don't get your panties in a wad.
No undergarmets of mine are in wad form. I simply responded to the mis-information you posted. They are simply not illegal. You said so yourself.

Perhaps I am missing whatever point you are trying to make?

My guess is most people will pass but will never try due to the costs involved.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 08:49 PM   #117 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 155
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 73 Times in 45 Posts
Default

If you can get a CHL I would imagine a class three wouldn't be much more difficult.

I have thought about getting a SBR/SBS license so that I can mount a Remington Masterkey shotgun system under an M4. That would be worth it just to watch other people's expressions at the gun range.
JohnLaird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2013, 05:12 PM   #118 (permalink)
Member
 
rootbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 50 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
If you can get a CHL I would imagine a class three wouldn't be much more difficult.

I have thought about getting a SBR/SBS license so that I can mount a Remington Masterkey shotgun system under an M4. That would be worth it just to watch other people's expressions at the gun range.
Concealed carry is done state by state. A class III is taken care of by BATFE. The feds check deeper and more thoroughly.
Speed Daemon likes this.
rootbrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rootbrain For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 31st, 2013)
Old January 31st, 2013, 05:46 PM   #119 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

It looks like the discussion has degraded into one of "how much can I get away with?" I think that's a sad, but telling example of how too few Americans are making grown-up decisions, and how too many are thinking at a less than grown-up level.

No matter what the intended use, loaded firearms are extremely hazardous devices. As such, they're not suitable as toys, or to be taken lightly. We still have a very big problem with adults acting like children, using firearms in ways that IMO should not be tolerated under any circumstance. And it looks like most of us couldn't care less!

I think it's a national disgrace when the first news of a black child being murdered in Chicago becomes national news only because that black girl happened to be in the Presidential Inaugural parade only days before. I think it's a disgrace when pundits exploit the tragedy at Newtown to demand "more of the same" failed gun control laws whilst falling over as they pat themselves on the back. If it was that important to them, why are their "solutions" so half-baked?

I'm glad to see that there are at least a couple of voices of reason here. I'm also sorely disappointed to read some truly despicable, hate-filled rhetoric from people who should know better. Is this truly the best that we can do?
sntaylor and PrinceCorwin like this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2013, 11:46 PM   #120 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
kool kat2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,018
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now) Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star

Thanks: 212
Thanked 140 Times in 116 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
It looks like the discussion has degraded into one of "how much can I get away with?" I think that's a sad, but telling example of how too few Americans are making grown-up decisions, and how too many are thinking at a less than grown-up level.

No matter what the intended use, loaded firearms are extremely hazardous devices. As such, they're not suitable as toys, or to be taken lightly. We still have a very big problem with adults acting like children, using firearms in ways that IMO should not be tolerated under any circumstance. And it looks like most of us couldn't care less!

I think it's a national disgrace when the first news of a black child being murdered in Chicago becomes national news only because that black girl happened to be in the Presidential Inaugural parade only days before. I think it's a disgrace when pundits exploit the tragedy at Newtown to demand "more of the same" failed gun control laws whilst falling over as they pat themselves on the back. If it was that important to them, why are their "solutions" so half-baked?

I'm glad to see that there are at least a couple of voices of reason here. I'm also sorely disappointed to read some truly despicable, hate-filled rhetoric from people who should know better. Is this truly the best that we can do?
The "how much can I get away with" reminded me of a video I saw somewhere (i forgot, maybe YouTube?) Of some guys walking around with their big ass gun. A cop comes up and questions them and they go on about their gun rights, they refuse to id themselves and go on about those rights..... You could tell they were just trying to prove a point. I'm all for rights but that was a pretty stupid move.
kool kat2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 1st, 2013, 12:34 AM   #121 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,303
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

yes it sounds pretty stupid.......... freakin morons always tryin to stand up for their true rights...... they should make movies about fake rights like welfare and gay marriage
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 12:48 AM   #122 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kat2 View Post
The "how much can I get away with" reminded me of a video I saw somewhere (i forgot, maybe YouTube?) Of some guys walking around with their big ass gun. A cop comes up and questions them and they go on about their gun rights, they refuse to id themselves and go on about those rights..... You could tell they were just trying to prove a point. I'm all for rights but that was a pretty stupid move.
Especially since under the "Patriot" law they could have been thrown in jail for refusing to show ID!

This is a very touchy subject for all parties. But now is a time for more rational thought and less over-the-top hyperbole. There's room for a middle ground here, but we must remember that it's a Constitutional issue. If the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to change the Constitution, then we must accept the connotations of it as it is. If there are enough Americans willing to change the Constitution, I hope that it can be done without rushing to what might be a big mistake.

My own personal take on the matter is that if enough minds can be changed for a Constitutional amendment, then enough minds can be changed so that there's no need for a Constitutional amendment. In the end it's still about what's in our hearts and minds, not about contraband.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 02:20 AM   #123 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,303
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

and you can have a constitutional change that says all guns are banned and must be destroyed......... every last one of them........ and if by some magic every last one was actually found and destroyed....... there would still be guns on the streets

and if by some magic there were no more guns in America...... not a single one........ there would still be mass murders...... as there was for millenia before the invention of the gun....... and as there will be until humans no longer exist

my favorite bares repeating: if banning guns will get them off the streets.... we should try banning heroine and meth
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 12:13 PM   #124 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
kool kat2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,018
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II (stock.... for now) Acer Iconia A100 (stolen by a 2 year old:p)
Carrier: Death Star

Thanks: 212
Thanked 140 Times in 116 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
yes it sounds pretty stupid.......... freakin morons always tryin to stand up for their true rights...... they should make movies about fake rights like welfare and gay marriage
They weren't standing up for their rights, they were trying to get a reaction. Big difference.
kool kat2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kool kat2 For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (February 1st, 2013)
Old February 1st, 2013, 04:19 PM   #125 (permalink)
Member
 
rootbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 50 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
No undergarmets of mine are in wad form. I simply responded to the mis-information you posted. They are simply not illegal. You said so yourself.

Perhaps I am missing whatever point you are trying to make?

My guess is most people will pass but will never try due to the costs involved.
I did not say they were not illegal. Read again, I said Thompson sub-machine guns (aka Tommy guns, and others) have been illegal since 1931. I WAS wrong about the year, it was 1934. Because there are exceptions to that law, does not mean it is not the law.

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
Speed Daemon likes this.
rootbrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 04:23 PM   #126 (permalink)
Member
 
rootbrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 354
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 8
Thanked 50 Times in 42 Posts
Default

I'm thinking that we should pass laws against murder. Really put some language behind it, ya know.

We can post some signs around schools, churches, Malls and other public places that clearly state "Murder Free Zone".

We can have DiFi and Bloomey lead the charge, and I bet the NRA would even back them.

Because, if we make it our national pastime to make sure murder is illegal, then it's bound to decrease over the years once people know about it.

Right?
rootbrain is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2013, 08:39 PM   #127 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootbrain View Post
I'm thinking that we should pass laws against murder. Really put some language behind it, ya know...
Indeed. Like capital punishment. According to its proponents, we couldn't possibly have any more murder in Texas. Maybe if we torture them before we kill them, yeah...that's the ticket!

I'm sure I'll be branded a heretic (by politicians) for saying it, but it looks to me like faux "solutions" that do more for keeping the careers of politicians safe and sound are a total waste of time. I doubt that the status quo will change much until our society as a whole decides not to accept it any more. I'm not holding my breath...

Many people cite England as a shining example of how "things should be" while conveniently ignoring the centuries of bondage and class oppression (and world wars) that shaped the English society, ignoring Northern Ireland and ignoring the fact that these Draconian gun laws aren't stopping a rising tide of violent crime there either. Others like to say that the US is the only violent nation on earth, which is also fallacious. There is no solution in maintaining fantasies about utopian times and places that never existed.

I don't have a solution. I wish I did, but I don't. I do think that it does no good to keep on embracing highly flawed ideas that have not worked in the past. If there are new and untested solutions, I'd love to hear about them. And if there aren't, can we learn to accept that? Should we? I don't know.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013, 06:46 AM   #128 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Shire
Posts: 810
 
Device(s): HTC Wildfire S x 2, Xperia U, Huawei Y300, N7, Generic Allwinner tab, Bluestacks
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 93
Thanked 206 Times in 154 Posts
Default

The gun laws in England have done nothing but make life difficult for legitimate gun owners. Guns are still easily acquired if you know the right people.
Davdi is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Davdi For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (February 4th, 2013)
Old February 2nd, 2013, 08:32 AM   #129 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davdi View Post
The gun laws in England have done nothing but make life difficult for legitimate gun owners. Guns are still easily acquired if you know the right people.
Easily acquired if you have a strong criminal rep. and a large sum of cash. As opposed to the US where guns are widespread and cheap. There is a reason stabbings are the assault of choice in most of Europe.

Certainly large criminal gangs have their armouries and the like, but even then these weapons are kept away from low tier criminals, the ones who would cause the most damage.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2013, 10:23 AM   #130 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Exclamation History as a teacher....

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...

I basically agree with your response, and would add some points that further strengthen it:
- The few with the courage and integrity to actually study the history of this nation know that the founders understood all too well the risks of a strong central gov't, having come from countries that trampled on the rights of individual citizens and municipalities. This included areas such as religion, commerce, and self-defense, as evidenced by specific prohibition against the federal gov't 'infringing' on rights in those arenas.
- Further, knowing the context, it seems obvious that the 2nd amendment intends to clarify/reinforce such prohibitions on the assumption of federal power, recognizing that state and local military capability (organized as 'militias' at that time) was key to defense on two levels: preventing the fed from infringing upon rights intended for the states, AND protecting the entire republic from outside enemies. The latter was key to winning the Revolutionary War, something we would do well to remember.
- A federal law that infringes is unconstitutional today, regardless of how long it has been on the books/in practice. States failing to stand up and fight, or failing to recognize the infringement potential in a new federal statute at the time, does not take away their right to defend what was clearly delegated to them in the Constitution.
- In the past 50 years, Americans have become complacent, with too many looking to the federal gov't only for help. This new society, with its self-centered focus, has lost track of what it costs to give up freedom, and was helped along by a school system that stopped teaching about the hardships our ancestors faced in their countries of origin, which molded the basis for this new republic.
- Now, we vote for representatives based on who will give us what we want for free, rather than reps who will fight to ensure that we ARE free.
- Legislation has become politics, pandering for votes. Otherwise, we would actually ENFORCE (and occasionally tweak) the laws we already have and move on.
Speed Daemon likes this.
andrdhillbilly is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to andrdhillbilly For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (February 4th, 2013)
sponsored links
Old February 3rd, 2013, 12:09 PM   #131 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Shire
Posts: 810
 
Device(s): HTC Wildfire S x 2, Xperia U, Huawei Y300, N7, Generic Allwinner tab, Bluestacks
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 93
Thanked 206 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Andrdhilbilly wrote:
Quote:
Now, we vote for representatives based on who will give us what we want for free, rather than reps who will fight to ensure that we ARE free.
Very much this.
In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left and the 'left wing' opposition are confused because the others have stolen their toys.
Davdi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2013, 12:31 PM   #132 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davdi View Post
Andrdhilbilly wrote:

Very much this.
In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left and the 'left wing' opposition are confused because the others have stolen their toys.
I think anyone who actually follows UK politics would be forced to scoff at your idea of the British political spectrum. The UK ultimately has two large parties - Labour and the Tories - and also the Liberal Democrats. There are also an assortment of Nationalists of course.

The Conservative party is not to the left of center. One needs only look at the global warming denying, Europe hating, bigots that make up a decent sized proportion of its back benches. How on Earth one can insinuate that the likes of Theresa May or Michael Gove or Boris Johnson are to the left of center, well I will never know. EDIT: Honourable mention to George Osbourne and William Hague. Sigh

The Liberal Democrats are a typical pro-business party who tend to follow logic and reason more than ideology, with a strong cohort of center left backbenchers. Vince Cable and the like are certainly not of the nationalise the mines mindset you seem to think they are.

Unless your news is 60 years late, it is blindingly obvious that in the last two decades, the 'left-wing opposition' has moved more and more to the right. How have you forgotten New Labour's reign so fast?
sntaylor likes this.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Last edited by ElasticNinja; February 3rd, 2013 at 12:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013, 03:17 AM   #133 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davdi View Post
In the UK we havea coalition of an allegedly righ wing party and an allegedly centre-left party. In reality the 'Right Wing' party is to the left of centre, the 'centre-left' party is well to the left
That's interesting. Here in the US it's the exact opposite. Here every group is pretty far right of center. The Democratic Party as a whole is center to right, and the Republican Party is very far to the right. No major organization represents the true center or anything left of center.

Here in the US there's another dimension on the political compass that is rarely mentioned in public, but is playing an increasing role in government here. That second dimension is the axis that ranges between libertarian and authoritarian.

Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2013, 10:47 AM   #134 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
That's interesting. Here in the US it's the exact opposite. Here every group is pretty far right of center. The Democratic Party as a whole is center to right, and the Republican Party is very far to the right. No major organization represents the true center or anything left of center.
Unfortunately, the poster you quoted doesn't know what they are on about. The situation in the UK is not the exact opposite. Parties in the UK are more coalesced around the center, however it is ultimately a 2.5 party system which is unusual in Europe, its more like the US in this regard.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 02:19 PM   #135 (permalink)
huh
Senior Member
 
huh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: in total denial
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,811
 
Device(s):
Carrier: carry this

Thanks: 512
Thanked 1,047 Times in 846 Posts
yes
Default

I try to stay away from the politics threads because I usually get lambasted but... I think that Thomas Jefferson was one of the most interesting, intelligent and forward thinking persons in the history of this great country. This Pretty much sums it up for me (plus sometimes it's hard for me to zip it..


Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America” and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello.

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
huh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 04:16 PM   #136 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huh View Post
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Hey, lets use quotes from a bigot (like most then) living in the 18th century to back up arguments today! The Puritan mindset just reeks off a lot of his ideas.
saptech likes this.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013, 04:55 PM   #137 (permalink)
huh
Senior Member
 
huh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: in total denial
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,811
 
Device(s):
Carrier: carry this

Thanks: 512
Thanked 1,047 Times in 846 Posts
yes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Hey, lets use quotes from a bigot (like most then) living in the 18th century to back up arguments today! The Puritan mindset just reeks off a lot of his ideas.
or ...I could quote a Founding Father and the author of "The Declaration of Independence."



Oh that's right!...you're not an American

..Let them eat cake!

cheerio
huh is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to huh For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (February 10th, 2013)
Old February 6th, 2013, 01:55 AM   #138 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huh View Post
or ...I could quote a Founding Father and the author of "The Declaration of Independence."
I think I'll just back up everything I say with quotes from Otto Von Bismarck in future.

No one likes Catholics anyway.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 04:21 AM   #139 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,303
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

sounds as though someones still bitter about living in a 3rd world country
copestag is offline  
Last edited by copestag; February 6th, 2013 at 04:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 04:58 AM   #140 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

Yeah, how many slaves did he own??? One of the founding fathers of "all men are created equal".
__________________
Like it is...Yusef Lateef
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to saptech For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 6th, 2013)
sponsored links
Old February 6th, 2013, 05:14 AM   #141 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,303
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

if out of all the great things a person has done........ the most damaging criticism you can make of them is about something probably close to 100% of the population agreed was acceptable during the time period....... I'll take that

I heard he also thought clouds were gay and trees were representatives of the devil
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 05:26 AM   #142 (permalink)
I ain't nobody!
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,544
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 572
Thanked 768 Times in 612 Posts
Default

That's my point, great for who? Just because it's accepted doesn't make it right. Now if you want to know about a great person and what great things he did for this country read this.

Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 05:32 AM   #143 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I live in the UK. Pop over sometime and get a reality-check...
daveveal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013, 10:05 AM   #144 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
sounds as though someones still bitter about living in a 3rd world country
Who would that be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveveal View Post
I live in the UK. Pop over sometime and get a reality-check...
They don't get enough holiday time to do that.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 08:05 AM   #145 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,759
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

I have the feeling that sooner or later control will be coming:
3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws - Slashdot

When it gets to the point where an individual can just print a gun, licenses and registration for all purchased and prior guns will be required. I also saw an article where a police department is working on a portable scanner like the TSA uses for weapons. Those scanners could be attached to surveillance cameras and if you don't have a license or registration, could be a very substantial fine. Legitimate guns could also be chipped at some point.

I don't think law enforcement would approve of 3D printing your own gun.
__________________
Sent by UFO
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 08:21 AM   #146 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zuben el genub View Post
I don't think law enforcement would approve of 3D printing your own gun.
They don't approve of anything that gets in the way of their monopoly on absolute power.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 08:39 AM   #147 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
They don't approve of anything that gets in the way of their monopoly on absolute power.
I don't think law enforcement has a monopoly on absolute power.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 09:50 AM   #148 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't think law enforcement has a monopoly on absolute power.
You can believe what you want, but the fact remains that US law enforcement agencies are trained and equipped like armies, and allowed to act like gangsters. They have an "us vs. them" culture that widens the gap between them and the people who they're ostensibly supposed to serve. "To Serve and Protect" has been replaced by "we take care of our own" and zero tolerance. Of all of these, the zero tolerance part is by far the worst.

As it relates to the gun issue, the police want to be the only ones to have weapons, so that they can have absolute power, and be able to wield their absolute power with absolute impunity. The problem with this is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and rapidly degenerates into totalitarianism. And that's the exact opposite of what America is supposed to be about. Doubleplusungood.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2013, 12:22 PM   #149 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Trained and equipped like armies? Sure. But the gangs on the street are trained and equipped like armies as well these days. Allowed to act like gangsters? No. Are there bad apples? Sure. But that's the exception and not the rule. Us vs them culture? Sadly yes. I can't really blame them for this. They routinely get crucified in the media for every little thing they do.

Two incidents come to mind that happened recently. In one case officers responded to a report of a disturbance. A mentally ill and mentally ******ed man who was off his meds charged down the stairs at them with a butchers knife in his hand. The cops killed him. The media ran the headline as "cops kill mentally ******ed man". They ignored the fact that the guy posed a threat to everyone's life at the time. In another case the cops stopped a guy on a traffic stop. They walk up to the car and find that the guy has a shotgun on the passenger's seat. So they ask the guy to step out of the car. Instead of complying the guy reaches for the shotgun. Cops shoot him several times through the door and he will now no longer walk again. Turns out the shotgun was unloaded. Media runs the story as "Cops paralyze 20 yr old who had an unloaded gun.

Heck, we had as story recently where the cops shot a guy who was robbing a store. There is video footage from the surveillance cameras where you can see the cops come into the store after seeing the guy brandishing a knife at the clerk. Rather than dropping the knife and giving up the man charges the cops and they kill him. All of this is on video tape. The media runs story after story after story and interview after interview after interview with the guys mother where she claims that the cops murdered her son in cold blood and he was a good kid. Repeatedly she stated her story that her son had surrendered and was outside the store on the ground and handcuffed when the cops shot him in the back of the head for no reason. The media continues to run this story despite freaking video evidence showing the exact opposite. They run the story of a grieving mom who wasn't even there. So, no, I don't blame them at all for the us vs them mentality. It's hard to serve and protect people who seem to hate you no matter what you do.

In the case where they shot the mentally ******ed guy with the knife the media claims they should've shot him in the leg or use a taser. (Yeah, use a taser on a guy who is trying to kill you.) In the case where they shot the guy who reached for the shotgun, the media claimed officer should've determined if the gun was loaded or not first. Not sure how you figure that out by looking at a gun. In the case where they shot the guy who was robbing the store the media basically claims the cops story is bogus and they are liars.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; February 10th, 2013 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2013, 08:23 AM   #150 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Perfect example today of what I mentioned - Woman Under Police Protection Stabbed To Death In Her Apartment CBS Baltimore

The headline is "Woman under police protection stabbed to death." Average person reading that is going to think the cops dropped the ball. If you read the article you find that the cops told her to move in w/her mom which she did. Then she disregarded their advice and moved back into her apartment which the cops had specifically told her not to do and without notifying them so they had no clue she was there. Then her ex killed her. So the headline should say "Woman stabbed to death after disregarding police protection". Instead it basically blames the cop. So I can't blame them for the us vs them mentality.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.