[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Mon Feb 13, 2012 07:33 PM, said:

Then don't break the law, you wily scoundrel.

See pick in my previous post. Breaking the law is exercising what's gauranteed us outside zones defined by the government. Free speech zones...wow. That's the mindset I fear the masses are moving towards. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with the Patriot Act and government being able to outright circumvent civil rights"....because, afterall, we don't NEED them if we aren't doing anything wrong and we'd rather give those up than allow criminals go free. But when two disagree on something like this, it's a bedrock perspective....we'll just agree to disagree. I think it's worse for an innocent man to get life in prison/death for murder than for a murderer to get off the hook.

More injustice happens before any court is involved , should be more concerned with your fascist police officers tazing people trying to get on a fucking bus.

Actually, my perspective isn't derived from a "justice-oriented" standpoint. A bank robber going to jail isn't injustice...so it isn't "more" injuctice before court involved...all the injustice transpired before court. And you can't really knock "fascist" police officers tazing people for trying to get on a bus. If the police tell them not to get on a bus, that's a lawful order (anything the government says is lawful, is lawful, afterall, right?)...and disobeying a lawful order is breaking the law. See your first sentance. That's the very thing that protecting Americans' consititutional toes will prevent : tazing people trying to get on a bus.

And if you wanna talk about fascist police, Diz...that's nothing. What's being done in our cities is a page taken right out of another book that that's become too cliche to mention:


http://www.telegraph...e-crawlers.html


http://www.nydailyne...on-city-mosques


Sorry, but this is the kind of shit that derives from making exceptions to rules because of good reasons like public safety. My opinion is that it's total bullshit. I know it's not the same story, but "stepping on constitutional toes", when done in context of judicial precedent, is very dangerous. But like was once said in a shitty geek movie "So this is how freedom dies : To thunderous applause."


Please keep in mind that I'm a gun-owning, government mis-trusting libertarian...that should make me look dumb enough to not be worth arguing with...

[Dizy83]

And you can't really knock "fascist" police officers tazing people for trying to get on a bus. If the police tell them not to get on a bus, that's a lawful order (anything the government says is lawful, is lawful, afterall, right?)...and disobeying a lawful order is breaking the law.

Tasers are supposed to be used on those resisting arrest in some violent matter, not to murder a homeless man. Check out Kelly Thomas, it's a wonderful, wonderful tale of fascist police telling a man to "stop resisting", then tazing him 5 times and beating him to death. Wonderful tale. But if being electrocuted and beaten to death for breaking no laws isn't an awesome example of fascist police, then I don't know how I could convince you.

But hey, if anything like that happens to you, you wont mind... Because you'll be dead. But can't knock those police for issuing those orders... right? You're a muscley man, probably moreso than a homeless guy anyway. May take 7-8 tazes to kill you, maybe you'll be lucky and there will only be 4 officers, might get away with just a coma caused by a severe beating.

Story isn't really all that surprising, considering how little your government cares about the homeless, especially the war veterans. That whole thing about more foreclosed homes than homeless people, nobody seeing any possibilities. Obama's good though, TCOB.

And if you wanna talk about fascist police, Diz...that's nothing. What's being done in our cities is a page taken right out of another book that that's become too cliche to mention:

It's not like big brother is new or even uncommon, there's a camera every 30 feet in vegas. It's funny that they're so open about it though. But what would you rather, being watched, or being beaten for no reason. Or soon both, yay.

Sorry, but this is the kind of shit that derives from making exceptions to rules because of good reasons like public safety. My opinion is that it's total bullshit. I know it's not the same story, but "stepping on constitutional toes", when done in context of judicial precedent, is very dangerous.
What in the constitution says they can't watch you on government property? And what is your objection to what they're doing?

And star wars isn't shitty, it's awesome hole-y plot space man shit, but still awesome.

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:01 AM, said:

Tasers are supposed to be used on those resisting arrest in some violent matter, not to murder a homeless man. Check out Kelly Thomas, it's a wonderful, wonderful tale of fascist police telling a man to "stop resisting", then tazing him 5 times and beating him to death. Wonderful tale. But if being electrocuted and beaten to death for breaking no laws isn't an awesome example of fascist police, then I don't know how I could convince you.

That's pretty gruesome. I'd consider it 'murder', honestly. But here's the rub on the story, which I checked out at the following site:

http://www.dailymail...-man-death.html

"When officers approached Thomas in the depot parking lot and tried to arrest him, he resisted....after that the reports diverge." Admittedly, I just checked this article out after googling the name when you told me to check it out...but in the above statement, you said tasers were "supposed to be used to on those resisting arrest in some violent manner"....well, it said in the article that reports from all sides agree that he resisted arrest. That's breaking the law. The problem is, the guy was metally ill....and the beating they meated out, like I said before, was certanily murder...but that's what you get in a state where the government doesn't have to be concerned with accountability and limitations." He broke a law, he resisted arrest. That's illegal. So we disagree on whether or not he broke the law...but in the U.S., resisting arrest is against the law. Other than that, we should be in agreement...I mean, there was no due process. Just beating...but I dunno what put you under the impression that I would support something like this...

But hey, if anything like that happens to you, you wont mind... Because you'll be dead. But can't knock those police for issuing those orders... right? You're a muscley man, probably moreso than a homeless guy anyway. May take 7-8 tazes to kill you, maybe you'll be lucky and there will only be 4 officers, might get away with just a coma caused by a severe beating.

I, uh, dunno...what makes you think I agree with this? What I can tell you is getting tazed F@ckin' HURTS. As funny as people look on videos getting tazed...I wont laugh at 'em. Did it, done it, wont be doing it tomorrow.

Story isn't really all that surprising, considering how little your government cares about the homeless, especially the war veterans. That whole thing about more foreclosed homes than homeless people, nobody seeing any possibilities. Obama's good though, TCOB.

The guy who pumped $5 trillion of "stimulus" to banks, corporations that were large donors, etc.? You're being sarcastic, right? I will say that I don't think it's the government's job to "care" about the homeless. The government can't fix homelessness. Write a blank check, buy everyone a home, there will be homelessness within 5 years. War veterans should have greater consideration due to thier employment by the government in harzardous work...but I don't think the government can "make" people be ok, even when it spends 40% more than it takes in AND with 60% of it's TOTAL expenditure being on entitlement programs.

It's not like big brother is new or even uncommon, there's a camera every 30 feet in vegas. It's funny that they're so open about it though. But what would you rather, being watched, or being beaten for no reason. Or soon both, yay.

Better one than both. Where I disagree with you is here : There isn't a choice between being watched or getting beaten for no reason. Beatings still occur despite security cameras...frequently, in fact. (I can post tons of links from just here in Chicago, alone) Second, the people have ample reason to doubt our government. Can we put cameras in thier closed door meetings on Capitol Hill? I mean, afterall, it's a public building, right? Tax payers pay for it, and pay thier salaries. Why should they be exempt for the all seeing eye when it comes to thier behavior? I can be monitored by the government, but the government can hide what thier doing to me, with my money, from me? To some, that's perfectly ok. To me it isn't. I guess I'm just an 'ingnant' mer'cun...but it's hard to justify the hatred of the exceptions the "1%" get in society yet afford it to government. I guess it boils down to people thinking someone should get to be above the law, we just disagree on who it should be....rich people, or government. I think no one should, consitutional toes notwithstanding.

What in the constitution says they can't watch you on government property? And what is your objection to what they're doing?

I never objected to the cameras (I'm assuming you're referring to the pic I pasted on my post of the camera)...it was the "free speech zone" I was referring to. THAT is my objection. The first amendment states explicitly that :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Telling people where they can and can't assemble, as well as how they can protest, and the methods they are and are not allowed to use when exercising this right, is blatanly unconstitutional . But I'm on the losing side, "court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression." (per wiki article on free speech zones )

So basically, despite the 1st amendment saying that the government does not have the authority to make any law "abridging" (curtailing) this right, they can tell you when, where, and how you can do it...just not what the content is...so they can say "no noise and no print, only after midnight, and not in populated areas".

It's not the camera, although I do think we should be allowed to see those closed door meetings in public buildings just like the government thinks they can watch me in public buildings...it's that the government is doing exactly what the constitution denies it the power to do, and does so to protect people from the kinds of tyranny that exists in nations without such protections have done for centuries, even in 1700's. THAT is my objection to what they're doing : repealing rights that the government is supposed to uphold as "unaliable".

And star wars isn't shitty, it's awesome hole-y plot space man shit, but still awesome.

The original 3 Star Wars (the original IV-VI) were awesome...the new ones that came out with Darth Maul and f@ckin' Jar-Jar Binks blew goats. It was awful. The only redeeming aspect of the "new" ones is that Natalie Portman is in it. That's it. Only because she's a great actress. The Family Guy renditions were pretty good, too.

This post has been edited by ilyushin: Tue Feb 14, 2012 02:17 AM

[Dizy83]

That's pretty gruesome. I'd consider it 'murder', honestly. But here's the rub on the story, which I checked out at the following site:

100 different reports, all end the same way, fascists murder homeless man.

"When officers approached Thomas in the depot parking lot and tried to arrest him, he resisted....after that the reports diverge."

Admittedly, I just checked this article out after googling the name when you told me to check it out...but in the above statement, you said tasers were "supposed to be used to on those resisting arrest in some violent manner"....well, it said in the article that reports from all sides agree that he resisted arrest. That's breaking the law. The problem is, the guy was metally ill....and the beating they meated out, like I said before, was certanily murder...but that's what you get in a state where the government doesn't have to be concerned with accountability and limitations." He broke a law, he resisted arrest. That's illegal. So we disagree on whether or not he broke the law...but in the U.S., resisting arrest is against the law. Other than that, we should be in agreement...I mean, there was no due process. Just beating...but I dunno what put you under the impression that I would support something like this..

How much of a fight could one homeless man put up against that many officers, after being tased, after being beaten.
Unless all 5 tasers hit him at once, everything after the first was excessive brutality for no reason. I've never seen anybody remotely able to function after being tased, I've never seen mentally ill, haggard homeless man function well in the first place. I disagree with what those pigs call resisting arrest; As in begging for your life and your father as you're being killed, unless that was just some devious homeless trick to get them to drop their guard. Then pow! Homeless man roundhouse drops 6 officers.

I call "but that's what you get in a state where the governmentdoesn't have to be concerned with accountability and limitations." Fascism, especially when somebody is killed and absolutely nothing happens. But he's just a Bo, isn't the governments problem; One less person to sweep under the rug right.

Didn't say anything about you supporting it, just stating how fucked up shit is.

The guy who pumped $5 trillion of "stimulus" to banks, corporations that were large donors, etc.? You're being sarcastic, right? I will say that I don't think it's the government's job to "care" about the homeless. The government can't fix homelessness. Write a blank check, buy everyone a home, there will be homelessness within 5 years. War veterans should have greater consideration due to thier employment by the government in harzardous work...but I don't think the government can "make" people be ok, even when it spends 40% more than it takes in AND with 60% of it's TOTAL expenditure being on entitlement programs.

That much and still rampant homelessness, donations working well then. It's laughable how much of the American population bitches and moans about supporting their troops, while stepping over the homeless veterans. Nobody fucking cares, it's pathetic. Stuffing people in homes makes no difference, I didn't suggest that; But giving them absolutely no opportunity to get out of their situation is the problem, even sponsored home shit is a step above nothing. Donations going to food and clothes is great, but all that really does is keep them homeless. Make somebody be ok? I doubt the percentage of homeless that choose to be homeless is very high; Probably less than the ones that would like to turn it around.

Better one than both. Where I disagree with you is here : There isn't a choice between being watched or getting beaten for no reason. Beatings still occur despite security cameras...frequently, in fact.
Of course there are, and there are assaults caught on those cameras that(occasionally) lead to arrests. It's the lesser of two evils.

Second, the people have ample reason to doubt our government.
Everybody else in the world doubts your government.

Can we put cameras in thier closed door meetings on Capitol Hill? I mean, afterall, it's a public building, right? Tax payers pay for it, and pay thier salaries. Why should they be exempt for the all seeing eye when it comes to thier behavior? I can be monitored by the government, but the government can hide what thier doing to me, with my money, from me?
Have you tried? I imagine they'd move all their cloak and dagger meetings somewhere else if lowly citizens tried to listen in.

I guess I'm just an 'ingnant' mer'cun...but it's hard to justify the hatred of the exceptions the "1%" get in society yet afford it to government. I guess it boils down to people thinking

someone

should get to be above the law, we just disagree on who it should be....rich people, or government. I think no one should, consitutional toes notwithstanding.
I assume those idiots at occupy hate both, then again I don't talk to hipster morons in my day to day. I don't think that's what it boils down to, I think people just hate everybody elses success.

Telling people where they can and can't assemble, as well as how they can protest, and the methods they are and are not allowed to use when exercising this right,is blatanly unconstitutional . But I'm on the losing side, "

court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression." (per wiki article on free speech zones )
I don't disagree. But, as much as I hate the police most of the time, whats going to happen when these massive mobs go unchecked forever? Freedom of speech is cool, riots usually aren't. Do you think there would be more or less rioting if the police did not "regulate" the protests. Would Greece be doing better or worse right now without police. Would England have been better off without police.
You can't really argue "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", how could they contain any riot that could break out if they have zero enforcement in the area? They have no way of knowing if the group is there peaceably or not, might start out all guitars and soft drugs but idiots do things and that just incites more idiots.

So basically, despite the 1st amendment saying that the government does not have the authority to make any law "abridging" (curtailing) this right, they can tell you

when, where, and how you can do it...just not what the content is...so they can say "no noise and no print, only after midnight, and not in populated areas".

Hate to argue this but, safety? Was the first amendment written in this kind of world? Were tens of thousands of people blocking city blocks for days? Potentially causing millions of dollars in damages. You know this shit, you can't say they aren't valid reasons. Do you want to pay money because some occupy idiots fucked up a few blocks of chicago? Protests get out of hand, police are generally there to stop it. Don't chicken and the egg this, police cause problems, protesters cause problems, doesn't matter who's first. You owned a business didn't you? You saw what happened in England didn't you? Could have been your store protesters fucked up, because they were allowed to be there and then were mad at the government... so they fucked up small businesses. America has more guns, pretty sure it could be worse.

The original 3 Star Wars (the original IV-VI) were awesome...the new ones that came out with Darth Maul and f@ckin' Jar-Jar Binks blew goats. It was awful. The only redeeming aspect of the "new" ones is that Natalie Portman is in it. That's it. Only because she's a great actress. The Family Guy renditions were pretty good, too.
Meh, pod race was badass.

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Tue Feb 14, 2012 02:24 AM, said:

I disagree with what those pigs call resisting arrest; As in begging for your life and your father as you're being killed, unless that was just some devious homeless trick to get them to drop their guard. Then pow! Homeless man roundhouse drops 6 officers. I think I said I concurred with you on that one. Where I'm not sure we agree is the interpretation of law on shit like this. If the guy resists arrest, what are the cops' options. BEATING HIM TO A PULP CERTAINLY ISN'T ONE OF 'EM...but how you view this situation (I agree with you on this, of course) is how I view that dumbshit who doesn't want to incriminate herself after she incriminated herself....It's incumbant upon the police/prosecution to nail her without making her help help them nail her...just like it's incumbant upon the police to handle a mentally disabled homeless man who's resisting arrest without opening his head up and sending 10k volts through his body simultaneously. In short, making it hard and precarious for the police to handle citizens that are suspect is a good thing. The issue is, it has to be applied to everyone, from meek homeless guys to retarded bank robbers.

I call "but that's what you get in a state where the governmentdoesn't have to be concerned with accountability and limitations." Fascism, especially when somebody is killed and absolutely nothing happens. But he's just a Bo, isn't the governments problem; One less person to sweep under the rug right. I don't mean to be technical, but that's just simple authortarianism...fascism is indeed authortarian, but with a notable attribute of hyper-passionate nationalism, usually accompanied by a cult-of-personality centered on the dictator.

That much and still rampant homelessness, donations working well then. It's laughable how much of the American population bitches and moans about supporting their troops, while stepping over the homeless veterans. I used to be an estimator with a contracting firm, and bid and managed ALOT of projects in VA hospitals like Hines VA, Jesse Brown VA, etc. in Chicago. Decrepit, aweful, and beyond belief. Nobody fucking cares, it's pathetic. I can give endless policies of our federal government that makes rehabing these hositals impossible...I mean the shit would blow your mind, and I say that fully aware that you probably aren't one whose mind is easily blown. If you want to hear some mind-bending retarded shit, and have 10 minutes, I'd love to share it.

Stuffing people in homes makes no difference, I didn't suggest that; But giving them absolutely no opportunity to get out of their situation is the problem, BINGO. Oppurtunity. I would sign on to federal "programs" (and I HATE government programs) that will provide oppurtinities to people in down trodden times. Like, Obama-scale funding....but the problem with oppurtunity is...not everyone will succeed, and not everyone will even try to take advantage of it. Thus, there will always be homeless people that some think it's the government's job to take care of.

Donations going to food and clothes is great, but all that really does is keep them homeless. Make somebody be ok? I doubt the percentage of homeless that choose to be homeless is very high; Probably less than the ones that would like to turn it around. No doubt. I just dont think it's a) the goverment's responsibility and something that government can fix. People have to want to help themselves. I think laws that provide oppurtunity for these people to get out of the shit hole is worthy of decadent funding. But giving shit away only keeps them there.

Better one than both. Where I disagree with you is here : There isn't a choice between being watched or getting beaten for no reason. Beatings still occur despite security cameras...frequently, in fact.
Of course there are, and there are assaults caught on those cameras that(occasionally) lead to arrests. It's the lesser of two evils. I gotta part ways with you on that. I just disagree. No dispute that there are occasional arrests, which is better than none, that are derived from the cameras. But that doesn't stop the possibly fatal (for me) altercation. I just value a non-intrusive government more than that. And if I get beaten by someone in an area with no cameras...do I wish a camera was there? Nope...cuz I'm gonna get a beat down anyway. What I would like, however, is the right to carry something to defend myself with....like my Sigma 9mm. Not only will that STOP the crew from beating me (camera wont), but I can assure you they will be right where I bumped into 'em when the cops arrive, and in no condition to run.

Second, the people have ample reason to doubt our government.
Everybody else in the world doubts your government.

So why empower them? You see the shit they do, what's the wisdom in empowering them???

Have you tried? I imagine they'd move all their cloak and dagger meetings somewhere else if lowly citizens tried to listen in.

They have police security. And I'd have to move out of the country to enjoy the priviledge of not being watched by the U.S. government...um,...er,...well, they could actually watch me anywhere I go. I can't watch them and know what deals they're making that effects my life, no matter where they go. That's 1%-ism.

I assume those idiots at occupy hate both, then again I don't talk to hipster morons in my day to day. I don't think that's what it boils down to, I think people just hate everybody elses success. They do, but they elect politicians to mitigate the successful that they hate so much, and redistribute it to thier nappy hipster selves.

I don't disagree. But, as much as I hate the police most of the time, whats going to happen when these massive mobs go unchecked forever? Read up on the comparisons between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party. One cleaned up thier trash and had zero arrested, the other....well...I'm sure you know. Peaceful protests aren't mobs.

Freedom of speech is cool, riots usually aren't. Do you think there would be more or less rioting if the police did not "regulate" the protests. Would Greece be doing better or worse right now without police. Would England have been better off without police. Greeks are rioting because thier government is going to raise taxes and reduce benefits for the next generation of Greeks because they've been to decadent in thier social entitlements...and the Greeks are fuckin' pissed. Besides, no amount of police is going to save Greece from what's coming. There's going to be blood-letting with or without police.

And for England, yes, it would've been better off without the police...that riot was started because the fuckin' police killed a guy. Police was the problem in England...and sending police to put down a riot over the the killing of a guy by police wasn't going to go well.

You can't really argue "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", how could they contain any riot that could break out if they have zero enforcement in the area? Presumption of guilt is where we disagree. I don't concur with removing freedoms because someting "could" happen. They have the right to peaceably assemble. No problems with police presence as a precaution. Never said anything about that. But telling people how they can protest, where, and when....no, I don't buy that. That gives government power that was explicitly denied it in the constitution as well as removes the power of the people to address thier greivances with the government effectively. Telling them that they can't protest vocally, or with any written materials, dictating the time they can do it, where they can do it. That's the erosion that's been done time and again when free people inch by inch give away thier liberties under the premise of practicality. Again, we just have to agree to disagree...I'd rather be free and have to tolerate some impracticality than to have an authortarian state that's practical. Just IMHO.

They have no way of knowing if the group is there peaceably or not, might start out all guitars and soft drugs but idiots do things and that just incites more idiots. Again, I adhere to the presumption of innocence...you not to the same degree. My way will lead to some donkey dick protest meltdowns, no doubt. But freedom's still intact. I believe yours will lead to erosion of freedoms that can't be taken back and powers that can be abused more and more as time goes on. Again, just IMHO. Maybe you're right. I just don't believe in removing freedoms from those "guitars and soft drugs" because of idiots. I believe in removing freedom from just the idiots. But I concede that means they're going to have to do something idiotic first...

So basically, despite the 1st amendment saying that the government does not have the authority to make any law "abridging" (curtailing) this right, they can tell you

when, where, and how you can do it...just not what the content is...so they can say "no noise and no print, only after midnight, and not in populated areas".

Hate to argue this but, safety? Was the first amendment written in this kind of world? Where a small circle of privilidged individuals try to mass wealth and power at the expense of the masses and consolidate control? I think so, yes.

Were tens of thousands of people blocking city blocks for days? Potentially causing millions of dollars in damages. Read a book on the our Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, the Revolution of 1917, and on and on...it's this very protection of rights and limitations of government that strives to avoid bloody revolutions, because no one wants to revolt due to opressive government. Blocking city streets is a bitch, yes. There's no disputing that. There are drawbacks to preseving freedom. Traffic is one I'm willing to endure.

You know this shit, you can't say they aren't valid reasons. There are valid reasons. But when I'm debating whether the validity outwieghs giving up of rights, I'd be lying if I said I weight rights more heavily more often than not. Why do you think authortarian and totalitarian governments first order of business is disarming thier populace? They don't tell the people "we're taking your guns away because you're going to want to overthrow and kill us for what we're about to do to you." They give people valid reasons why they shouldn't be permitted to own guns, because of what could happen occasionally.

Do you want to pay money because some occupy idiots fucked up a few blocks of chicago? Protests get out of hand, police are generally there to stop it. YES! I can't stand Occupy idiots, but I'd rather stomach seeing thier retarded self-contradicting interviews than lose my right to criticize my government vocally. And when protest get out of hand, the police should step in...not before. That's where we disagree. Putting apparatii in place in order to prevent it from getting out of hand, but also curtail "unaliable" rights might be a logical and sensical trade off to you. I just don't agree. I see a huge potential for danger there...because once the rights that are established to protect people from the plutocrats, bureaucrats, and power brokers are negotiable, the power establishment will take them while giving the best reasons in the world why.

Don't chicken and the egg this, police cause problems, protesters cause problems, doesn't matter who's first. You owned a business didn't you? You saw what happened in England didn't you? (I did, and you referenced it as an example of how police presence worked despite all those business that got ran-sacked.)Could have been your store protesters fucked up, because they were allowed to be there and then were mad at the government... so they fucked up small businesses. America has more guns, pretty sure it could be worse. We'd fare better, more than likely. I did have a business. I had two firearms there, too. (chicago is a dangerous place, yo) I did have to brandish one during the time I owned it, too. I will admit that it wasn't pleasant, but it stopped a potentially violent altercation dead in its tracks. And if any of those dread-locked, starbucks sipping wanna-be darts came to my shop and threatened me, my employess, etc, I'd center-mass double tap each one of them that tried until I was out of rounds. Of course mobs will fuck up an innocent unarmed shop keeper, sure. Not one that's armed with guns vs. thier starbucks lattes and iPhones....I doubt those candy-ass twerps are willing to die to break glass. But that's just me being a douche-bag about this...look, yes, I would prefer to live in a free country and risk idiots smashing my shop (if they were so eager to get shot) than to have rights curtailed so that I don't have to replace some aluminum, glass, and inventory. Again, Diz,...I think it's just a difference in how much value we place in different things. I can replace stuff....rights aren't the same way, IMHO...

Meh, pod race was badass. Oh please don't say that...you can't mean that...you just can't.

This post has been edited by ilyushin: Tue Feb 14, 2012 04:46 AM

[Dizy83]

that dumbshit who doesn't want to incriminate herself after she incriminated herself. ...It's incumbant upon the police/prosecution to nail her without making her help help them nail her

I don't see that it matters, she admitted to evidence and the act of producing was still privileged, circumventing some pointless (in this case) constitutional right. I can't defend an idiot who knows the fifth, pleads it, then thinks she has the court bamboozled and still fucking admits to it while incarcerated. Yes she has the right to not incriminate herself, which she waved when she incriminated herself.

I don't mean to be technical, but that's just simple authortarianism...fascism is indeed authortarian, but with a notable attribute of hyper-passionate nationalism, usually accompanied by a cult-of-personality centered on the dictator.
A governments laws which are imposed with murder is fascism in my book. Webster can suck a sweaty dick.

I used to be an estimator with a contracting firm, and bid and managed ALOT of projects in VA hospitals like Hines VA, Jesse Brown VA, etc. in Chicago. Decrepit, aweful, and beyond belief. Nobody fucking cares, it's pathetic. I can give endless policies of our federal government that makes rehabing these hositals impossible...I mean the shit would blow your mind, and I say that fully aware that you probably aren't one whose mind is easily blown. If you want to hear some mind-bending retarded shit, and have 10 minutes, I'd love to share it.

To be honest, I don't like hearing that much depressing shit.

BINGO. Oppurtunity. I would sign on to federal "programs" (and I HATE government programs) that will provide oppurtinities to people in down trodden times. Like, Obama-scale funding....but the problem with oppurtunity is...not everyone will succeed, and not everyone will even try to take advantage of it. Thus, there will always be homeless people that some think it's the government's job to take care of.
There are people with jobs, houses, cars, etc. that don't take advantage of their situation, and are given opportunities they don't even need. Tell me what's the worst that could happen with some stupid public works project to at least give people a chance, if they blow it then fuck em.

No doubt. I just dont think it's a) the goverment's responsibility and something that government can fix. People have to want to help themselves. I think laws that provide oppurtunity for these people to get out of the shit hole is worthy of decadent funding. But giving shit away only keeps them there.

Wanting to help yourself is great, but who employs homeless people? Would they put down a soup kitchen as their address? Bank accounts? Clothes? Would you hire a homeless person? I wouldn't, I'm a hypocrite. Don't have to give away entire lives to them, but something is better than nothing.

Last I saw there are more homeless people in america than housed people in all of Canada. That's fairly indicative of a large problem.

I gotta part ways with you on that. I just disagree. No dispute that there are occasional arrests, which is better than none, that are derived from the cameras. But that doesn't stop the possibly fatal (for me) altercation. I just value a non-intrusive government more than that. And if I get beaten by someone in an area with no cameras...do I wish a camera was there? Nope...cuz I'm gonna get a beat down anyway. What I would like, however, is the right to carry something to defend myself with....like my Sigma 9mm. Not only will that STOP the crew from beating me (camera wont), but I can assure you they will be right where I bumped into 'em when the cops arrive, and in no condition to run.
And if there was a camera on you when you pulled a gun after being jumped, self defense; You walk. Rather than one guy with bullet wounds, one guy with a gun; No guarantee you'll get the benefit of the doubt, unless somebody plays a race card.

So why empower them? You see the shit they do, what's the wisdom in empowering them
As opposed to violent mobs, burning down businesses.

They have police security. And I'd have to move out of the country to enjoy the priviledge of not being watched by the U.S. government...um,...er,...well, they could actually watch me anywhere I go. I can't watch them and know what deals they're making that effects my life, no matter where they go. That's 1%-ism.

You work for, and spend, their money, there are branches of the evil government with a vested interest in what you do, justifiably so imo. Unless you can propose a system of government in which the citizens and government are entirely separate and have nothing to do with each other, in any way.

Read up on the comparisons between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party. One cleaned up thier trash and had zero arrested, the other....well...I'm sure you know. Peaceful protests aren't mobs.
Until they are, and no police presence leads to...

Greeks are rioting because thier government is going to raise taxes and reduce benefits for the next generation of Greeks because they've been to decadent in thier social entitlements...and the Greeks are fuckin' pissed. Besides, no amount of police is going to save Greece from what's coming.
So the plan then is to raze the country to the ground and from the ashes will rise a new power? Wouldn't it just be easier to not ruin entire cities? To not have thousands of pointless arrests?
Didn't they just get bailed out?

And for England, yes, it would've been better off without the police...that riot was started because the fuckin' police killed a guy. Police was the problem in England...and sending police to put down a riot over the the killing of a guy by police wasn't going to go well.

Yes, young man losing his life at the hands of police. Under what strain of causality do people go from anger at police to burning down small businesses? And to that effect how would police presence stopping the destruction of property that isn't of the police be ill advised? Was there any country wide ransacking of police stations and government buildings? Or was there anger at a crime(well placed anger) that lead to riots(still more or less well placed), which lead to people taking advantage of the situation to loot and destroy(stupid)?

Presumption of guilt is where we disagree. I don't concur with removing freedoms because someting "could" happen. They have the right to peaceably assemble. No problems with police presence as a precaution. Never said anything about that.
But you disagree with my opinion of preparing for the worst before it happens.
But telling people how they can protest, where, and when....no, I don't buy that. That gives government power that was explicitly denied it in the constitution as well as removes the power of the people to address thier greivances with the government effectively. Telling them that they can't protest vocally, or with any written materials, dictating the time they can do it, where they can do it. That's the erosion that's been done time and again when free people inch by inch give away thier liberties under the premise of practicality. Again, we just have to agree to disagree...I'd rather be free and have to tolerate some impracticality than to have an authortarian state that's practical. Just IMHO.

Isn't that I disagree with you, I just don't think mobs left to their own devices will always stay peaceful. Rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I wouldn't really consider a riot impractical, more... devastating?

Again, I adhere to the presumption of innocence...you not to the same degree. My way will lead to some donkey dick protest meltdowns, no doubt.
How many times would it have to happen before you'd be more in favor of police, regulations, some semblance of order.

I believe yours will lead to erosion of freedoms that can't be taken back and powers that can be abused more and more as time goes on. Again, just IMHO.
And riots or mobs, maybe not constant or even repeat offenders, would lead to something different? The government, or people in general wouldn't say hey, the riots need to stop.

I just don't believe in removing freedoms from those "guitars and soft drugs" because of idiots. I believe in removing freedom from just the idiots. But I concede that means they're going to have to

do something idiotic first...
So remove safety? What about bystanders, what about their rights to go to a park or downtown or wherever and not be caught in a riot. Yeah, it's worst case scenario, but why wait for the worst to happen before doing something about it. Or are you against insurance policies too lol.

Where a small circle of privilidged individuals try to mass wealth and power at the expense of the masses and consolidate control?
So the government is doing the same thing as 200 years ago and literally no progress has been made, expect to see it in your lifetime then? . The situation may be the same, but the conditions are fairly different; Scale being my main point.

Read a book on the our Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, the Revolution of 1917, and on and on...it's this very protection of rights and limitations of government that strives to avoid bloody revolutions, because no one wants to revolt due to opressive government. Blocking city streets is a bitch, yes. There's no disputing that. There are drawbacks to preseving freedom. Traffic is one I'm willing to endure.
Yeah, I don't think the differences between then and now are so incredibly far apart, look at the line they're trying to walk, too much enforcement of anything and it's oppression, too light on anything and people take advantage. Look at every riot in a major city, there is always looting, people suck. They see an opportunity to take and they do it. That's what happens when steps aren't taken to prevent it. Even Vancouver had idiots looting in a hockey riot, with police presence, but 100k people opposed to 10k police and decent people isn't going to go well for one side.

So say the government does nothing and says nothing about protests, lets them just go at it. What happens when they ask for something the government can't do?

What stops them from escalating? What happens when they do, when they feel betrayed and riot? Police step in and have to control it, after it's already started.
Why is that better than police being there to begin with, there are probably more people than police in every city in america; Why wouldn't they take steps to give their outnumbered presence an advantage? Maybe it is an infringement on rights, but business owners have rights, bystanders have rights, police officers have rights, why shouldn't theirs be counted. Protesters don't speak for the entire population ("99%").
Traffic does suck, especially the lack of foot traffic for small businesses in the middle of downtown that the hipster ecomentalists won't buy from.

There are valid reasons. But when I'm debating whether the validity outwieghs giving up of rights, I'd be lying if I said I weight rights more heavily more often than not. Why do you think authortarian and totalitarian governments first order of business is disarming thier populace? They don't tell the people "we're taking your guns away because you're going to want to overthrow and kill us for what we're about to do to you." They give people valid reasons why they shouldn't be permitted to own guns, because of

what could happen occasionally.
Why shouldn't governments protect themselves, citizens do. You said yourself you have guns, want to carry a gun etc. Why shouldn't the government do the same as you, isn't that what you're vilifying them for? I can have, but you can't. Granted you can't technically shoot a government, but shoot all the people implementing the system and it'll go away.

YES! I can't stand Occupy idiots, but I'd rather stomach seeing thier retarded self-contradicting interviews than lose my right to criticize my government vocally. And when protest get out of hand, the police should step in...not before.
So punish the dog after it bites, don't prevent the bite? What does that solve, they got away with doing it, they'll do it again.
Putting apparatii in place in order to prevent it from getting out of hand, but also curtail "unaliable" rights might be a logical and sensical trade off to you. I just don't agree. I see a huge potential for danger there
I see huge potential for danger when large groups amass at undisclosed locations with no, call it supervision, in protest. It might be a protest sure, but could be more, could start as a protest then escalate. I don't see preventative measures as infringement on rights. Time and a place isn't what the amendment states, But I see it as more effective for both sides. Random groups in random locations randomly bitching isn't heard and solves nothing, which I believe would lead to anger. Occupy was organized with times and places, why shouldn't the government do the same and be there to hear it.

you referenced it as an example of how police presence worked despite all those business that got ran-sacked.
Proof how escalation leads to riots and no police presence to begin with leads to destruction.

We'd fare better, more than likely. I did have a business. I had two firearms there, too.
And so do most people, as implied in another thread.
I did have to brandish one during the time I owned it, too. I will admit that it wasn't pleasant, but it stopped a potentially violent altercation dead in its tracks.
Can I assume this wasn't during a riot and it wasn't a looter?
And if any of those dread-locked, starbucks sipping wanna-be darts came to my shop and threatened me, my employess, etc, I'd center-mass double tap each one of them that tried until I was out of rounds. Of course mobs will fuck up an innocent unarmed shop keeper, sure. Not one that's armed with guns vs. thier starbucks lattes and iPhones
You have no reason to believe they aren't armed either. And unless you or one of your gun wielding employees was there 24/7 then there's no protection against any rioters or looters.

look, yes, I would prefer to live in a free country and risk idiots smashing my shop (if they were so eager to get shot) than to have rights curtailed so that I don't have to replace some aluminum, glass, and inventory. Again, Diz,...I think it's just a difference in how much value we place in different things
Isn't that I don't value rights, just don't believe chaotic protests solve anything. And I really don't believe that we should wait until a riot is in full swing before doing something about it.
I can replace stuff....rights aren't the same way, IMHO...
Some business owners had to shut down after the riots in England, lost their business and their money.

Oh please don't say that...you can't mean that...you just can't.
It was the best parts of every american movie, lots of fast things, engine noises, firey death crashes, aliens, magic, guns, robots, random pointless shot of attractive women and bad steering movements that have no relation to the background movement.
Music was good too.

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Tue Feb 14, 2012 06:20 AM, said:

A governments laws which are imposed with murder is fascism in my book. Webster can suck a sweaty dick. I dunno what Webster says about Fascism, but what you refer to is authortarianism...which fascism is, but not all authortarian governments (that do what you're referring to) are fascist...but okay, call it fascism if you're so inclined. Hell, call it Boku-fong Pao if you want.

To be honest, I don't like hearing that much depressing shit. Then I'll keep it to myself.

There are people with jobs, houses, cars, etc. that don't take advantage of their situation, and are given opportunities they don't even need. Tell me what's the worst that could happen with some stupid public works project to at least give people a chance, if they blow it then fuck em. Aside from that stupid public works projects for the sake of stupid public works projects don't result in increased oppurtinity for those that need one? (See; American Re-investment and Recovery Act) For pete's sake, those signs were posted all over Chicagoland, Diz...and you wanna know what happened in the middle of it all stimulus public works bullshit? The fucking workers (you know, the people that need oppurtunies?)went on strike!

http://articles.chic...ike-trib-nation

These were hundreds of projects across Chicago and the suburbs...union guys making $45+ per hour walked off the job at a time of massive unemployment, because $54 an hour wasn't a big enough raise. So, yeah...What's the worst that'll happen? Mind-bending traffic, trillions of dollars wasted that my kids and grandkids are going to pay interest on thier entire lives....oh, and continued elevated unemployment.

Wanting to help yourself is great, but who employs homeless people? Would they put down a soup kitchen as their address? Bank accounts? Clothes? Would you hire a homeless person? I wouldn't, I'm a hypocrite. Don't have to give away entire lives to them, but something is better than nothing.

Last I saw there are more homeless people in america than housed people in all of Canada. That's fairly indicative of a large problem. Ohhh...you might want to check up on that. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in it's address to Congress, 1% of Americans experience homelessness. That's 3.5 million, but most were temporary. (That'd be less than Canada's "homefull" population, anyway)But those who are repeatedly or long-term homeless numbered 123,833.

http://en.wikipedia....ort_to_Congress

Canada, despite being 1/10th the population of the U.S., actually has worse homelessness problem than the U.S., with between 200,000 and 300,000 being homeless. After skimming it, Canada's homelessness is a little more dire becaise it is more inclusive of children and effects a broader demographic.

http://www.chumireth...pdf/SHELTER.pdf (pg 4, findings and policies)

What's worse is Canada's problem is growing more rapidly, articularly in urban areas.

So despite being 10 times more populous than Canada, it appears homeless is something that Canada, at the very least shares with the U.S.

And if there was a camera on you when you pulled a gun after being jumped, self defense; You walk. Rather than one guy with bullet wounds, one guy with a gun; No guarantee you'll get the benefit of the doubt, unless somebody plays a race card.

The dead can't tell thier side of the story.

As opposed to violent mobs, burning down businesses.

I'll take my chances with the mobs...I can legally defend myself against them. Defending myself against the government is illegal. Besides, police presence didn't do anything to stop the King riots in LA, race riots in the 1960's, LA anytime thier teams win championships, even Vancouver....Police can't stop anything from happening. Using the curtailment of freedoms for that purpose not only loses you your freedoms, but also doesn't work. If a riot breaks out, a few hundred or even a few thousand cops aren't gonna stop it. End result, riot still happens, you just have less freedom. Again, we'll just have to live with disagreeing on this one.

You work for, and spend, their money, there are branches of the evil government with a vested interest in what you do, justifiably so imo. Unless you can propose a system of government in which the citizens and government are entirely separate and have nothing to do with each other, in any way. The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others. What other purpose can government serve? Make improve people's lives? I'd say governments have a 5000 year long piss-poor track record of that. Just my interpretation of history, yours obviously differ. No biggie, no one's going to convince the other, here.

Until they are, and no police presence leads to...No homeless men getting beaten and tasered to death. (sic)

The same end result as if there wasn't, really. Police precence was at Tea Party protests and Occupy. One group couldn't stop raping and assulting eachother, the other packed it's shit up, cleaned thier messes, and we back to work when Monday rolled around. Police presence wouldn't deter a riot if one broke out at the Occupy movements. But, perhaps that's a justification for a more prominent and less restricted police force...The Schutzstaffel was pretty good at keeping things in line, even having regular people police thier nieghbors.

So the plan then is to raze the country to the ground and from the ashes will rise a new power? Wouldn't it just be easier to not ruin entire cities? Police aren't going to stop a national riot. Ask Marie Antionnette. Besides, a "start over" probably wouldn't be the worst thing for Greece. To not have thousands of pointless arrests? See; NKVD, SS, KGB, and countless other scenarios.
Didn't they just get bailed out?

They got bailed out, and will need continual bailout measures. That's what this is all about. Greece has to do a few tough things. In order to get

1.) More bailout money from thier Euro buds

and

2.) Get the holders of Greek debt (the investors that lent Greece all that money) to take a 75% loss on thier investments

They need to show that they can be responsible, meaning austerity. They have to fiscally responsible, new massive deficits. This means

1.) Raising taxes

and

2.) Reducing benefits like pensions, federal retirement payments, reduced wages for gov't workers, reduced funds for infrastructure and basically every other government expenditure.

This means that Greeks will grow up paying higher taxes than their parents, and getting less in return than thier parents did when it comes thier turn to kick back and collect checks. So, basically, the Greek government over the years has been spending today's Greeks' money. Now the bill has come due. And today's Greeks are pissed off because they're being told what was promised them for decades wont be there now.

Yes, young man losing his life at the hands of police. Under what strain of causality do people go from anger at police to burning down small businesses? And to that effect how would police presence stopping the destruction of property that isn't of the police be ill advised? Was there any country wide ransacking of police stations and government buildings? Or was there anger at a crime(well placed anger) that lead to riots(still more or less well placed), which lead to people taking advantage of the situation to loot and destroy(stupid)? None of which police prevented from transpiring...all those closed circuit cameras monitoring the streets a-la Big Brother that britain is famous for, police presence, etc, etc,....a riot still broke out and business were torched. IF the people have a greivance, and are going to do something "stupid", a government cannot prevent that from happening and still be a free state. A government cannot protect people from themselves unless we are willing to live in a tyrannical state. With freedom comes exposure to bad thigns happening. There is NO doubt that is the draw back of a free society. No one will stop it from happening until it started.

But you disagree with my opinion of preparing for the worst before it happens. Not at all, you're not talking about preparing for the worst. (Police presence, which I don't have any problem with....it's logical, constitutionally sound, and as long as they don't intervene with the people excersizing thier right to fre speech without violating the rights of others, is definitely appropriate) But what I differ with you on is outright "you can't do that" or "you can't say that" or "you can't write that" or "you have to do this" (unencrypt a laptop so the government can nail you). You see, it isn't the suspect in the case that started this thread I'm worried about. I'm worried about this case leading to future cases challenging the 5th Amendment to win, because courts will look back at this and say that precedent was set that 5th Amendment can be negated if there's "good reason". That's what people don't get. This will erode the 5th Amendment permantently, and for a great many people that should be entitled to it's protection....but they, guilty or innocent, will not receive it.

Isn't that I disagree with you, I just don't think mobs left to their own devices will always stay peaceful. They wont always. That is irrefutable. But, that's the last line of defense a populace has against thier government. Take it away, and you have no recourse but to say 'okay'. But also in line with your logic about said mobs...I just don't think powerful governments can always be trusted with the authority given them when people give up thier protections. Like I said, Diz...we're place value on both sides, but with a deference to opposing ends, here.

Rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I wouldn't really consider a riot impractical, more... devastating? Riots are devastating. Impractical when the Lakers win the NBA championship, yes...but not impractical when done in the Middle East against brutal strongman dictators who've abused thier populaces for decades (Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Bahrian, and Saudi Arabia is starting to bubble) Funny how we look at those as freedom movements..a "spring" of sorts...we don't support those police forces that are just trying to get those mobs to calm the fuck down.

And riots or mobs, maybe not constant or even repeat offenders, would lead to something different? The government, or people in general wouldn't say hey, the riots need to stop. Kind of like how it happened in LA. People rioted over the beating of a guy they saw on video, and the cops who did it got off scott free. Riots are what governments fear. Governments don't fear votes, not even in free countries...ask Bush. It's people who've had enough of thier money taken, wasted on rich connections that got the fuckers elected in the first place, and want to see heads roll, that makes governments remember that they rule at the consent of the governed....not regardless of it.

So remove safety? What about bystanders, what about their rights to go to a park or downtown or wherever and not be caught in a riot. Yeah, it's worst case scenario, but why wait for the worst to happen before doing something about it. Or are you against insurance policies too lol. Diz, I've freely conceded that Ily-land government would not be responsible for the safety of it's people from themselves. For two reasons :

1 - it takes a tyrannical police state to gauranty the people safety from themselves. In order to protect people from doing stupid shit, you have to disallow them from doing stupid shit...like having sex without condoms, like limiting reproductive rights for people with hereditary diseases that are autosmal dominant. Look at China..."hey folks, be smart...have one kid!....or else...." China had sound reasoning behind it, they really did. But however you look at it, it's fucking population control and dissolution of reproductive rights, period.

2 - It doesn't even work any way. Alcoholism running rampant? Outlaw alcohol. Drugs are bad for us? Outlaw them. Prostitution is dangerous (and immoral!), outlaw it. Chicago had a 30 year ban on guns, too, you know. How well did/are those laws, government control, and police efforts go/going??? All that did was give rise to MORE crime, gangs, oragnized crime, women sucking dick for $10 when it should really be hella more because prostitution can no longer be a "profession" like it used to be in some societies. Now it's mostly for crack addicts. Drugs, prostitutes, guns, alcohol all still exist, are readily available, and fund (or funded in liqour's case) huge violent crinimal organizations because of the government wanting police personal behavior, and now the government needs to fight these organizations. Ditto guns, Chicago banned hand guns for 30 years. Funny thing, gun violence and shooting went up an stayed up until it was repealed two year ago.

So, in short, no. Government simply cannot be in the business of protecting people from themselves and be responsible for thier safety.

So the government is doing the same thing as 200 years ago and literally no progress has been made, expect to see it in your lifetime then? . The situation may be the same, but the conditions are fairly different; Scale being my main point. Negative, the U.S. government, way back in the day, was quite small and non-instrusive...states governments decided laws in thier own state.

Yeah, I don't think the differences between then and now are so incredibly far apart, look at the line they're trying to walk, too much enforcement of anything and it's oppression, too light on anything and people take advantage. Look at every riot in a major city, there is always looting, people suck. They see an opportunity to take and they do it. That's what happens when steps aren't taken to prevent it. Even Vancouver had idiots looting in a hockey riot, with police presence, but 100k people opposed to 10k police and decent people isn't going to go well for one side. So much for that police presnce, huh?

So say the government does nothing and says nothing about protests, lets them just go at it. What happens when they ask for something the government can't do? EXCELLENT! That's exactly right! Governments do things that they literally cannot do! That's why things like social security a failing money pits, disappointing new generations with raising eligibility ages, and taking away cost of living increases...because NO ONE wants to be the guy who says "we can't do this, it isn't working" (although congress still gets thier cost of living increases on thier pensions...that they never paid into)

What stops them from escalating? What happens when they do, when they feel betrayed and riot? Police step in and have to control it, after it's already started. Yup...after it's started. And if enough people are pissed at thier government, the nriot beats police, government is overthrown. See what happened in the French, American, and Russian Revolutions. There were soldiers and police, in those days. People had e-fuckin'-nough.

Why is that better than police being there to begin with, No problem with police "being there"...

Why wouldn't they take steps to give their outnumbered presence an advantage? Maybe it is an infringement on rights, but business owners have rights, bystanders have rights, police officers have rights, why shouldn't theirs be counted. Business owner's rights aren't being infringed upon my the peaceful protest. To justify infringement of protesters rights because of it being merely possible that business owners' rights being infringed..well that, my friend, is a first and second class citizenship...One group's rights superseed another. Better hope you're in the first class!

If it turns riot, then thier rights would be violated. In that case, as we discussed regarding England, LA, Vancouver, etc...police aren't going to stop a riot. A street full of shops who's owners have guns will, though. No one in their right mind is willing to die to break a little glass...and those that are willing can go right ahead and infringe on the gun-toting shopowner's rights at his own peril. So much crime is perpetrated based solely on the fact that the victim is unarmed.

Protesters don't speak for the entire population ("99%").
Traffic does suck, especially the lack of foot traffic for small businesses in the middle of downtown that the hipster ecomentalists won't buy from.

The price of freedom is less safety. The price of safety is less freedom. That's really all there is to it.

Why shouldn't governments protect themselves, citizens do. Because they government governs at the consent of the governed. When that consent is gone, so is the government. That is a free society. The government doesn't have the right to protect itself from those it governs. If the people say 'go', time to go.

You said yourself you have guns, want to carry a gun etc Why shouldn't the government do the same as you, isn't that what you're vilifying them for? I can have, but you can't. Granted you can't technically shoot a government, but shoot all the people implementing the system and it'll go away.

1.) It's illegal in IL for me to carry a firearm. There is no permit for carrying in Illinois. There are only two types of people that carry guns in illinois : government and criminals. I have never villified police for carrying weapons. As far as I can have, yeah, that's what the 2nd amendment says. My government shall make no law abridging.....yet they wont let me own full auto, they wont let me carry, etc...yet they carry, they get full auto...so you attributed the "I can have, but you can't" to me???? I can't have full auto, government does. I can't carry, government can. You got it reversed, Diz.

So punish the dog after it bites, don't prevent the bite? What does that solve, they got away with doing it, they'll do it again.

1.) If you punished them, they didn't get away with it. Dogs are capable of behavior modification, training ,etc., also.

2.) You cannot prevent a dog from biting unless you keep it in a cage, away from people, denying it the opportunity to bite.

I see huge potential for danger when large groups amass at undisclosed locations with no, call it supervision, in protest. It might be a protest sure, but could be more, could start as a protest then escalate. Could be.

I don't see preventative measures as infringement on rights. Time and a place isn't what the amendment states, But I see it as more effective for both sides. Random groups in random locations randomly bitching isn't heard and solves nothing, which I believe would lead to anger. Occupy was organized with times and places, why shouldn't the government do the same and be there to hear it.

Again, you adhere to a school of thought that believes rights need to be justified before being bestowed on the people by it's government. I adhere to a school of thought that believes rights to not need to be justified to the government to be preserved and that the government is not what bestows rights in the first place....but that's a whole other issue.

Proof how escalation leads to riots and no police presence to begin with leads to destruction. I cannot argue with this. That is why police states like Stalin's USSR could starve 22 million Ukrainians and less than 10 photos of 1930's Ukraine exist and no one knew about it at the time. That's why there were no riots in the USSR until it crumbled. That's why there were no riots in Nazi Germany. They had police presence all the time, even when you didn't know they were there, you knew they were there. EVERYONE stayed in line at all times...

Can I assume this wasn't during a riot and it wasn't a looter? Kind of, he was a robber.

Isn't that I don't value rights, just don't believe chaotic protests solve anything. Really? They have before, many times. It's the organized, quiet, off the beatn path protest that no one sees that don't solve anything, Diz...and I don't think that's by accident.

And I really don't believe that we should wait until a riot is in full swing before doing something about it. It doesn't matter. You can't stop a riot. Po-po or no po-po.

Some business owners had to shut down after the riots in England, lost their business and their money. You mean the police presence, insane public video surveillence, anti-gun laws, etc, didn't stop the rioters from infringing on the business owner's rights?

It was the best parts of every american movie, lots of fast things, engine noises, firey death crashes, aliens, magic, guns, robots, random pointless shot of attractive women and bad steering movements that have no relation to the background movement.
Music was good too.

At least we agree on the entertainment quotient of the bad steering movements that have no relation to the background movement. It gave me vertigo.

[Dizy83]

Damn Diz, you dont work for the CPC do you ?

The Canadian Pork Council? No, but I love bacon. And I believe an intelligent person could argue either side of an argument when they chose, regardless of which side they are on.

Aside from that stupid public works projects for the sake of stupid public works projects don't result in increased oppurtinity for those that need one? (See; American Re-investment and Recovery Act) For pete's sake, those signs were posted all over Chicagoland, Diz...and you wanna know what happened in the middle of it all stimulus public works bullshit? The fucking workers (you know, the people that need oppurtunies?)went on strike!

These were hundreds of projects across Chicago and the suburbs...union guys making $45+ per hour walked off the job at a time of massive unemployment, because $54 an hour wasn't a big enough raise. So, yeah...What's the worst that'll happen? Mind-bending traffic, trillions of dollars wasted that my kids and grandkids are going to pay interest on thier entire lives....oh, and continued elevated unemployment.

Proved my point that people who don't need opportunities get them. Who gave them those? government. Could have been to homeless people, or you know... grateful people. But no.
Giving somebody a job, even a temporary job gives them money, gives them experience, gives something. Rather than give shit to people who don't need it and have a job they can walk away from, because unions are cool. I don't mean cool do I? Stupid is the word I mean.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, in it's address to Congress, 1% of Americans experience homelessness. That's 3.5 million, but most were temporary. (That'd be less than Canada's "homefull" population, anyway)But those who are repeatedly or long-term homeless numbered 123,833.
Fine, look at the numbers for poverty then. 46 million. Chicago has some ghettos, I've seen them, wouldn't say it's that high above homelessness.

The dead can't tell thier side of the story.
Which is bad for the guy with the gun.

I'll take my chances with the mobs...I can legally defend myself against them. Defending myself against the government is illegal. Besides, police presence didn't do anything to stop the King riots in LA, race riots in the 1960's, LA anytime thier teams win championships, even Vancouver....Police can't stop anything from happening. Using the curtailment of freedoms for that purpose not only loses you your freedoms, but also doesn't work. If a riot breaks out, a few hundred or even a few thousand cops aren't gonna stop it. End result, riot still happens, you just have less freedom. Again, we'll just have to live with disagreeing on this one.
So rather than stop or control riots, police should just join in? Rather than keep a riot somewhat controlled to a few blocks they should just let them run through the city and burn it all down instead, just Greece our way through everything. You really think no riot has ever been stopped or even semi contained because of police? Just because they don't start mowing people down doesn't mean they aren't trying to stop it.

Which constitutional right says you can riot as you please? Which right allows you to destroy your neighbors property because you disagree with the government?

The same end result as if there wasn't, really. Police precence was at Tea Party protests and Occupy. One group couldn't stop raping and assulting eachother, the other packed it's shit up, cleaned thier messes, and we back to work when Monday rolled around. Police presence wouldn't deter a riot if one broke out at the Occupy movements. But, perhaps that's a justification for a more prominent and less restricted police force...The Schutzstaffel was pretty good at keeping things in line, even having regular people police thier nieghbors.
That's speculative, police were there and there wasn't a riot. If they weren't there you couldn't know there wouldn't be a riot. Police presence doesn't always stop riots, doesn't mean they always cause them. maybe there should have been when people who were doing nothing were getting maced.

The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others. What other purpose can government serve? Make improve people's lives? I'd say governments have a 5000 year long piss-poor track record of that. Just my interpretation of history, yours obviously differ. No biggie, no one's going to convince the other, here.
Like when you destroy somebody's livelihood? Or is that constitutional? Because it was during a protest, police shouldn't try and stop the destruction of citizens property.

Police aren't going to stop a national riot.
So don't try and burn it faster, with the people along with it. Got it.
See; NKVD, SS, KGB, and countless other scenarios.
Yes yes, special police arresting people for stupid reasons. Like destroying your store. But they were protesting, so oh well.

None of which police prevented from transpiring
So they were only destroying public property because the police were there, if the police had just stayed home nothing would have happened. Interesting.
IF the people have a greivance, and are going to do something "stupid", a government cannot prevent that from happening and still be a free state.
A free state on fire. There's much point in fighting over the barn as it burns down then.
A government cannot protect people from themselves unless we are willing to live in a tyrannical state.
So do away with all laws and all prisons, and just let people do what they will.
With freedom comes exposure to bad thigns happening. There is NO doubt that is the draw back of a free society. No one will stop it from happening until it started.
I don't see murderers running rampant as a free society. You want to live with lunatics with guns everywhere with nobody trying to stop them then? I guess since it happens and the government does nothing about it, you already do right?

Not at all, you're not talking about preparing for the worst. (Police presence, which I don't have any problem with....it's logical, constitutionally sound, and as long as they don't intervene with the people excersizing thier right to fre speech without violating the rights of others
Like say, the right to not have their business torched during a "peaceful protest".
But what I differ with you on is outright "you can't do that" or "you can't say that" or "you can't write that" or "you have to do this" (unencrypt a laptop so the government can nail you).
I do agree with that, I don't agree with riots. And I really don't agree with treating admitted criminals the same as law abiding citizens. What rights should somebody have when they infringe on others? "The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others." She robbed a bank. Admitted to it, at least inferred it.
You see, it isn't the suspect in the case that started this thread I'm worried about. I'm worried about this case leading to future cases challenging the 5th Amendment to win, because courts will look back at this and say that precedent was set that 5th Amendment can be negated if there's "good reason".
Then maybe the crims will learn to delete "Bankheist.doc" from their computer. The precedent was set in a trial against a pedophile, so I dunno if I can really care what governments to do condemn a guilty person.

They wont always. That is irrefutable. But, that's the last line of defense a populace has against thier government.
I don't see rioting under constitutional rights. If it comes to a revolution then it's far past protests.
But also in line with your logic about said mobs...I just don't think powerful governments can always be trusted with the authority given them when people give up thier protections.
As opposed to the new mob of revolutionaries?
What would happen if you lead the revolution tomorrow, what happens when you take over the country? Abolish prisons, all state lines, let people just do whatever they want? Seems to be what you suggest. How much could you actually change without it being a massive detriment to what your country is.
Riots are devastating. Impractical when the Lakers win the NBA championship,
Basketball is stupid so are riots about it.
but not impractical when done in the Middle East against brutal strongman dictators who've abused thier populaces for decades (Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Bahrian, and Saudi Arabia is starting to bubble)
That, in my dictionary would be the difference between a riot and a revolution. A riot is just wanton destruction. A revolution is an actual attempt at change. Not just "Fuck, we're mad, I'm taking shit to feel better".
we don't support those police forces that are just trying to get those mobs to calm the fuck down.
I do.

it takes a tyrannical police state to gauranty the people safety from themselves. In order to protect people from doing stupid shit, you have to disallow them from doing stupid shit...like having sex without condoms, like limiting reproductive rights for people with hereditary diseases that are autosmal dominant. Look at China..."hey folks, be smart...have one kid!....or else...." China had sound reasoning behind it, they really did. But however you look at it, it's fucking population control and dissolution of reproductive rights, period.
And rights to be fed and clothed everyday because your family can afford it.. oh nooooo, that's right. Poor. Call it wrong if you want, but you agree with the reasoning. Most countries have seat belt laws, disagree with that. More idiots would die, that's just as much population control.

It doesn't even work any way. Alcoholism running rampant? Outlaw alcohol. Drugs are bad for us? Outlaw them. Prostitution is dangerous (and immoral!), outlaw it. Chicago had a 30 year ban on guns, too, you know. How well did/are those laws, government control, and police efforts go/going??? All that did was give rise to MORE crime, gangs, oragnized crime, women sucking dick for $10 when it should really be hella more because prostitution can no longer be a "profession" like it used to be in some societies. Now it's mostly for crack addicts. Drugs, prostitutes, guns, alcohol all still exist, are readily available, and fund (or funded in liqour's case) huge violent crinimal organizations because of the government wanting police personal behavior, and now the government needs to fight these organizations. Ditto guns, Chicago banned hand guns for 30 years. Funny thing, gun violence and shooting went up an stayed up until it was repealed two year ago.
If it weren't for prohibition, there'd be no NASCAR.
Population also increased over those 30 years, as did poverty, unemployment, gangs, drug wars. Doesn't it stand to reason that everything would increase with population? And yes when you outlaw things that people have, you have to arrest more, look at marijuana. If you make something illegal while people are doing it, suddenly you have to arrest them. That doesn't make their decisions wrong, it's stupid, but isn't wrong.

So, in short, no. Government simply cannot be in the business of protecting people from themselves and be responsible for thier safety.
So don't wear a seat belt, Have campfires in the middle of the woods, shit shop owners could light their business with torches(fire hazards are fairly fun), don't put helmets on your kids when they ride a bike, smoke, drink and drive, get in gun fights with gangs for funzies, only buy meat from unregulated sellers, rob banks, kill people who look at you funny.
Government isn't always wrong when they try to protect you.

Negative, the U.S. government, way back in the day, was quite small and non-instrusive...states governments decided laws in thier own state.
And there were still revolutions. Unless the civil war doesn't count, I mean secession is indeed different than revolution. Or was this after the Government went all evil, abolishing slavery levels of evil.

So much for that police presnce, huh?
Stopping it from escalating was ill-advised, I agree. I don't like vancouver, they should have just burned it down. And LA could use some firey death, do something about that disgusting smog(other than driving Prius', daahahaha). And more dilapidated buildings, fun for the whole family.

Yup...after it's started. And if enough people are pissed at thier government, the nriot beats police, government is overthrown. See what happened in the French, American, and Russian Revolutions. There were soldiers and police, in those days. People had e-fuckin'-nough.
Again, if it's to the point of revolting, I don't see it as a riot.

Business owner's rights aren't being infringed upon my the peaceful protest. To justify infringement of protesters rights because of it being merely possible that business owners' rights being infringed..well that, my friend, is a first and second class citizenship...One group's rights superseed another. Better hope you're in the first class!
Rioters have no class. If they're so against their government that they want to revolt, then what class they would have fit into is entirely irrelevant.
Again "The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others." The government and the police are right to try and stop people from destroying property during a riot, you say if there was a riot and idiots were breaking into your store you'd shoot them. You have guns, other business owners might not, how do they defend their livelihood.

If it turns riot, then thier rights would be violated. In that case, as we discussed regarding England, LA, Vancouver, etc...police aren't going to stop a riot. A street full of shops who's owners have guns will, though. No one in their right mind is willing to die to break a little glass...and those that are willing can go right ahead and infringe on the gun-toting shopowner's rights at his own peril. So much crime is perpetrated based solely on the fact that the victim is unarmed.
Police didn't stop any destruction at all then? I'd have to disagree based on facts. And why wouldn't the rioters have guns? They're mad and on their way to get some free shit, why wouldn't they bring a gun.

The price of freedom is less safety. The price of safety is less freedom. That's really all there is to it.
Is all fine for people with guns, and what of people who can't defend themselves? "So much crime is perpetrated based solely on the fact that the victim is unarmed."
Fuck em then? Should have known better. Especially those handicapped, should have fashioned a gun out of the cane I guess.

Because they government governs at the consent of the governed. When that consent is gone, so is the government. That is a free society. The government doesn't have the right to protect itself from those it governs. If the people say 'go', time to go.
Because all people always agree with everybody else right? That's desperately far from logic. Government are more or less supposed to be consensus(regardless of how far from reality that is), but when the people don't participate, how will their opinion matter. Look at voting numbers. They do nothing, then bitch when nothing happens. Reap what you sow.

It's illegal in IL for me to carry a firearm. There is no permit for carrying in Illinois. There are only two types of people that carry guns in illinois : government and criminals. I have never villified police for carrying weapons. As far as I can have, yeah, that's what the 2nd amendment says. My government shall make no law abridging.....yet they wont let me own full auto, they wont let me carry, etc...yet they carry, they get full auto...so you attributed the "I can have, but you can't" to me???? I can't have full auto, government does. I can't carry, government can.
Second amendment was written with automatic weapons in mass production? I've always understood the keep and bear arms part to refer to a militia, which the united states doesn't have so far as I'm aware.

If you punished them, they didn't get away with it. Dogs are capable of behavior modification, training ,etc., also.
It's after the fact, they did get away with it. You can punish it and try to correct, but stopping something after it happened is less effective than stopping it before, destruction happened.
You cannot prevent a dog from biting unless you keep it in a cage, away from people, denying it the opportunity to bite.
Ceasar Milan disagrees .

Again, you adhere to a school of thought that believes rights need to be justified before being bestowed on the people by it's government. I adhere to a school of thought that believes rights to not need to be justified to the government to be preserved and that the government is not what bestows rights in the first place....but that's a whole other issue.
There are no rights without government. Cavemen didn't have rights, no trials were held when another cave was invaded, men were slaughtered and women were stolen; None for barbarians burning Rome, none for Vikings raping and pillaging. Other countries (somehow) have different rights. There are no universal rights, there's your opinion and other people's opinion of what you should or shouldn't get. World changes, so do the perceptions of rights/ethics.

I cannot argue with this. That is why police states like Stalin's USSR could starve 22 million Ukrainians and less than 10 photos of 1930's Ukraine exist and no one knew about it at the time. That's why there were no riots in the USSR until it crumbled. That's why there were no riots in Nazi Germany. They had police presence all the time, even when you didn't know they were there, you knew they were there. EVERYONE stayed in line at all times...
I see a fairly large difference between oppression and control, Nazi's didn't allow times and places for protest, USSR didn't allow anything. People so afraid of their government that they do nothing apparently works well for governments, seeing as neither of those groups exist today. At least not in any significant power.

Kind of, he was a robber.
There apparently during business hours, as opposed to the 3am brew-ha-ha riot that would have empty businesses. That you imply would be better for everybody than time and place protests. So unless you propose some kind of automated weapon systems in every business or just vigilantes to hunker down all night, I don't think you could always protect your store from looters.

Really? They have before, many times. It's the organized, quiet, off the beatn path protest that no one sees that don't solve anything, Diz...and I don't think that's by accident.
Does it? Look at women's right to vote, without government it's pointless, is it not? What "Right" is there, when there's no reason for it. You can do something, that doesn't exist because there's no government to A) Stop it from happening, and B ) Have any effect when it does happen.

It doesn't matter. You can't stop a riot. Po-po or no po-po.
Stopping the potential escalation of pointless destruction is a good thing. Least to me.

You mean the police presence, insane public video surveillence, anti-gun laws, etc, didn't stop the rioters from infringing on the business owner's rights?
All? No. Some? Yeah. Were people arrested and charged for their actions? Yep. Was surveillance integral for the shops insurance? Yep. Was surveillance a large part in obtaining evidence against those criminals? Yep. I don't see doing nothing when there's a riot as a beneficial plan. I do see police presence, arrests, tear gas, everything as part of stopping the riots, which did stop, as beneficial. So I don't know how you can argue they didn't stop the riots, since they were stopped. Unless everybody just got bored and went home, which would be too convenient for me. A little too tin foil hat, moon landing studio, cloak and dagger, kansas city shuffle... you get my meaning right? Conspiracy theorists.

I've haven't argued for police brutality during peaceful protest, I just think time and place is beneficial for everybody, protesters, police, government, and bystanders.

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Tue Feb 14, 2012 04:49 PM, said:

Proved my point that people who don't need opportunities get them. Who gave them those? government. Could have been to homeless people, or you know... grateful people. But no.

The government gave them those contracts through the bidding process, whereby the lowest "responsible" bid wins, LOL. While I wont sign on with having homeless people doing the jobs of civil engineers on public works projects, I think it's worthwhile to have them do non-skilled or semi-skilled assignments as a form of on the job training while giving them funds to get on their feet...or maybe even a permanent gig.

Giving somebody a job, even a temporary job gives them money, gives them experience, gives something. Rather than give shit to people who don't need it and have a job they can walk away from, because unions are cool. I don't mean cool do I? Stupid is the word I mean. Sadly, in Chicago, non-union laborers can't walk onto union job sites. Two things will happen: The project gets shut down, and union workers will beat the non-union laborers (aka scabs) to pulps. That's how fat lazy idiots can protect thier absurd wages without worrying about someone else taking thier job. But I know what you're saying, and aside from specialized and particularly skilled work, I have no qualms with your logic. I mean, a homeless guy who wants to work will do so for far less than a union buford.
Fine, look at the numbers for poverty then. 46 million. Chicago has some ghettos, I've seen them, wouldn't say it's that high above homelessness. Of course Chicago has ghettos. I wasn't saying Canada was worse, I was saying the particular statistic you mentioned regarding there being more American homeless than Canadians in homes wasn't accurate. That's all. I did site inspections and spec meetings on the South Side and the West Sides...Englewood...79th and Racine. I even had a project where we had to put bullet proof hollow metal doors with one-way visibility bullet proof glass in a chuch-preschool building because bullets hit the doors of the day care.. It cost that chuch 6x more for those doors than if it would've been in a safe neighborhood.
Which is bad for the guy with the gun.

It's bad for the guy with the gun, but it's over for the guy who got shot.
So rather than stop or control riots, police should just join in? Rather than keep a riot somewhat controlled to a few blocks they should just let them run through the city and burn it all down instead, just Greece our way through everything. You really think no riot has ever been stopped or even semi contained because of police? Just because they don't start mowing people down doesn't mean they aren't trying to stop it. Never said they didn't try....but uh, yeah, no...police aren't going to contain a riot. They'll arrest a few isolated people on the outskirts of the mob, yeah. I don't know where you got "join in" from, and again, I never implied that police shouldn't be present at protest as a precaution. That doesn't curtial anyone's rights. But telling those protesters how they can protest is a different animal entirely, and I will disagree with that. As for "Greece our way through everything"...well, that's what you're implying...I mean, they have police present in those disturbences.

Which constitutional right says you can riot as you please? Which right allows you to destroy your neighbors property because you disagree with the government? NONE. I never advocated rioting as I pleased as in being a little miffed and torching city blocks over it...but i'm pretty sure you know that, and you know what I'm saying.

But it's the Declaration of Independence that discusses the right to revolution if a government infringes on it's society:

http://en.wikipedia....dependence#Text

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,^[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It says it is the right of the people to abolish thier government if it becomes desctructive to those ends. So, how does one abolish a government if said government is unwilling to govern at the consent of the governed.

That's speculative, police were there and there wasn't a riot. If they weren't there you couldn't know there wouldn't be a riot. Police presence doesn't always stop riots, doesn't mean they always cause them. maybe there should have been when people who were doing nothing were getting maced. You're absolutely right, but you're just as speculative as I am by saying it's okay to infringe on people's rights because there may be riot and therefore people's free speech should be revoked in that situation in deference to the disuasion of potential conflict. If you look at protests and demonstrations and take the percentage of those that devolved into riots, I think it'd be pretty small...but it's for the sake of that small % that you would revoke and infringe rights of people who've yet to break any law. That's pretty speculative, too...

Like when you destroy somebody's livelihood? Or is that constitutional? Because it was during a protest, police shouldn't try and stop the destruction of citizens property. Who said anything about police not trying to stop riots? I certainly never did. I'm saying they can't.

Police aren't going to stop a national riot.
So don't try and burn it faster, with the people along with it. Got it. Well...it's true. Not what I'd want...but ask someone who lived in LA in the early 1990's. The shit hole burned regardless of what the police had to say about it.

See; NKVD, SS, KGB, and countless other scenarios.
Yes yes, special police arresting people for stupid reasons. Like destroying your store. But they were protesting, so oh well. Try again. My store wouldn't get destroyed. Because I'll do what police can't. I'll give you a hint : When it happens, it's accompanied by a loud bang.
So they were only destroying public property because the police were there, if the police had just stayed home nothing would have happened. Interesting. Not what I said, but it makes more sense than you're assertion...because shit got torched despite the police being there...maybe it wouldn't have been if they weren't. I sincerely doubt that...But we'll never know until the police stay home during a protest, all we can know is that shit gets burned down when police are there.

A free state on fire. There's much point in fighting over the barn as it burns down then. You do know the U.S. was born out of a Revolutionary War, right? That Japan and Germany spend a lot of time as the world's 2nd and 3rd strongst economies shortly after being leveled in WWII. USSR fought to take back land they themselves burned in scortched earth campaigns to deprive the Nazis of anything useful.

A government cannot protect people from themselves unless we are willing to live in a tyrannical state.

So do away with all laws and all prisons, and just let people do what they will.

No, Diz, close but not quite. Just let people do what they will unless it infringes on the rights of others...thus, prisons and laws are still a necessity. But making herion illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, ditto coke, bud, and back in the old days, alcohol. All it does is create a black market whereby criminals have things to profit from and kill over. Where would those brutally violent Mexican drug cartels be if drugs were not illegal? It's not like they are running drugs over here because nobody wants 'em either.

I don't see murderers running rampant as a free society. You want to live with lunatics with guns everywhere with nobody trying to stop them then? I guess since it happens and the government does nothing about it, you already do right? You mean to tell me there are no murderers walking the streets of Canada? And what's your point about murderers running around? Since when have I espoused the position that murder should be legal? In most parts of the U.S., yes, they can carry guns around with them. The only place in the U.S. I've seen and heard shootings is Chicago...and it had the distinction of having a gun ban at the time.
Like say, the right to not have their business torched during a "peaceful protest".

If it's peaceful, nothing's torched. Except maybe a flag.

I do agree with that, I don't agree with riots. And I really don't agree with treating admitted criminals the same as law abiding citizens. What rights should somebody have when they infringe on others? "The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others." She robbed a bank. Admitted to it, at least inferred it.
You see, it isn't the suspect in the case that started this thread I'm worried about. I'm worried about this case leading to future cases challenging the 5th Amendment to win, because courts will look back at this and say that precedent was set that 5th Amendment can be negated if there's "good reason".
Then maybe the crims will learn to delete "Bankheist.doc" from their computer. The precedent was set in a trial against a pedophile, so I dunno if I can really care what governments to do condemn a guilty person.

Really? That's exactly the kind of minset that leads to shit like this:

http://www.foxnews.c...nvicted-murder/

http://abcnews.go.co...53#.TztaQpj_i20

http://www.nbcchicag...-138016943.html

I will admit that I consider the following two things tragedies: A guilty person going free, and an innocent man being condemned....but they are not equal, in my opinion. I think the latter is the greater of the two.

I don't see rioting under constitutional rights. If it comes to a revolution then it's far past protests. You're right.

What would happen if you lead the revolution tomorrow, what happens when you take over the country? Abolish prisons, all state lines, let people just do whatever they want? So long as it doens't infringe on the rights of others, yes. Seems to be what you suggest. Where did I suggest abolishing prisons and state lines? How much could you actually change without it being a massive detriment to what your country is. ALOT.

but not impractical when done in the Middle East against brutal strongman dictators who've abused thier populaces for decades (Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Bahrian, and Saudi Arabia is starting to bubble)
That, in my dictionary would be the difference between a riot and a revolution. A riot is just wanton destruction. A revolution is an actual attempt at change. Not just "Fuck, we're mad, I'm taking shit to feel better". Well then what the hell, Diz??!?! At what point did you determine I condoned rioting for the sake of rioting? I'm talking about airing greviences with my government if it breaks the law.

we don't support those police forces that are just trying to get those mobs to calm the fuck down.

I do. Well, then...there we have it. You support the police forces suppression revolutions against fascist dictators. There's the demarcation, right there.
And rights to be fed and clothed everyday because your family can afford it.. oh nooooo, that's right. Poor. Wait....what?

Call it wrong if you want, but you agree with the reasoning. Most countries have seat belt laws, disagree with that. More idiots would die, that's just as much population control. People should be able to end or risk thier lives when ever they want. What do I care? Why should I care? Why should my government care?
If it weren't for prohibition, there'd be no NASCAR. NASCAR's stupid.

Population also increased over those 30 years, as did poverty, unemployment, gangs, drug wars. Doesn't it stand to reason that everything would increase with population? And yes when you outlaw things that people have, you have to arrest more, look at marijuana. If you make something illegal while people are doing it, suddenly you have to arrest them. That doesn't make their decisions wrong, it's stupid, but isn't wrong. And we're still arresting them, over and over, putting them over crowded prisons for non-violent crimes and feeding them, providing them with cable, making them virtually unemployable. Whatever works for ya Diz...I'm starting to think American really is the place for you. At least we were smart enough to repeal prohibition.
So don't wear a seat belt, Have campfires in the middle of the woods, shit shop owners could light their business with torches(fire hazards are fairly fun), don't put helmets on your kids when they ride a bike, smoke, drink and drive, get in gun fights with gangs for funzies, only buy meat from unregulated sellers, rob banks, kill people who look at you funny.
Government isn't always wrong when they try to protect you. If you're talking about thier intent, more often than not, you're right. But some of the shit you just mentioned violates the rights of othes...so ya can't really peg it to me. If I wanted to buy meat from an unregulated seller, I should be able to if I wanted to. Governments that are charged with protecting thier citizens have to be empowered to see to that. I prefer otherwise. Sorry. (but not really)
And there were still revolutions. Unless the civil war doesn't count, I mean secession is indeed different than revolution. Or was this after the Government went all evil, abolishing slavery levels of evil. Well...I kinda see slavery as having a touch of "violating the rights of others" to it. But, what's your point? The civil war would've been called a revolutionary war if the South had succeeded.

Again, if it's to the point of revolting, I don't see it as a riot. I'm sure those shop owners will feel better that their shops were torched because people are mad at government.
Rioters have no class. Not all protesters or demonstrators are rioters. If they're so against their government that they want to revolt, then what class they would have fit into is entirely irrelevant.
Again "The only time a government needs anything to do with me is when I infringe on the rights of others." The government and the police are right to try and stop people from destroying property during a riot, you say if there was a riot and idiots were breaking into your store you'd shoot them. You have guns, other business owners might not, how do they defend their livelihood. Buy guns, that's how. It's thier choice to have not owned a gun. They're free to choose that, but just like I said about free societies, there's risk in bad things happening. Own a gun, be an evil gun owner and shoot people trying to burn down your shop while you're in it. Or, be a nice little sheep and be revolted by guns and dispouse them and watch your store burn to the ground. Whichever works for ya...I don't care. Try to hurt me or mine, I'm shooting.

Police didn't stop any destruction at all then? I'd have to disagree based on facts. And why wouldn't the rioters have guns? They're mad and on their way to get some free shit, why wouldn't they bring a gun. Because being armed and aggressive is the fastest way to get shot...usually by someone who is armed and non-aggressive and no one suspects as carrying.

The price of freedom is less safety. The price of safety is less freedom. That's really all there is to it.
Is all fine for people with guns, and what of people who can't defend themselves? "So much crime is perpetrated based solely on the fact that the victim is unarmed."
Fuck em then? Well, yeah. It's not like I'd be MORE able to help them if I didn't have a gun, LOLz...Should have known better. They're decision, not mine. Especially those handicapped, should have fashioned a gun out of the cane I guess. The disabled are able to own firearms. Also, the people who can't defend themselves can call the cops. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
Because all people always agree with everybody else right? That's desperately far from logic. Government are more or less supposed to be consensus(regardless of how far from reality that is), but when the people don't participate, how will their opinion matter. Look at voting numbers. They do nothing, then bitch when nothing happens. Reap what you sow. But that's exactly what I said...When the people told Republicans to go, they went. No civil war. But people are free not to vote if they want. I don't care. It's a free country (kinda)...
Second amendment was written with automatic weapons in mass production? No..but so what? They had cannons and dreadnaughts, are you implying I should own one of those? I've always understood the keep and bear arms part to refer to a militia, which the united states doesn't have so far as I'm aware. WHOA....yeah there are militias in the U.S. Trust me.

It's after the fact, they did get away with it. You can punish it and try to correct, but stopping something after it happened is less effective than stopping it before, destruction happened. That's true..it is less effective than stopping it before. But I value freedoms more than giving the government power to pre-empt a potential crime at the expense of my rights.

There are no rights without government. Cavemen didn't have rights, no trials were held when another cave was invaded, men were slaughtered and women were stolen; None for barbarians burning Rome, none for Vikings raping and pillaging. Other countries (somehow) have different rights. There are no universal rights, there's your opinion and other people's opinion of what you should or shouldn't get. World changes, so do the perceptions of rights/ethics. I disagree. Human nature doesn't change. People kill eachother in jealous rages, nations fight purposeless wars, people are getting beheaded on video, and the Canaanites have done everything anyone on thise forum could dream of, and those people date back to before the book of Exodus. The way the world works does not change, the nature of humanity is no different. Just as kings pursued wealth and power, so do the power brokers of today.
Kind of, he was a robber.
There apparently during business hours, as opposed to the 3am brew-ha-ha riot that would have empty businesses. That you imply would be better for everybody than time and place protests. So unless you propose some kind of automated weapon systems in every business or just vigilantes to hunker down all night, I don't think you could always protect your store from looters. You're right. And governments can't always protect you from bad things happening. It doesn't matter. You can't stop a riot. Po-po or no po-po.
Stopping the potential escalation of pointless destruction is a good thing. Least to me. But they didn't and they can't. They can try...which is fine with me. But they'll lose, like they usually do. I'm beginning to wonder who's side Zack De La Rocha would be on.
All? No. Some? Yeah. Were people arrested and charged for their actions? Yep. Was surveillance integral for the shops insurance? Yep. Was surveillance a large part in obtaining evidence against those criminals? Yep. I don't see doing nothing when there's a riot as a beneficial plan. I do see police presence, arrests, tear gas, everything as part of stopping the riots, which did stop, as beneficial. So I don't know how you can argue they didn't stop the riots, since they were stopped. Not after massive damage was done. Thus, FAIL. I mean, eventually the rioters would get tired and go to sleep, anyway. Kudos to police for shaving a few minutes off the riot duration...

I've haven't argued for police brutality during peaceful protest,And I haven't argued for abolishon of law and permitting murderers to go free.

This post has been edited by ilyushin: Wed Feb 15, 2012 02:55 AM

[Dizy83]

The government gave them those contracts through the bidding process, whereby the lowest "responsible" bid wins, LOL. While I wont sign on with having homeless people doing the jobs of civil engineers on public works projects, I think it's worthwhile to have them do non-skilled or semi-skilled assignments as a form of on the job training while giving them funds to get on their feet...or maybe even a permanent gig.
Yes obviously there aren't many homeless with advanced engineering degrees, just as there aren't many jobs that demand one. Comparatively to labor jobs.

Sadly, in Chicago, non-union laborers can't walk onto union job sites. Two things will happen: The project gets shut down, and union workers will beat the non-union laborers (aka scabs) to pulps. That's how fat lazy idiots can protect thier absurd wages without worrying about someone else taking thier job. But I know what you're saying, and aside from specialized and particularly skilled work, I have no qualms with your logic. I mean, a homeless guy who wants to work will do so for far less than a union buford.
So stupid assholes then. The difference between some 20 year asshole unionist and somebody brought in to take his job, the new guy doesn't have 20 years of shitty habits and you can train him to do it right.

Of course Chicago has ghettos. I wasn't saying Canada was worse, I was saying the particular statistic you mentioned regarding there being more American homeless than Canadians in homes wasn't accurate. That's all. I did site inspections and spec meetings on the South Side and the West Sides...Englewood...79th and Racine. I even had a project where we had to put bullet proof hollow metal doors with one-way visibility bullet proof glass in a chuch-preschool building because bullets hit the doors of the day care.. It cost that chuch 6x more for those doors than if it would've been in a safe neighborhood.

True enough, but I doubt the accuracy of homeless numbers, unless they tag them like fuckin deer. But the fact is poverty isn't better than homelessness, sure you might have a home for the winter, and not afford gas/electricity bills.

Never said they didn't try.... but uh, yeah, no...police aren't going to contain a riot. They'll arrest a few isolated people on the outskirts of the mob, yeah.

Sectioning off city blocks protecting government and personal property, while making a few arrests is better than letting the rioters burn entire sections of cities down. Just because it isn't the entire city doesn't mean they aren't making any difference.

I don't know where you got "join in" from
Well if they aren't going to stop it, as you say is impossible, they might as well get some free shit too.

I never implied that police shouldn't be present at protest as a precaution. That doesn't curtial anyone's rights. But telling those protesters how they can protest is a different animal entirely, and I will disagree with that. As for "Greece our way through everything"...well, that's what you're implying...I mean, they have police present in those disturbences.
No time and place for "protesters" or rioters, how could the police do anything? That's my whole point. They can't do anything when everybody, everywhere, all the time is rioting. Never said they could, I'm saying that's a bad thing. That's the model that protesters could use in america, just show up somewhere, fuck shit up, leave. What does that solve, what has Greece accomplished, you listed off the facts, they're fucked into paying more money than they should. The anger is justifiable, but ruining your cities accomplishes no fucking goals. That's why there are precautions, that's why there are rules and guidelines for everything.

Rioting is against the law, everywhere. Why would the government/police give protesters who could riot any advantage? How ruined are your rights when you're given a time and place to do exactly what you want to do. Isn't like occupy can't take advantage, as they did with facebook pages for every city; Organizing the protests, not just showing up at random places and screaming their fucking heads off. Stupid chaotic shit just makes you look like a rabble of fucking clowns who are more likely to riot than a organized, rationally planned rally. Angry as they may be, acting like an angry mob makes you look like an angry mob(apparently). Which is why the police do what they do.

But it's the Declaration of Independence that discusses the right to revolution if a government infringes on it's society.

It says it is the right of the people to abolish thier government if it becomes desctructive to those ends. So, how does one abolish a government if said government is unwilling to govern at the consent of the governed.
So any time any group of people, majority or minority, is unhappy, abolish the government and make a new one. That can not work, it can't, it just can't at all. You can't think that it could, it just can't. Under that logic, any time any group says the governments done wrong, completely abolish it and start anew, even though they're the minority and through democratic process you'd be right back to where you were. Unless you can trick a billion people into thinking the same thing, or give up democracy; But that's a whole other bag of snakes.
If the government was so entirely bad everybody in the country would be fighting it, then yes of course by all means riot and burn down all your cities and kill all politicians.
It's not like they're tipping over a coke machine, rocking it back and forth, if not enough people believe the government is so wrong then I don't see how etch-a-sketching your government could possibly work.

You're absolutely right, but you're just as speculative as I am by saying it's okay to infringe on people's rights because there may be riot and therefore people's free speech should be revoked in that situation in deference to the disuasion of potential conflict. If you look at protests and demonstrations and take the percentage of those that devolved into riots, I think it'd be pretty small...but it's for the sake of that small % that you would revoke and infringe rights of people who've yet to break any law. That's pretty speculative, too...

I'm not saying they can revoke rights, but time and place is a more logical solution for both sides. If it's infringement, then fine, infringe. In the interest of public safety I think time and place is better. We agree on police presence, we agree riots should be stopped(at least attempted to be, maybe), so your solution would have to be hire more police so they can always have a sufficient presence at any time and at any location. Seeing as your country seems to suck at money and cities cut essential services, like police and fire departments for that matter(putting out those rioter fires isn't essential), that doesn't seem like a sound plan. But at least they could do whatever where ever.

Who said anything about police not trying to stop riots? I certainly never did. I'm saying they can't.
Gassing and arresting criminals, while protecting property seems to stop some damage. Which is still better than nothing at all, dunno how you can think otherwise. Stopping rioters from smashing some of the city is stopping them... from smashing some of the city.

Try again. My store wouldn't get destroyed. Because I'll do what police can't. I'll give you a hint : When it happens, it's accompanied by a loud bang.
Because you and your crew of vigilantes would be there everyday all day.

Not what I said, but it makes more sense than you're assertion...because shit got torched despite the police being there...maybe it wouldn't have been if they weren't. I sincerely doubt that...But we'll never know until the police stay home during a protest, all we can know is that shit gets burned down when police are there.
I fail to see the logic of less things would have been destroyed if the police had done nothing to stop them. Gassed, maced, water cannoned, arrested rioters can't damage anything, city blocks blocked by police walls generally stop rioters going in that direction.

You do know the U.S. was born out of a Revolutionary War, right?
They weren't fighting for a burning barn, they were fighting to build their own barn.

That Japan and Germany spend a lot of time as the world's 2nd and 3rd strongst economies shortly after being leveled in WWII.
Easy to replace the millions of people who died and couldn't go back to their jobs, which as you know was a problem in America after WW2. Both had to rebuild some fairly large cities as well, probably easy to find those labor jobs. Probably employed some homeless people, homeless... because their homes had been destroyed. It's nice when things work out like that.

USSR fought to take back land they themselves burned in scortched earth campaigns to deprive the Nazis of anything useful.
And commissars shot those wouldn't fight for that burnt barn. In front of you, guns, behind you, guns. Might as well do what they say, might as well attempt to recovery your country for your family before you die. What's your point?

No, Diz, close but not quite. Just let people do what they will unless it infringes on the rights of others...thus, prisons and laws are still a necessity.
But prisons and laws are functions of the government, to protect people. Don't want government protection, don't have prisons.

But making herion illegal doesn't stop people from doing it, ditto coke, bud, and back in the old days, alcohol. All it does is create a black market whereby criminals have things to profit from and kill over. Where would those brutally violent Mexican drug cartels be if drugs were not illegal? It's not like they are running drugs over here because nobody wants 'em either.
They'd be selling it to the government, the government would be selling it to people, people would die because they're stupid and would overdose, as they do now. And then it would be outlawed... and then back to where we began. How would it stop drug cartels? They aren't all nice friendly guys looking for buddies to grow narcotics with, they'd still kill each other for territory, imagine the money they would be pulling in if they alone were the ones selling Xproduct to the united states; Greed is a big part of the whole topic. And you can't argue that it would all be american growing operations, that would just make more competition for cartels to smuggle shit in, why wouldn't they try to get that money.
If any drug were made legal tomorrow it would make no difference in drug related violent deaths. More to the point just because it was legal in america, doesn't mean mexico would just change their drug laws. And if all growing operations moved to america, there would still be cartels trying to smuggle it to other countries that haven't made it legal. But I guess it's somebody elses problem at that point.

You mean to tell me there are no murderers walking the streets of Canada? And what's your point about murderers running around? Since when have I espoused the position that murder should be legal?
Course there is. Like I said, prisons are government protection.

yes, they can carry guns around with them. The only place in the U.S. I've seen and heard shootings is Chicago...and it had the distinction of having a gun ban at the time.

As well as murder bans, didn't stop it from happening. But if they're caught and put in prison.. to protect the public from at least one murderer.

If it's peaceful, nothing's torched. Except maybe a flag.
isn't that in the constitution or something somewhere? or is it just a law?

You see, it isn't the suspect in the case that started this thread I'm worried about. I'm worried about this case leading to future cases challenging the 5th Amendment to win, because courts will look back at this and say that precedent was set that 5th Amendment can be negated if there's "good reason".

Really? That's exactly the kind of minset that leads to shit like this:
Three african american males, wrongfully arrested and convicted based on false(possibly racist?) eye witness reports. I don't think that's fifth amendment related. I didn't say it was a good thing to convict innocent people. But when you convict a guilty person, for being guilty, after they've admitted guilt, I don't think it's the same situation as possibly racist police officers, and bogus eye witness reports. You can't ban racism, not really. You can't ban lying, if they don't get caught. Unless you're suggesting witness reports are inadmissible as evidence now, because of these and many other cases I'm sure, what's your point?

Where did I suggest abolishing prisons and state lines?
Every time you say the government can't and shouldn't bother trying to protect people.

Well then what the hell, Diz??!?! At what point did you determine I condoned rioting for the sake of rioting? I'm talking about airing greviences with my government if it breaks the law.
Which governments and police allow you to do, in a safer for the general public manner.

we don't support those police forces that are just trying to get those mobs to calm the fuck down.

I do. Well, then...there we have it. You support the police forces suppression revolutions against fascist dictators. There's the demarcation, right there.
To the point of chasing and murdering these dictators and their officials in a gutter before they can be tried for their crimes? Yes, I do support justice. I wasn't sad or upset when they got gadafi, I didn't care, still don't. I don't think killing the guy without ever bringing him to justice was the right thing to do. Even De La Rocha supports tried, then shot, when it comes to war criminals. So if you want to argue eye for an eye as justice(or even eye for a thousand/million eyes), then go ahead. UN wouldn't agree. And since they're the who's who when it comes to war crimes, they probably matter.

People should be able to end or risk thier lives when ever they want. What do I care? Why should I care? Why should my government care?
People are fairly integral in the continuation of the human race. You care because people make your guns, make your ammunition. Grow plants and raise animals for your food. Make your clothes, your consumables, your job. Government cares for all those same reasons and more, and it gives them people to govern.

NASCAR's stupid.
Yes and massive crashes are hilarious to watch. And you have those wonderful bootleggers to thank for ruining your sundays, or whenever they race.

And we're still arresting them, over and over, putting them over crowded prisons for non-violent crimes and feeding them, providing them with cable, making them virtually unemployable. Whatever works for ya Diz...I'm starting to think American really is the place for you. At least we were smart enough to repeal prohibition.
Didn't say the laws were right, just said they aren't wrong. Stealing is generally a non violent crime, but I suspect if your identity is stolen and you're fucked for the rest of your life, you'd want the gentleman who did it in jail. I don't think non violence is a reason to not jail people but whatever works for you.
I don't like America all that much, I'm only arguing this side because if nobody argues other side, this conversation wouldn't be conceivable. There'd never be protests, riots, disagreements; You argue the side that isn't the governments, the side of the protesters, ie my point. Everybody would just agree with whatever they hear first and assume it's correct, arguments and debates are the best way to learn. But more over, I don't think times and places are the end of the world.

If you're talking about thier intent, more often than not, you're right. But some of the shit you just mentioned violates the rights of othes...so ya can't really peg it to me. If I wanted to buy meat from an unregulated seller, I should be able to if I wanted to.
Included those unregulated sellers that feed their animals all sorts of fun pesticides and other poisons, that doesn't infringe on your rights to.. not be poisoned? The point is you don't want their protection, so you shouldn't follow their rules and laws to protect you, and others. Much like times and places are there to protect others. Not all protests turn to riots, never said they did. But when there's more protests, in more places, more of the time with less police, simply because there aren't that many police for that many locations and even less prepared to attempt to handle a riot or even multiple riots, it stands to reason that those numbers will go up. And that destruction will rise along with it, exponentially, as there will not be any sufficient force to at least impede any destruction.

Well...I kinda see slavery as having a touch of "violating the rights of others" to it. But, what's your point? The civil war would've been called a revolutionary war if the South had succeeded.
Point is government didn't intervene, then they did, then that happened. Just because the government was less intrusive doesn't mean people always agreed with it. which goes back to 200 years and nothing has really changed. I could argue with some stupid circular logic that the government tried to protect the rights of these slaves and people revolted, so now they're trying to infringe on rights to see what happens. You know, for funzies.

I'm sure those shop owners will feel better that their shops were torched because people are mad at government.
If it was a revolt, they'd probably be in on it. Unless you still stand by a few thousand people in the minority have the right to abolish the established government. Which still makes no sense.

Rioters have no class. Not all protesters or demonstrators are rioters.
Didn't say anything about protesters or demonstrators, said rioters who are rioting, which is breaking the law, which I'd say relieves these people of belonging to a class.

Buy guns, that's how. It's thier choice to have not owned a gun. They're free to choose that, but just like I said about free societies, there's risk in bad things happening. Own a gun, be an evil gun owner and shoot people trying to burn down your shop while you're in it. Or, be a nice little sheep and be revolted by guns and dispouse them and watch your store burn to the ground. Whichever works for ya...I don't care. Try to hurt me or mine, I'm shooting.
Yes, more guns in violent situations, still don't know why you don't think rioters and looters would have guns. Criminals have guns, they steal. Looters steal... they might have guns. Yeah. I didn't say there's anything evil about owning a gun, I just don't see how you having a gun means they don't have guns, or that you'd shoot means they won't. I just don't see the logic. Maybe you're just quick-draw mcgraw and pull it out anytime a hand goes near a pocket or a zipper and can blast off clips faster than people tie their shoes. Or velcro their shoes. You big rambo you.

Because being armed and aggressive is the fastest way to get shot...usually by someone who is armed and non-aggressive and no one suspects as carrying.
They're generally rioting and looting while rioting and looting, I'm sure they realize they're breaking and will break a law or two. I'm also sure it's crossed their mind that other people may have guns, doesn't mean they're going to run through the streets waving guns in peoples faces. Doesn't mean they won't shoot back if you shoot at them.

Well, yeah. It's not like I'd be MORE able to help them if I didn't have a gun, LOLz...Should have known better. They're decision, not mine. Especially those handicapped, should have fashioned a gun out of the cane I guess. The disabled are able to own firearms. Also, the people who can't defend themselves can call the cops. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
Ever seen somebody with cerebral palsy write their own name with a pen? I bet they're a dexterous folk when it comes to brandishing firearms while they're being attacked. Should have known better to have been born with a disability.

But that's exactly what I said...When the people told Republicans to go, they went. No civil war. But people are free not to vote if they want. I don't care. It's a free country (kinda)...
Yes free to vote, free to attempt to invoke change in your country. And then bitch when nothing happens and that life still sucks. As opposed to doing nothing to change it, doing nothing to contribute to it, then bitching that it isn't changing and isn't getting better. I know nothing changes with a ballot pull, but doing nothing then bitching that nothing happens is soooooooooooooo stupid.

No..but so what? They had cannons and dreadnaughts, are you implying I should own one of those?
So I don't think it really applies? how many automatic weapons were there 200 years ago? you obviously know how destructive they can be, so do the police, so does the military, so does the government. I disagree with the notion that they should be passed out. yeah yeah police and criminals have them, so you should have them too. Be a criminal then or join the force, own all the weapons you want.

WHOA....yeah there are militias in the U.S. Trust me.
Regulated militias? Or gun fanatic yokels, furious at communists and immigrants? Probably both, but definitely the latter.

That's true..it is less effective than stopping it before. But I value freedoms more than giving the government power to pre-empt a potentialcrime at the expense of my rights.
If they didn't allow any time and place, then I'd totally agree. But they do so I can't really say they're stopping you from doing anything. I disagree. Human nature doesn't change. People kill eachother in jealous rages, nations fight purposeless wars, people are getting beheaded on video, and the Canaanites have done everything anyone on thise forum could dream of, and those people date back to before the book of Exodus. The way the world works does not change, the nature of humanity is no different. Just as kings pursued wealth and power, so do the power brokers of today.
Then why is it only now that people would face trials for any of the same actions people hundreds/thousands of years ago could do? Did we discover rights? Did we dig them out of Atlantis? Did the Scientology aliens impose rights and ethics on us? People have absolutely changed, everything on the planet has. Yes we're still evil greedy monsters who ruin everything we touch, but nobody said vikings were infringing on their rights, nobody said cavemen should have gone to trial.

But they didn't and they can't. They can try...which is fine with me. But they'll lose, like they usually do. I'm beginning to wonder who's side Zack De La Rocha would be on.
I doubt he's on the side of police brutality, as much as he wouldn't be on the side of pointless riots that only serve to ruin bystanders lives and for people to exploit the situation and loot. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would be OK with bystanders being hurt in riots, or revolutions. Seems like an intelligent guy that could see that both sides of the argument.

Not after massive damage was done. Thus, FAIL. I mean, eventually the rioters would get tired and go to sleep, anyway. Kudos to police for shaving a few minutes off the riot duration...
Again, I say the damage would have been worse without police intervention. Pretty sure the riots lasted a few days and then stopped. Not like it was just a bunch of hooligans on a bender. Few minutes is still millions of dollars during a riot.

And I haven't argued for abolishon of law and permitting murderers to go free.
I see prisons as protection from murderers. protection provided by the government. Unless your militias could pick up the slack.

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Wed Feb 15, 2012 06:44 AM, said:

True enough, but I doubt the accuracy of homeless numbers, unless they tag them like fuckin deer. But the fact is poverty isn't better than homelessness, sure you might have a home for the winter, and not afford gas/electricity bills.

Poverty is, in most cases, better than homelessness...but poverty is far more obscure and relative a concept. For example, a homeless person is far worse off than the average American living in poverty...here's why:

According to the U.S. Census bureau,

nearly 3/4 of Americans classified as living in poverty own a car. 30% own two or more

46% of Americans classified as living in poverty own thier own home. More than two third of these houses have more than two rooms per person

76% have air conditioning

The average poor American has more living space than the average middle class european living in London, Paris, Vienna, etc.

97% have a TV, over half of those in poverty own two or more.

62% have either cable or satellite television.

I'm sure you're just smittenly interested in all this, and I could also show you how the majoirty have cellphones, xbox's/playstations, etc, etc,. The point I would like to make is poverty is a relative term. The average american living in poverty is someone the rest of the world could legitimately call a "1%'er"....and that is better than being homeless.

No time and place for "protesters" or rioters, how could the police do anything? That's my whole point. And my whole point is that you make no disctinction between a demostrator and a rioter before the protest begins. You regard rioters as rioters (I'm with ya there) and protesters as potential rioters. That's not without legitimacy. You're right. But then you can apply that same logic to a lot of other things and end up with guiltly before proven innocent. One could look at a minority from a bad neighborhood and consider them a potential criminal, before they even do anything legal or illegal....but that's the bedrock for things like racism, classism, etc. Pre-suppositions have repurcussions. I do not look at demonstrators as potential rioters, and statistics, I'm sure if we looked into it, would side with me on this....as the percentage of protests that turn into riots is pretty small, I would suspect.

They can't do anything when everybody, everywhere, all the time is rioting. Never said they could, I'm saying that's a bad thing. That's the model that protesters could use in america, just show up somewhere, fuck shit up, leave. What does that solve, what has Greece accomplished, you listed off the facts, they're fucked into paying more money than they should. The anger is justifiable, but ruining your cities accomplishes no fucking goals. That's why there are precautions, that's why there are rules and guidelines for everything. I'm glad the people who founded this country didn't adhere to that mindset. If we're talking about rioting for the point of just looting and breaking shit, I don't disagree. If we're talking about fight and overthrowing a repressive government that will not leave despite losing the consent of the governed, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Rioting is against the law, everywhere. Why would the government/police give protesters who could riot any advantage? Diz, I really don't think we are diagreeing about police presence. I think we disagree on the presumption of innocence vs. potential guilt. If people want to riot, they're going to and police wont prevent it. We can argue to what extent they can limit it, because you can use U.K, then I'll use LA...regardless, far more often than not, demonstrations, planned or otherwise, are peaceful. You're not going to give up your inclination that a person voicing a greivence with the governmnet as a potential rioter, and I'm not going to see the value in giving up my freedoms without having been charged or convicted with a crime, so as to prevent me from engaging in a crime.

So any time any group of people, majority or minority, is unhappy, abolish the government and make a new one. That can not work, it can't, it just can't at all. You can't think that it could, it just can't. Under that logic, any time any group says the governments done wrong, completely abolish it and start anew, even though they're the minority and through democratic process you'd be right back to where you were. Unless you can trick a billion people into thinking the same thing, or give up democracy; But that's a whole other bag of snakes.
If the government was so entirely bad everybody in the country would be fighting it, then yes of course by all means riot and burn down all your cities and kill all politicians.
It's not like they're tipping over a coke machine, rocking it back and forth, if not enough people believe the government is so wrong then I don't see how etch-a-sketching your government could possibly work.

Do you know how many consitutions France has had? Yes, it can work. Without that, a government does not have to fear its people. And a government that doesn't fear it's people is a government impuned. And no, not 'any time any group of people'...but I'm pretty sure you know that. You just like to paint with a really really really big brush. But, yeah, I agree that it's the right of the people to abolish thier government when that government loses the consent of the governed. But don't get miffed by it...when people who are ruled by fascists try to abolish thier government, the fascist government wil dispatch police and military to stop the rioters that would otherwise destroy stuff. (jk)

I'm not saying they can revoke rights, but time and place is a more logical solution for both sides. If it's infringement, then fine, infringe. In the interest of public safety I think time and place is better. We agree on police presence, we agree riots should be stopped(at least attempted to be, maybe), so your solution would have to be hire more police (did I ever say that?)so they can always have a sufficient presence at any time and at any location. Seeing as your country seems to suck at money and cities cut essential services, like police and fire departments for that matter(putting out those rioter fires isn't essential), that doesn't seem like a sound plan. But at least they could do whatever where ever. England and Greece didn't fair much better. My qualm with infringement is this : YES, there are logical concessions that can be given when in the best interest of the public, like public safety. I'm am in no way disputing that...but I do oppsoe those logical concessions because they always become a slippery slope. If they can infringe here, they can infrgine there, etc, etc. until it dawns on everyone that there is a legit reason to deny any freedom that it suits a government to revoke. (The potential for a crime is always a big one) Look at the Patiot Act. My government just gave a good reason, (safety, war on terror) for being able to listen in on my personal phone calls without a warrant. FUCK THAT. They do have a good reason, though...but my only options are to vote for a democrat that renewed it, or a republican that will renew it....

Because you and your crew of vigilantes would be there everyday all day. So you're suggesting police be everywhere all day every day? This shit does both ways. Government can't protect people from bad shit. It's been tried.

I fail to see the logic of less things would have been destroyed if the police had done nothing to stop them. Gassed, maced, water cannoned, arrested rioters can't damage anything, city blocks blocked by police walls generally stop rioters going in that direction. Because I was being half-sarcastic. A bunch of shit got destroyed with police being present. Well...it's not logical to assume that it'd be any different if police weren't there...but that is the only variable. We know that when police were there, shit got broken. What if police stayed home? Shit would prolly get broken....more of it, too, I bet. But the thing you're promoting doesn't solve the problem of rioters either.

You do know the U.S. was born out of a Revolutionary War, right?
They weren't fighting for a burning barn, they were fighting to build their own barn. Nope, they were fighting taxation and quarting acts. They built thier own barns just fine without England's interference. They got sick and tired of ambiguouos taxes and having to house English troops (that were there to supress revolts and rebellions) in thier homes (Quartering Act)

Easy to replace the millions of people who died and couldn't go back to their jobs, which as you know was a problem in America after WW2. Both had to rebuild some fairly large cities as well, probably easy to find those labor jobs. Probably employed some homeless people, homeless... because their homes had been destroyed. It's nice when things work out like that.

Then you really shouldn't have such a big beef about rioters destroying cities.

And commissars shot those wouldn't fight for that burnt barn. In front of you, guns, behind you, guns. Might as well do what they say, might as well attempt to recovery your country for your family before you die. What's your point? That the USSR still wanted the land back. I wasn't talking about the troops.

No, Diz, close but not quite. Just let people do what they will unless it infringes on the rights of others...thus, prisons and laws are still a necessity.
But prisons and laws are functions of the government, to protect people. Don't want government protection, don't have prisons.

Prisons don't protect me from potential criminals. Again, I make distinctions between those that have committed a crime and those who have the ability to commit a crime but haven't. Ergo, prisons are for the former.

How would it stop drug cartels? They aren't all nice friendly guys looking for buddies to grow narcotics with, they'd still kill each other for territory, imagine the money they would be pulling in if they alone were the ones selling Xproduct to the united states; Greed is a big part of the whole topic. And you can't argue that it would all be american growing operations, that would just make more competition for cartels to smuggle shit in, why wouldn't they try to get that money. Yeah? Show me something that can be purchased in a Walmart that is also trafficked and profited on by criminal organizations. If you could by drugs in mainstream venues, and I'll even make a deal and let it be government regulated to appease gubby-lovers...but if this were to happen, drug cartels wouldn't have anything to sell. If prostitution were legal, human traffickers wouldn't have anything to sell. Read about Prohibition...you don't see alcohol funding criminal organizations like it used to...and that was for no other reason than that it was made illegal. Criminal organizations sell thigns that are contraband. Give 'em less shit to sell.

If any drug were made legal tomorrow it would make no difference in drug related violent deaths. More to the point just because it was legal in america, doesn't mean mexico would just change their drug laws. And if all growing operations moved to america, there would still be cartels trying to smuggle it to other countries that haven't made it legal. But I guess it's somebody elses problem at that point. Not trying to fix the world. People are responsible for thier own shit. But again, I think you're wrong about differences in violent deaths. People aren't getting killed over gin like in the 1920's. See; Prohibition.

Course there is. Like I said, prisons are government protection. From people who have committed a crime. Not from those who haven't but might potentially. There is a difference, in my opinion.

isn't that in the constitution or something somewhere? or is it just a law? What?

Three african american males, wrongfully arrested and convicted based on false(possibly racist?) eye witness reports. I don't think that's fifth amendment related. I didn't say it was a good thing to convict innocent people. But when you convict a guilty person, for being guilty, after they've admitted guilt, I don't think it's the same situation as possibly racist police officers, and bogus eye witness reports. You can't ban racism, not really. You can't ban lying, if they don't get caught. Unless you're suggesting witness reports are inadmissible as evidence now, because of these and many other cases I'm sure, what's your point? That was in response to you're "I don't care what they have to do to put away a guilty guy" clause. And you know that. Possibly racist...possibly. But you know what? That's exactly why I DON'T agree with do whatever they have to do to put a guilty guy away. That's what gets innocent people convicted...I don't concur with the idea that the government is infallible.

Where did I suggest abolishing prisons and state lines?
Every time you say the government can't and shouldn't bother trying to protect people. Exactly the opposite. I said the government can't protect people from bad things happening, (all bad things, gauranteeing everything will be fair, that nothign bad iwll ever happen) I'm not an anarchist. Government needs to protect our borders. That is in the constitution.

To the point of chasing and murdering these dictators and their officials in a gutter before they can be tried for their crimes? Yes, I do support justice. I wasn't sad or upset when they got gadafi, I didn't care, still don't. I don't think killing the guy without ever bringing him to justice was the right thing to do. I don't either...but live by the sword, die by the sword, eh?

Even De La Rocha supports tried, then shot, when it comes to war criminals. So if you want to argue eye for an eye as justice(or even eye for a thousand/million eyes), then go ahead. UN wouldn't agree. And since they're the who's who when it comes to war crimes, they probably matter. U.N.? Seriously? That is the most inept, least feared, least who's who in the world when it comes to war criminals. They pegged a few in the Rwanda debable...Slobodan Milosevic died without a conviction in his FIVE YEAR trial. The U.N. is inept, corrupt, and utterly useless even when trying to defend people who are targeted for genocide.

People are fairly integral in the continuation of the human race. You care because people make your guns, make your ammunition. Grow plants and raise animals for your food. Make your clothes, your consumables, your job. Government cares for all those same reasons and more, and it gives them people to govern. The government doesn't "care". Look at the pensions government leaders get. Look at the priviliges...people make all this stuff, had jobs, etc, before government became intrusive. We don't need government intrusion to have these things.

Yes and massive crashes are hilarious to watch. The first one was...everyone after that was just the same.


Didn't say the laws were right, just said they aren't wrong. Stealing is generally a non violent crime, but I suspect if your identity is stolen and you're fucked for the rest of your life, you'd want the gentleman who did it in jail. I don't think non violence is a reason to not jail people but whatever works for you. That's true, I didn't mean to imply that only violent criminals should go to prison. I was saying that prisons are for those who violate the rights of others (see a continueing trend here?) Smoking bud in one's own house is not infringing on me or anyone else. That's my point. If you're doing something, no matter how fucked up it is, it should be legal unless it endangers, infringes on, or harms someone else. So, rioting would be illegal in Ily-land.

I don't think times and places are the end of the world. They aren't. And if that's where it stopped, I'd not be against it. But it wont stop there. It hasn't...just like it's not time and place, but also manner. don't for get that. They can tell you to not make noice, and no written materials.

Included those unregulated sellers that feed their animals all sorts of fun pesticides and other poisons, that doesn't infringe on your rights to.. not be poisoned? Depends. Am I being forced to buy the meat from that seller? Or am I choosing to buy it from him instead of a regulated seller? I have a right to not be poisoned. But if I'm buying meat that isn't regulated, I'm poisoning myself.

The point is you don't want their protection, so you shouldn't follow their rules and laws to protect you, and others. Much like times and places are there to protect others. Not all protests turn to riots, never said they did. But when there's more protests, in more places, more of the time with less police, simply because there aren't that many police for that many locations and even less prepared to attempt to handle a riot or even multiple riots, it stands to reason that those numbers will go up. And that destruction will rise along with it, exponentially, as there will not be any sufficient force to at least impede any destruction. I agree with the last part. But again, relquishing everyday rights for something that rarely happens is a price you are willing to pay, and I am not. But I never implied that I didn' want gov't protections or that I shouldn't follow thier rules. I do want government protection of the borders, I want government protection from those who have murdered, stolen, etc. I do not want government protection from myself.

If it was a revolt, they'd probably be in on it. Not if it's a class warefare issue. I'd be the enemy then, because I was a business owner. Unless you still stand by a few thousand people in the minority have the right to abolish the established government. Which still makes no sense. Any people that have overthrown a brutal regime would probably disagree.

Didn't say anything about protesters or demonstrators, said rioters who are rioting, which is breaking the law, which I'd say relieves these people of belonging to a class. Then you'd be well advised to start making the judicial distinction between then.

Yes, more guns in violent situations, still don't know why you don't think rioters and looters would have guns. They could. They haven't at this point...and it's not because they can't. They just haven't. Criminals have guns, they steal. Looters steal... they might have guns. Yeah. I didn't say there's anything evil about owning a gun, I just don't see how you having a gun means they don't have guns, or that you'd shoot means they won't. I just don't see the logic. Here's the logic : an angry mob that is armed is coming at me. I don't want to be without a gun. I don't see the logic in NOT having a gun if a bunch of armed rioters are coming my way...again, another demarcation line between our perspectives. Maybe you're just quick-draw mcgraw and pull it out anytime a hand goes near a pocket or a zipper and can blast off clips faster than people tie their shoes. Or velcro their shoes. You big rambo you. I like my odds with a gun better than with some god-knows-where-they-are overwhelmed police force spraying this ARMED mob with water cannons and gas canisters somewhere on the periphery on the mayhem.

Because being armed and aggressive is the fastest way to get shot...usually by someone who is armed and non-aggressive and no one suspects as carrying.
They're generally rioting and looting while rioting and looting, I'm sure they realize they're breaking and will break a law or two. I'm also sure it's crossed their mind that other people may have guns, doesn't mean they're going to run through the streets waving guns in peoples faces. Doesn't mean they won't shoot back if you shoot at them. Well then, my choices are to either be shot at and shoot back...or just be shot at. I will agree to disagree with you, and choose the first option.

Well, yeah. It's not like I'd be MORE able to help them if I didn't have a gun, LOLz...Should have known better. They're decision, not mine. Especially those handicapped, should have fashioned a gun out of the cane I guess. The disabled are able to own firearms. Also, the people who can't defend themselves can call the cops. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.
Ever seen somebody with cerebral palsy write their own name with a pen? I bet they're a dexterous folk when it comes to brandishing firearms while they're being attacked. Should have known better to have been born with a disability.

Hey, 2nd Amendment doesn't make exclusions, so legally, they should own iffin' they wanna.

Yes free to vote, free to attempt to invoke change in your country. And then bitch when nothing happens and that life still sucks. As opposed to doing nothing to change it, doing nothing to contribute to it, then bitching that it isn't changing and isn't getting better. I know nothing changes with a ballot pull, but doing nothing then bitching that nothing happens is soooooooooooooo stupid. Yeah. And....???

So I don't think it really applies? how many automatic weapons were there 200 years ago? you obviously know how destructive they can be, so do the police, so does the military, so does the government. I disagree with the notion that they should be passed out. yeah yeah police and criminals have them, so you should have them too. Be a criminal then or join the force, own all the weapons you want. That's right. The people least capable for fending for themselves are the ones are don't break the rules.


If they didn't allow any time and place, then I'd totally agree. But they do so I can't really say they're stopping you from doing anything. First of all, it's time, place AND manner. And they can stipulate all three to that our ability will be entirely mitigated.

Then why is it only now that people would face trials for any of the same actions people hundreds/thousands of years ago could do? Did we discover rights? Did we dig them out of Atlantis? Did the Scientology aliens impose rights and ethics on us? People have absolutely changed, everything on the planet has. Yes we're still evil greedy monsters who ruin everything we touch, but nobody said vikings were infringing on their rights, nobody said cavemen should have gone to trial. The people who teh vikings lit up were still running like hell to protect thier right to life...I guess a few might've fought to protect thier right to life, too...but didin't succeed. No, I still think human nautre has changed at all. Hammurabi's code was written thousands of years ago. none of that shit is new. Our abilities, scopes, and capacities have grown, but attributes are the same.

But they didn't and they can't. They can try...which is fine with me. But they'll lose, like they usually do. I'm beginning to wonder who's side Zack De La Rocha would be on.
I doubt he's on the side of police brutality, as much as he wouldn't be on the side of pointless riots that only serve to ruin bystanders lives and for people to exploit the situation and loot. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would be OK with bystanders being hurt in riots, or revolutions. revolutions where bystanders don't get hurt? RATM has a pic of Che Guevara on some of their Bombtrack stuff...Che had some interesting perspectives on revolutions. Alot of it had to do with killing everyone that wasn't on his side. And somehow, I think ZDLR would tell the government to kiss his ass if they told him where he could protest and where he couldn't...call it a hunch....In fact, I'm listening to 'take the power back' right now, and I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me on this one. That's the most fun bassline to play, by the way. It took me two weeks to figure out how to play that on my bass without cheating with tablature....

I see prisons as protection from murderers. protection provided by the government. Unless your militias could pick up the slack.That's not what you're pining for though. Murderers committed murder, someone had to die for that murderer to go to prison..therefore, the government DIDNT protect that victim from that murderer, did it?...what do you do with the people that could potentially murder, but just haven't yet?

[Dizy83]

Poverty is, in most cases, better than homelessness...but poverty is far more obscure and relative a concept. For example, a homeless person is far worse off than the average American living in poverty...here's why
I don't define America's version of poverty, not making enough money to get ahead of your bills will eventually get you out of those houses. Or in a shitty retirement home when you aren't allowed to work. Seeing as you have the fucking problem with how much some people get in their pensions this should be what bothers you.

And my whole point is that you make no disctinction between a demostrator and a rioter before the protest begins. You regard rioters as rioters (I'm with ya there) and protesters as potential rioters. That's not without legitimacy. You're right. But then you can apply that same logic to a lot of other things and end up with guiltly before proven innocent. One could look at a minority from a bad neighborhood and consider them a potential criminal, before they even do anything legal or illegal....but that's the bedrock for things like racism, classism, etc. Pre-suppositions have repurcussions. I do not look at demonstrators as potential rioters, and statistics, I'm sure if we looked into it, would side with me on this....as the percentage of protests that turn into riots is pretty small, I would suspect.

If they show up to their protests, do their demonstrating and protesting with all their fun signs and colorful chants; Then go home again, I don't see it as a failed protest, I don't see their rights being stomped on. They accomplished what they set out to do, they've made their point and haven't been arrested. The police have done nothing to them, the government has done nothing to them. Being prepared for a riot has zero down sides.

You see everybody as potential criminals, or you wouldn't have a gun(s) in your store.

I'm glad the people who founded this country didn't adhere to that mindset. If we're talking about rioting for the point of just looting and breaking shit, I don't disagree. If we're talking about fight and overthrowing a repressive government that will not leave despite losing the consent of the governed, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Burning down small businesses and stealing things happens during riots, I don't see how either of those gets the message that you want the government to be overthrown across. That's just collateral damage then? Well that's just daaaaaaaandy.

Diz, I really don't think we are diagreeing about police presence. I think we disagree on the presumption of innocence vs. potential guilt. If people want to riot, they're going to and police wont prevent it. We can argue to what extent they can limit it, because you can use U.K, then I'll use LA...regardless, far more often than not, demonstrations, planned or otherwise, are peaceful. You're not going to give up your inclination that a person voicing a greivence with the governmnet as a potential rioter, and I'm not going to see the value in giving up my freedoms without having been charged or convicted with a crime, so as to prevent me from engaging in a crime.
Government doesn't listen to rioters, especially not while they're destroying businesses that have nothing to do with anything; Is the government supposed to take idiots destroying things for the sake of destroying them seriously? Would you? That's like dealing with a fucking 5 year old, give me what I want or I'll throw dishes around until you do.
I'm not arguing against the right to voice their grievances or to even protest the stupid government, but when it devolves into senseless destruction there's no point in listening to them. The louder and angrier somebody gets do you pay more or less attention? Who's that bald idiot on .. cnn or whatever garbage news channel that just talks over people when they're winning arguments, he's my case and point. Do you think they're being rational or just throwing a fucking temper tantrum to win?

And no, not 'any time any group of people'...but I'm pretty sure you know that.
That's what the DoI says, right of the people to abolish the government, does "the people" refer to all the people? If so then everybody would have to be revolting. Or is it some of the people who think the government is unfair, which is my point.

did I ever say that?
Give me your logical option of police presence, which you agree with, at every and all protests then. Can't infringe on rights, btw.

England and Greece didn't fair much better.
And if all of america rioted you'd show them up at that too.

but I do oppsoe those logical concessions because they always become a slippery slope.

If they can infringe here, they can infrgine there, etc, etc. until it dawns on everyone that there is a legit reason to deny any freedom that it suits a government to revoke. (The potential for a crime is always a big one) Look at the Patiot Act. My government just gave a good reason, (safety, war on terror) for being able to listen in on my personal phone calls without a warrant. FUCK THAT. They do have a good reason, though...but my only options are to vote for a democrat that renewed it, or a republican that will renew it

Yes and that sucks, what do you suggest? Amend to the logical? Except that infringes on rights, so unless all the other amendments didn't infringe on anything I dunno if I could accept that as an argument.

So you're suggesting police be everywhere all day every day? This shit does both ways. Government can't protect people from bad shit. It's been tried.
So do nothing, then complain that that doesn't work either.

Because I was being half-sarcastic. A bunch of shit got destroyed with police being present. Well...it's not logical to assume that it'd be any different if police weren't there...but that is the only variable. We know that when police were there, shit got broken. What if police stayed home? Shit would prolly get broken....more of it, too, I bet. But the thing you're promoting doesn't solve the problem of rioters either.
See you even said the point I've been attempting to make the entire time, with no police more things will get broken.
If 100 000 protesters break into a riot, the 10-15k(at best) police couldn't possibly stop all damage; That would indeed be impossible. But if they lock off city blocks and use their various riot control methods to push and disperse rioters, even if that doesn't stop a riot entirely that still makes a difference. Especially if your store was on the block the police set up, if they saved your store from being destroyed; Would make a huge difference to you, even if you don't want to admit that.

They got sick and tired of ambiguouos taxes
On their barns.

having to house English troops
In their barns.

Then you really shouldn't have such a big beef about rioters destroying cities.
Yes if rioters were fighting a war for the freedom of a continent and indeed the world, rather than stealing and destroying for the freedom of having stolen things and the satisfaction of breaking things that don't belong to you. And no jobs being made for homeless; Or did occupy mention that homelessness is a problem, while complaining about how much somebody that isn't them makes and pays in taxes.

That the USSR still wanted the land back. I wasn't talking about the troops.

USSR is nothing without people, and I imagine they wanted a city for... you know city reasons, like people... being in the city, possibly living, having a family.. Yeah. I mean I know they were evil but even evil governments need cities and people.

Prisons don't protect me from potential criminals. Again, I make distinctions between those that have committed a crime and those who have the ability to commit a crime but haven't. Ergo, prisons are for the former.

Lots of people commit crimes and don't go to jail, look at rioters. And what do you do with people who have gone to prison and have been released after serving their sentence? Give them the benefit of the doubt and only shoot them in the arm?

Yeah? Show me something that can be purchased in a Walmart that is also trafficked and profited on by criminal organizations.
Guns. What was that you said about gun bans.. and criminals having guns... You can buy shotguns at walmart in canada, least you could last time I was there. I doubt a gun knows it's not being pointed at a deer.

If you could by drugs in mainstream venues, and I'll even make a deal and let it be government regulated to appease gubby-lovers...but if this were to happen, drug cartels wouldn't have anything to sell.

Could be true, except ask any cool stoner(420 bro) and he'll tell you all about how some weed is better than others. Unless you think your government would produce the best of anything and would be immune to undercutting, pretty sure there would be a market for cartels. Same goes for meth of varying purity, cocaine cut with this instead of that. blah blah blah, that's my point.

If prostitution were legal, human traffickers wouldn't have anything to sell.
Because the government would protect those who sell themselves right? Someone so in favor of government protection would surely agree with that. Condom production would skyrocket, buy stock in trojan! aids tests sold in walmart etc. sarcasm, losing interest in this.

Read about Prohibition...you don't see alcohol funding criminal organizations like it used to...and that was for no other reason than that it was made illegal.

I don't see that, but I do see taxation on a now(mostly) legal substance, yaaayy.

People aren't getting killed over gin like in the 1920's.
just killed by it, yay drunk drive and alcohol poisoning.

From people who have committed a crime. Not from those who haven't but might potentially. There is a difference, in my opinion.
course there is, but until foreheads are tattooed citing that you haven't committed a crime there's nothing saying you won't, even that doesn't.

isn't that in the constitution or something somewhere? or is it just a law?

What?
Burning flags.

That was in response to you're "I don't care what they have to do to put away a guilty guy" clause. And you know that. Possibly racist...possibly. But you know what? That's exactly why I DON'T agree with do whatever they have to do to put a guilty guy away. That's what gets innocent people convicted...I don't concur with the idea that the government is infallible.
But none of those were doing what it takes to convict guilty people, they were falsifying evidence to convict a non guilty person. That's isn't the same, that's whole different area. If you're talking about duress then yeah that's one thing, but convicting an innocent man isn't the same as infringing on a criminals rights. And since you're of the opinion that criminals are those who've infringed on others rights, why is it wrong to do so?

Exactly the opposite. I said the government can't protect people from bad things happening, (all bad things, gauranteeing everything will be fair, that nothign bad iwll ever happen) I'm not an anarchist. Government needs to protect our borders. That is in the constitution.
So the government should protect your borders and indeed you and your possessions yes? If specified times and places aid in that cause why is it wrong? If not trying to protect you is the same as not being able to then... I dunno, that's depressing. And again I think if your store was on the protected side of the rioters/police line, are they not protecting you and your livelihood?

U.N.? Seriously? That is the most inept, least feared, least who's who in the world when it comes to war criminals. They pegged a few in the Rwanda debable...Slobodan Milosevic died without a conviction in his FIVE YEAR trial. The U.N. is inept, corrupt, and utterly useless even when trying to defend people who are targeted for genocide.
I didn't say they were good, but who's better? SEALS did just a bang up job on bringing osama to justice, except you don't agree that people should be killed before tried... So not really.

The government doesn't "care". Look at the pensions government leaders get.
And I give my employees healthcare and dental and all sorts of benefits, even an rrsp; I'd assume you'd have done the same but I don't know, maybe you're a dick. everybody in every government gets their shit, and so do most people at jobs. So if you're going to go all occupy on me and complain about how much people who aren't you make, I don't really care.
The first one was...everyone after that was just the same. Always entertaining.

Smoking bud in one's own house is not infringing on me or anyone else.
Are all drug using related arrests made in homes? Driving stoned is probably an infringement on rights, if drunk driving is.
If you're doing something, no matter how fucked up it is, it should be legal unless it endangers, infringes on, or harms someone else.
Like the government selling drugs to people who are ignorant of the dosages and effects, and endanger themselves and those in the public?

Depends. Am I being forced to buy the meat from that seller? Or am I choosing to buy it from him instead of a regulated seller? I have a right to not be poisoned. But if I'm buying meat that isn't regulated, I'm poisoning myself.
If you knew of the poison, yes you would be. And those who are unaware? Bad luck I guess.

I agree with the last part. But again, relquishing everyday rights for something that rarely happens is a price you are willing to pay, and I am not.
Then don't wear a seat belt, unless you're constantly crashing I bet it rarely happens to you. well within your rights to endanger yourself, are you not? "I do not want government protection from myself. " Any people that have overthrown a brutal regime would probably disagree.
did these brutal regimes model their government on america and just screw it all up? They don't have the same declarations and bills and amendments and laws and blah blah blah.

Then you'd be well advised to start making the judicial distinction between then.
Protesters and demonstrators have fun chants and slogans to folksy guitar music, trying to spread a message. Rioters and thieves and vandals who are destroying because they're angry about things and rather than talk about that like a rational human being, stealing and smashing makes them feel better. Still never said all protesters are rioters, still don't think that means there's no reason to not protect yourself from them. I'm saying this to a gun owner. But it doesn't happen enough times for me to worry, neither does getting in car accidents, still have insurance and wear my seat belt and go the speed limit and stop at red lights etc.

They could. They haven't at this point...and it's not because they can't. They just haven't.
Oh I'm sure there are who do.
Here's the logic : an angry mob that is armed is coming at me. I don't want to be without a gun. I don't see the logic in NOT having a gun if a bunch of armed rioters are coming my way...again, another demarcation line between our perspectives.
I didn't argue that, I'm asking what your logic is that because you have a gun they wouldn't shoot first or back.

Hey, 2nd Amendment doesn't make exclusions, so legally, they should own iffin' they wanna.
Maybe they should amend it so disabled can have automatics, the disadvantage in dexterity, countered with higher rates of fire? But I suspect you'd be one of those people that'd break their own legs so they could get their hands on the fun stuff.

Yeah. And....???
So pointless protests held by idiots who don't utilize tools to change the government should shut the fuck up and not be taken seriously until they do.

That's right. The people least capable for fending for themselves are the ones are don't break the rules.
So your suggestion for "defending yourself" is fully automatic weapons, kevlar, armor piercing rounds, grenades (explosive or for incapacitation), armor plating on your vehicles, available to the general public? Police and criminals have those, have to be on equal footing right? You don't see any problems with any of that? lol. I'm fine with more or less normal(?) guns, but come on. You can't just make shit like that readily available.

revolutions where bystanders don't get hurt? RATM has a pic of Che Guevara on some of their Bombtrack stuff...Che had some interesting perspectives on revolutions. Alot of it had to do with killing everyone that wasn't on his side.
Well aware, Rage against the machine has never advocated violence.
And somehow, I think ZDLR would tell the government to kiss his ass if they told him where he could protest and where he couldn't
Oh I'm sure he would, he's also never told anybody to riot when their protest got shut down.

That's not what you're pining for though. Murderers committed murder, someone had to die for that murderer to go to prison..therefore, the government DIDNT protect that victim from that murderer, did it?
Protected the next.
what do you do with the people that could potentially murder, but just haven't yet?
Well seeing as that's everybody on the planet who hasn't killed yet, guess nothing? Taking no action as opposed to police officers in general is vastly superior. Give them guns? That's your solution I guess. Which turns anything perceived as an attack into "self defense" where somebody else gets killed. That's fixed everything, because murder in self defense isn't murder.

Faily certain that enforced laws, gun control, police patrols and a million other examples I don't care enough to list have some effect on whether or not you're going to be shot when you leave your house.
Course there's no such thing as constant impenetrable protection, if you want that, break the law, go to jail, beat somebody's ass and go to solitary. There, you're safe now from criminals, cars, diseases, trains, earthquakes, wild animal attacks, being electrocuted, being struck by lightning, slipping on ice and smashing your head open, being hit by a foul ball and it caving your skull in, walking under some heavy object and it falling on you, renovating an old house and inhaling asbestos and enjoying a slow painful death. Could go on, but that'd be stupid and I don't care to continue making the point that some, even shitty, protection is better than either nothing at all or doing nothing at all and hiding in a fucking bomb shelter.

This post has been edited by Dizy83: Thu Feb 16, 2012 08:11 AM

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Thu Feb 16, 2012 07:01 AM, said:

I don't define America's version of poverty, not making enough money to get ahead of your bills will eventually get you out of those houses. Or in a shitty retirement home when you aren't allowed to work. Seeing as you have the fucking problem with how much some people get in their pensions this should be what bothers you. Indeed...I've mentioned it in several political threads. See the one about social security (originally ron paul thread)

If they show up to their protests, do their demonstrating and protesting with all their fun signs and colorful chants; Then go home again, I don't see it as a failed protest, I don't see their rights being stomped on. They accomplished what they set out to do, they've made their point and haven't been arrested. The police have done nothing to them, the government has done nothing to them. Being prepared for a riot has zero down sides. I don't disagree. If that's all the people do, then that's fine. If that's all the government does, that's fine. No need to dictate when, where, and in what manner.

You see everybody as potential criminals, or you wouldn't have a gun(s) in your store. True enough...but having a gun in my store doesn't curtail thier freedoms in the least.

Burning down small businesses and stealing things happens during riots, I don't see how either of those gets the message that you want the government to be overthrown across. That's just collateral damage then? Well that's just daaaaaaaandy. See; Boston Tea Party. But again, I don't think stealing things is required in a revolt...ditto burning down small businesses. But sadly, just like all throughout human history, jack-tardedness cannot be eliminated without mass murder or population control being involved.

Government doesn't listen to rioters, especially not while they're destroying businesses that have nothing to do with anything; Is the government supposed to take idiots destroying things for the sake of destroying them seriously? Would you? That's like dealing with a fucking 5 year old, give me what I want or I'll throw dishes around until you do.
I'm not arguing against the right to voice their grievances or to even protest the stupid government, but when it devolves into senseless destruction there's no point in listening to them. The louder and angrier somebody gets do you pay more or less attention? Who's that bald idiot on .. cnn or whatever garbage news channel that just talks over people when they're winning arguments, he's my case and point. Do you think they're being rational or just throwing a fucking temper tantrum to win? Nope...that's why you don't see me defending anyone's right to "riot".

And no, not 'any time any group of people'...but I'm pretty sure you know that.
That's what the DoI says, right of the people to abolish the government, does "the people" refer to all the people? If so then everybody would have to be revolting. Or is it some of the people who think the government is unfair, which is my point. Does it say "some people"? Or does it say "the people"? We can get into a circular argument as to if that means literally every....single....person...or just a majority. But in any case, it's clear that the U.S. was set up so that government would fear it's people so as to 1.) mind it's P's and Q's, and 2.) Not give the people a reason to...revolt. That's the most desireable end game. Government doesn't infringe, people don't give it a reason to.

Give me your logical option of police presence, which you agree with, at every and all protests then. Can't infringe on rights, btw. Okay. Police can be there. I didn't say they couldn't. They can do what they do now, as far as presence is concerned. It's the dictating "when, where and what manner"...especially the 'what manner' part.

And if all of america rioted you'd show them up at that too. Why not? We do at everything else.

Yes and that sucks, what do you suggest? Amend to the logical? Except that infringes on rights, so unless all the other amendments didn't infringe on anything I dunno if I could accept that as an argument. Exchanging freedom for government-provided safety is a huge debate in this country...What do I suggest? Stop building military bases on other peoples' holy lands (Osama's biggest gibe with the U.S. dating back to the 90's) , stop bombing countries, stop attacking countries, that didn't attack us. Stop playing CIA-otherthrow-that-government-and-install-this-one-becuase-we-like-this-guy-at-the-mometn bullshit like we did in Iran, like we sort of did in Iraq in the 1980's, pushing countries to invade others (Iran/Iraq War)....I coud go on...but no. You don't mention the idea of the U.S. stop giving everyone in the world a reason to be pissed at us...you pine for this very same government's ability to suppress us so they can keep us safe from the people they attack for no reason. Sorry, I do not possess the intellectual firepower to grasp that logic.

So do nothing, then complain that that doesn't work either. Not True. People are complaining more now than they did 50 years ago...100 years ago...with the advent of social security, medicare, medicaid, the federal reserve, FBI, CIA, National Security Admin., Department of Homeland Security, etc etc etc, we've seen no decrease in danger, social problems, recessions, etc. There difference is, doing nothing costs less. Government doesn't solve social problems. Saying that while it may not work, it's better than doing nothing. Native Americans follow the same logic....they do rain dances. But hey, at least they're doing something to make it rain, right?

See you even said the point I've been attempting to make the entire time, with no police more things will get broken.
If 100 000 protesters break into a riot, the 10-15k(at best) police couldn't possibly stop all damage; That would indeed be impossible. But if they lock off city blocks and use their various riot control methods to push and disperse rioters, even if that doesn't stop a riot entirely that still makes a difference. Especially if your store was on the block the police set up, if they saved your store from being destroyed; Would make a huge difference to you, even if you don't want to admit that. Just like I never argued against police presence, I never said police wouldn't result in less damage. You know what would result in less damage. if every store owner was stupid like me and stood outside thier stores with thier guns loaded...that way, EVEN LESS damange would occur because rioters would damage....cars. Police = less damage. Armed store owners = even less damage. Police cannot be everywhere, right? They can't stop a riot, right? No doubt. But if we're talking about saving storefronts and property damage, rioters are more afriad of a yahoo with AR-15 than a cop with twist-tie handcuff and mace.

In their barns. Read the quartering act. They had to house them in thier homes.

That the USSR still wanted the land back. I wasn't talking about the troops.

USSR is nothing without people, and I imagine they wanted a city for... you know city reasons, like people... being in the city, possibly living, having a family.. Yeah. I mean I know they were evil but even evil governments need cities and people. No, they burned those cities when they were in full reverse in from 1940-1942. Scorched earth campaign...not done on that scale since they did it to Napolean.

Prisons don't protect me from potential criminals. Again, I make distinctions between those that have committed a crime and those who have the ability to commit a crime but haven't. Ergo, prisons are for the former.

Lots of people commit crimes and don't go to jail, look at rioters. And what do you do with people who have gone to prison and have been released after serving their sentence? Give them the benefit of the doubt and only shoot them in the arm? That isn't remotely relevant to the point. Prisons don't keep us safe, the keep us a little closer to 'safe'. Because people only go there after the crime is commited. Too late if preventing all crime is the goal.

Yeah? Show me something that can be purchased in a Walmart that is also trafficked and profited on by criminal organizations.
Guns. What was that you said about gun bans.. and criminals having guns... You can buy shotguns at walmart in canada, least you could last time I was there. I doubt a gun knows it's not being pointed at a deer. Can't buy guns at Walmart here.

If you could by drugs in mainstream venues, and I'll even make a deal and let it be government regulated to appease gubby-lovers...but if this were to happen, drug cartels wouldn't have anything to sell.

Could be true, except ask any cool stoner(420 bro) and he'll tell you all about how some weed is better than others. Unless you think your government would produce the best of anything and would be immune to undercutting, pretty sure there would be a market for cartels. Same goes for meth of varying purity, cocaine cut with this instead of that. blah blah blah, that's my point.

Not govenment produced...never said or implied that. As for some being better than others...well, the market accels at variety.

If prostitution were legal, human traffickers wouldn't have anything to sell.

Because the government would protect those who sell themselves right? Someone so in favor of government protection would surely agree with that. Condom production would skyrocket, buy stock in trojan! aids tests sold in walmart etc. sarcasm, losing interest in this. Works in Nevada.

I don't see that, but I do see taxation on a now(mostly) legal substance, yaaayy. Sales tax is legal. Imagine the government revenues if drugs and prostitution were legal. With the size of those industries, the deficit would be history if that were taxed.

People aren't getting killed over gin like in the 1920's.
just killed by it, yay drunk drive and alcohol poisoning. That'd be valid if no one ever got killed in a car accident without acohol being involved. But sadly, there's cell phones, idiots, old people, etc...so looks like we can ban cars, or ban people. Because plently o' accidents occur with only those to varaiables involved.

From people who have committed a crime. Not from those who haven't but might potentially. There is a difference, in my opinion.
course there is, but until foreheads are tattooed citing that you haven't committed a crime there's nothing saying you won't, even that doesn't. Ergo, innocent until proven guilty. Again, a degree of seperation in opinion. Saying that there's no gauranty that someone wont commit a crime as the reason for curtailing freedoms, then, well...looks like we have a fudnatmental disagreement.

isn't that in the constitution or something somewhere? or is it just a law?

What?
Burning flags. Who cares? It's fabric.

But none of those were doing what it takes to convict guilty people, they were falsifying evidence to convict a non guilty person. That's isn't the same, that's whole different area. If you're talking about duress then yeah that's one thing, but convicting an innocent man isn't the same as infringing on a criminals rights. And since you're of the opinion that criminals are those who've infringed on others rights, why is it wrong to do so? That's only possible if you're assuming that it's absolutely determined that someone is guilty from the get go. Infringing on a criminal's rights and falsifying evidence is the same thing. It's quite possible to infringe on an innocent's rights, too. That, many times, isn't determined until after a trial...at least here. Saying that we 'know' the guy's guilty so it's okay to trample his rights is the mindset I'm arguing with.

So the government should protect your borders and indeed you and your possessions yes? Where in this thread did I say anything about possessions being protected by government?

I didn't say they were good, but who's better? The Care Bears, for one. SEALS did just a bang up job on bringing osama to justice, except you don't agree that people should be killed before tried... So not really. I don't? I think lots of people should be killed without a trial. Like enemy combatants. American citizens? The law has a different process for that...it's called 'due process'. But our government has killed U.S. citizens without verdict, without trial, and without even charging them. Yay safety!

The government doesn't "care". Look at the pensions government leaders get.
And I give my employees healthcare and dental and all sorts of benefits, even an rrsp; I'd assume you'd have done the same but I don't know, maybe you're a dick. everybody in every government gets their shit, and so do most people at jobs. So if you're going to go all occupy on me and complain about how much people who aren't you make, I don't really care. Are you serious with that? Our politicians have decadent full salary pensions for life and cadillac healthcare for life, they don't have to pay into it like we do with Social Security (which is going insolvent in 20-30 years), and only need to serve one term to get it? You can call my "occupy" all you want, that's garbage. If someone can earn a shit fucking ton of money by working hard, great. If not by working hard but being smart, great. If by doing neither, but just being lucky, great. By taking money from a populace whom you're forcing to pay into a bankrupt pension plan run by none other than you while you're pension is paid for by them and isn't predicated on contributions is bullshit.

Smoking bud in one's own house is not infringing on me or anyone else.
Are all drug using related arrests made in homes? Driving stoned is probably an infringement on rights, if drunk driving is.
That's why I stipulated.

Depends. Am I being forced to buy the meat from that seller? Or am I choosing to buy it from him instead of a regulated seller? I have a right to not be poisoned. But if I'm buying meat that isn't regulated, I'm poisoning myself.
If you knew of the poison, yes you would be. And those who are unaware? Bad luck I guess. I consider it people's own repsonsibility to be aware of what they're putting in their body, or being aware of the risks of not doing so. I don't think the government needs to save me.

Then don't wear a seat belt, unless you're constantly crashing I bet it rarely happens to you. well within your rights to endanger yourself, are you not? I'm 50/50 on seatbelt consistency.

I do not want government protection from myself. " Any people that have overthrown a brutal regime would probably disagree.
did these brutal regimes model their government on america and just screw it all up? They don't have the same declarations and bills and amendments and laws and blah blah blah. Exactly. They don't...it's those same declarations and bills of amendments that you're saying is infringable and I preferring they not be.

I didn't argue that, I'm asking what your logic is that because you have a gun they wouldn't shoot first or back. I'd shoot the moment I decided I was in danger. Come what may.

Hey, 2nd Amendment doesn't make exclusions, so legally, they should own iffin' they wanna.
Maybe they should amend it so disabled can have automatics, the disadvantage in dexterity, countered with higher rates of fire? But I suspect you'd be one of those people that'd break their own legs so they could get their hands on the fun stuff. I'm not saying shit's perfect...but it's written and it's the law...2nd amendment doesn't exclude people with disabilities. If I'm being honest, I would at least think about breaking my legs to get the bad-asser stuff. If I could get away with spraining an ankle, and I mean a good sprain, definitely. But I'm an idiot...that's to be expected.

Yeah. And....???
So pointless protests held by idiots who don't utilize tools to change the government should shut the fuck up and not be taken seriously until they do. There in lies the rub. Who decides what protests are pointless?

That's right. The people least capable for fending for themselves are the ones are don't break the rules.
So your suggestion for "defending yourself" is fully automatic weapons, kevlar, armor piercing rounds, grenades (explosive or for incapacitation), armor plating on your vehicles, available to the general public? Police and criminals have those, have to be on equal footing right? You don't see any problems with any of that? lol. I'm fine with more or less normal(?) guns, but come on. You can't just make shit like that readily available. No, just police and criminals should have them.


Well aware, Rage against the machine has never advocated violence. Nor have I. But they do advocate resistance against an over-bearing authority.

What I think exemplifies my position is this : (Bullet in the head) : "Fools follow rules with the set commands you" .

Oh I'm sure he would, he's also never told anybody to riot when their protest got shut down.

What would he tell them to riot?

Well seeing as that's everybody on the planet who hasn't killed yet, guess nothing? Taking no action as opposed to police officers in general is vastly superior. Give them guns? That's your solution I guess. You'd do well to stop guessing what my solution is and read it instead. I never said anything about ablishing police or prisons. I'm saying it wont eradicate crime. Crime cannot be prevented.

Which turns anything perceived as an attack into "self defense" where somebody else gets killed. That's fixed everything, because murder in self defense isn't murder. It isn't. You put a murderer in prison so he/she wont kill the next. I'd prefer they get shot trying to commit the murder.

Faily certain that enforced laws, gun control, police patrols and a million other examples I don't care enough to list have some effect on whether or not you're going to be shot when you leave your house. Tell that to the kids at the daycare and thier parents that had bullet holes in their walls and doors that I replaced with bullet proof versions. Again, you're taking my position to extremes that they don't extend to. I do not oppose gun control, police patrols, etc. but if you want to paint me as saying these that, okay, i guess.

Course there's no such thing as constant impenetrable protection, yup. if you want that, break the law, go to jail, beat somebody's ass and go to solitary. that's not protection...that's losing. There, you're safe now from criminals, cars, diseases, trains, earthquakes, wild animal attacks, being electrocuted, being struck by lightning, slipping on ice and smashing your head open, being hit by a foul ball and it caving your skull in, walking under some heavy object and it falling on you, renovating an old house and inhaling asbestos and enjoying a slow painful death. being in prison for the rest of your life, ergo until you die, is literally a slow painful death. Could go on, but that'd be stupid and I don't care to continue making the point that some, even shitty, protection is better than either nothing at all or doing nothing at all and hiding in a fucking bomb shelter. Some, even shitty, protection is perfectly fine, if all I have to do is pay some taxes to receive it. But giving up my freedoms for some, even shitty protection....no deal. I'd rather have a slightly higher risk of bad luck and having to handle it myself and be free person. Not sayin, and never said you were wrong.

But that's how I'd prefer to live.

[Dizy83]

I don't disagree. If that's all the people do, then that's fine. If that's all the government does, that's fine. No need to dictate when, where, and in what manner.
And if that was all people do then the government wouldn't need to dictate that.

Does it say "some people"? Or does it say "the people"? We can get into a circular argument as to if that means literally every....single....person...or just a majority.
If you want to argue what is written, you have to argue how it is written.

It's the dictating "when, where and what manner"...especially the 'what manner' part.

And if there were as many police as protesters, there'd never be a problem, because they could always be where ever and whenever. Then you'd be bitching about police states.

What do I suggest? Stop building military bases on other peoples' holy lands (Osama's biggest gibe with the U.S. dating back to the 90's) , stop bombing countries, stop attacking countries, that didn't attack us. Stop playing CIA-otherthrow-that-government-and-install-this-one-becuase-we-like-this-guy-at-the-mometn bullshit like we did in Iran, like we sort of did in Iraq in the 1980's, pushing countries to invade others (Iran/Iraq War)....I coud go on...but no. You don't mention the idea of the U.S. stop giving everyone in the world a reason to be pissed at us...you pine for this very same government's ability to suppress us so they can keep us safe from the people they attack for no reason. Sorry, I do not possess the intellectual firepower to grasp that logic.

I don't think your government should spend all of its time playing world police, but your deeply christian states do believe that, so argue with your people.
I didn't advocate attacking countries for no reason, I didn't even mention it. And unless it's some iraqi terrorist plot behind occupy, I don't think I've mentioned anything at all about another country.

if every store owner was stupid like me and stood outside thier stores with thier guns loaded...that way, EVEN LESS damange would occur because rioters would damage....cars. Police = less damage. Armed store owners = even less damage. Police cannot be everywhere, right? They can't stop a riot, right? No doubt. But if we're talking about saving storefronts and property damage, rioters are more afriad of a yahoo with AR-15
So what happens when some brick is thrown from the crowd through the window, or even some incendiary device? Just blindly fire into the crowd? I don't consider various assault rifles as a real solution but yeah sure.

a cop with twist-tie handcuff and mace.
Should they have assault rifles then? I've never considered riot police to be fascists, non lethal weapons are generally effective if not abused, but yeah sure, fire away. That won't cause problems lol.

No, they burned those cities when they were in full reverse in from 1940-1942. Scorched earth campaign...not done on that scale since they did it to Napolean.
Fairly large city, dunno if you've heard of it, couple million people died in it. Major theatrical piece of war stories. Dunno if they gave up on that one. Can't for the life of me recall the name though .

Prisons don't keep us safe, the keep us a little closer to 'safe'.
well if they don't work, aren't you upset at tax payer money being spent on them?

Can't buy guns at Walmart here.
I'm sure in Ily's america you'd be able too, among other things like ammunition of some sort of flak gun, placed on top of your store to scare away airplanes.

Works in Nevada.
Well it's a good thing the whole country is Nevada, oh no wait... And what again, of the deeply christian states? They'd be so furious! See what would happen when one group of people changes the government, another would be so sad .

Sales tax is legal. Imagine the government revenues if drugs and prostitution were legal. With the size of those industries, the deficit would be history if that were taxed.
People spending all their money on drugs, then being too fucked up to go to work would fix your economy? For how long lol. Or does addiction not exist in this universe.

People aren't getting killed over gin like in the 1920's.just killed by it, yay drunk drive and alcohol poisoning. That'd be valid if no one ever got killed in a car accident without acohol being involved. But sadly, there's cell phones, idiots, old people, etc...so looks like we can ban cars, or ban people. Because plently o' accidents occur with only those to varaiables involved.
Just like people being killed by legally owned firearms? Ban those. Money is a legal substance to have, people are killed over that every day. Ban money. People die skiing, ban skiing. People die playing football, ban football. People killed by avalanches, ban avalanches. People die being electrocuted, ban electricity. People die by drowning, ban water. People die from misdiagnoses, ban doctors. People die in plane crashes, ban planes. People die in train derailments, ban trains. People die falling off ladders, ban ladders. People die falling out of trees, ban trees.
I see your point though.

Who cares? It's fabric.
Books are just paper and ink, I'm sure book burning bothers you. If it doesn't, sad.

That's only possible if you're assuming that it's absolutely determined that someone is guilty from the get go. Infringing on a criminal's rights and falsifying evidence is the same thing. It's quite possible to infringe on an innocent's rights, too. That, many times, isn't determined until after a trial...at least here. Saying that we 'know' the guy's guilty so it's okay to trample his rights is the mindset I'm arguing with.
If they didn't assume somebody was guilty when they brought them to court, why would they bring them to court? Why would they then try to convict them?
The idiot this thread is about was asked to unencrypt, she said no pleading the fifth. Court couldn't do much at that point, she then went on under no duress or persuasion and inferred there was evidence on the laptop. It's her fucking fault. You can't say it isn't. If this ridiculous bitch did this in Chicago, it'd be YOUR MONEY paying the court, CIA or whomever to unencrypt the stupid laptop on their own; which costs you more than making her do it immediately under a federal act.

The court did the right thing, just accept it.

Just as you say only some protests turn to riots, a low percentage. I'm sure it's a low percentage of courts making the wrong ruling or indeed, as you say, infringing on rights and bending the law to their case.

The Care Bears, for one.
So sarcasm being the effect of none here?
I think lots of people should be killed without a trial. Like enemy combatants.
America's soldiers are enemies of somebody. So when war is afoot laws and rights are irrelevant.
"I don't think killing the guy without ever bringing him to justice was the right thing to do". "I don't either"
Are you serious with that? Our politicians have decadent full salary pensions for life and cadillac healthcare for life, they don't have to pay into it like we do with Social Security (which is going insolvent in 20-30 years), and only need to serve one term to get it? You can call my "occupy" all you want, that's garbage. If someone can earn a shit fucking ton of money by working hard, great. If not by working hard but being smart, great. If by doing neither, but just being lucky, great. By taking money from a populace whom you're forcing to pay into a bankrupt pension plan run by none other than you while you're pension is paid for by them and isn't predicated on contributions is bullshit.
So what? Life isn't fair. Your pension is probably better than most of your country, give it all away if you're so furious that somebody has a good pension.
does the 27th amendment apply to pensions? If it does I guess you're hooped and shouldn't care.

I consider it people's own repsonsibility to be aware of what they're putting in their body, or being aware of the risks of not doing so. I don't think the government needs to save me.
Disabled.

Exactly. They don't...it's those same declarations and bills of amendments that you're saying is infringable and I preferring they not be.
Then you can only complain about the 27th just before the new president takes over and no other time. And all the fun amendments that didn't say anything about slaves or women's rights, until they were amended. So yeah.

Who decides what protests are pointless?
Well, in the democratic process, I guess the majority.

No, just police and criminals should have them.
So pick one and join, or move to one of those fun states with fun gun laws.

What I think exemplifies my position is this : (Bullet in the head) : "Fools follow rules with the set commands you" .
When they write a song that says police and government officials should do nothing when protesters turn into rioters, I'll quote back.

What would he tell them to riot?
Because they're being infringed on and shouldn't accept it.

You'd do well to stop guessing what my solution is and read it instead. I never said anything about ablishing police or prisons. I'm saying it wont eradicate crime. Crime cannot be prevented.
So again, do nothing.

It isn't. You put a murderer in prison so he/she wont kill the next. I'd prefer they get shot trying to commit the murder.
I'm sure this will work until some devious trickster happens upon the never thought of idea of killing somebody and claiming self defense lol.

Tell that to the kids at the daycare and thier parents that had bullet holes in their walls and doors that I replaced with bullet proof versions.
As opposed to telling them we're going to start selling automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds to whomever we please and city policing will stay the same.
Or do nothing.

Again, you're taking my position to extremes that they don't extend to. I do not oppose gun control, police patrols, etc. but if you want to paint me as saying these that, okay, i guess.
Constantly saying they don't work is why I do what I do. You keep arguing that it will happen anyway, so my point is why bother if that is the case. You put bulletproof windows and doors up, why? They'll still be shot at, I don't think anything is truly bulletproof after a certain point; even if they do they could just as easily be shot as soon as they walk outside. Why bother.

being in prison for the rest of your life, ergo until you die, is literally a slow painful death.
As opposed to the slow happy death of hiding behind bulletproof glass at a daycare.

Some, even shitty, protection is perfectly fine, if all I have to do is pay some taxes to receive it. But giving up my freedoms for some, even shitty protection....no deal.
Unless you're at these protests your rights aren't being infringed on so who cares. Beyond speculation that it will eventually infringe on all rights everywhere ever, then you'll have the chance to revolt then yay new america with liberal guns, drugs, whores, and oh yes, baseball.

This post has been edited by Dizy83: Fri Feb 17, 2012 05:50 PM

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Fri Feb 17, 2012 04:48 PM, said:

And if that was all people do then the government wouldn't need to dictate that. Far more often than not, that's exactly what the people do.

And if there were as many police as protesters, there'd never be a problem, because they could always be where ever and whenever. Then you'd be bitching about police states. When they're telling you where, when, and how you say things, you're pretty much alreay there.

I don't think your government should spend all of its time playing world police, but your deeply christian states do believe that, so argue with your people. Wrong. A great many "christian" circles do not believe in policing the world. (Ron Paul is Christian, and Texan) It's the globalists/U.N.-actually-works crowd that think we should be making the world "right". Hence the existence of U.N. Peacekeepers.

So what happens when some brick is thrown from the crowd through the window, or even some incendiary device? Just blindly fire into the crowd? I don't consider various assault rifles as a real solution but yeah sure. Hey...sometimes I'd get the wrong guy...just like the police do occasionally, whether it's imprisoning them wrongly for 20 years or beating a mentally disabled man to death. Don't see why one's such an inexcusable transgression and not the other.

Should they have assault rifles then? I've never considered riot police to be fascists, non lethal weapons are generally effective if not abused, but yeah sure, fire away. That won't cause problems lol. They're effective so long as the crowd is very small or only a few step out of line. Shooting rubber bullets at thousands of people who are determined to burn a city down isn't going to work. Assault rifles, all the way. But then you'd have a massacre. That's kind of the fulcrum, here. There's no solution of people riot. They're gonna do it, po-po or no. They question is it worth while to give up basic freedoms on the alter of preventing a rare riot. If you do, that's great. Most of the world's governing bodies and thier populaces agree with you. I believe otherwise.

Fairly large city, dunno if you've heard of it, couple million people died in it. Major theatrical piece of war stories. Dunno if they gave up on that one. Can't for the life of me recall the name though . Only one side of the city was taken by the Germans. And the Soviets defended it staunchly as opposed to running like hell for the same reason the Germans got distracted by it when they were only 12 miles from Moscow : It's name.

well if they don't work, aren't you upset at tax payer money being spent on them? Yes, it's a whole other issue, though. They come out harder and crazier than when they went in.

I'm sure in Ily's america you'd be able too, among other things like ammunition of some sort of flak gun, placed on top of your store to scare away airplanes. What planes?

Works in Nevada.
Well it's a good thing the whole country is Nevada, oh no wait... And what again, of the deeply christian states? They'd be so furious! See what would happen when one group of people changes the government, another would be so sad . That's the reason for a weaker federal government. My perspective, which is obviously a bit libertarian, is that state governments should take precedent over federal. (See 10th amendment) If it was left to the states to determine things like this for themselves, no one would be pissed about changes in THE government. No one will have to live under the dictatorship of the radical minority or stupid majority they aren't a part of. For example, I probably fall into the category of those you refer to as "deeply christian", but I do not support any government initiative to regulate marriage, along any lines whatsoever. Arizona is too xenophobic, Texas is too archetype right wint, Cali and NY are obviously not my cup of tea....though New Hampshire is a state with laws that would be most compatible with mine.

Sales tax is legal. Imagine the government revenues if drugs and prostitution were legal. With the size of those industries, the deficit would be history if that were taxed.
People spending all their money on drugs, then being too fucked up to go to work would fix your economy? For how long lol. Or does addiction not exist in this universe. Oh you got me there.....No one's addicted to drugs in the U.S. People in the U.S. aren't doing every drug they want, in any quantity they want, aren't getting prostitutes on friggin' Craigslist. Yeah, none of that's happening.

People aren't getting killed over gin like in the 1920's.just killed by it, yay drunk drive and alcohol poisoning. That'd be valid if no one ever got killed in a car accident without acohol being involved. But sadly, there's cell phones, idiots, old people, etc...so looks like we can ban cars, or ban people. Because plently o' accidents occur with only those to varaiables involved.
Just like people being killed by legally owned firearms? Ban those. Money is a legal substance to have, people are killed over that every day. Ban money. Funny you should mention that. The FBI considers using cash instead of check or plastic indicative of potential terrorist activity, and is "probably cause" to investigage someone. People die skiing, ban skiing. People die playing football, ban football. People killed by avalanches, ban avalanches. People die being electrocuted, ban electricity. People die by drowning, ban water. People die from misdiagnoses, ban doctors. People die in plane crashes, ban planes. People die in train derailments, ban trains. People die falling off ladders, ban ladders. People die falling out of trees, ban trees.

I see your point though. Can't ban everything that messes people up. Well...you can....but they'll still do it. Oh wait...there's no coke, meth, E, whippits, Wikistix, or anything like that in the U.S. because it was made illegal.

Who cares? It's fabric.
Books are just paper and ink, I'm sure book burning bothers you. If it doesn't, sad. Then I guess I'm sad. What's so sanctified about books as opposed to anything else? If someone wants to burn Mein Kampf, let them. What do I care? Burn the Koran? Whatever floats your boat...burn the Bible, get some marshmallows and some graham crackers. Communist Manifesto? I hear it's cold up there in Canada! No, book burning doesn't bother me. What do I give a shit if someone hates someone else's, or my, ideas? This brings to mind some RATM song that talked about burning some school text books...

If they didn't assume somebody was guilty when they brought them to court, why would they bring them to court? Why would they then try to convict them? They don't always feel compelled to do that....sometimes they just figure 'it's obvious enough that he doesn't need a trial"

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Notice how the administration "found a legal way" to do it, despite an executive order banning, despite a federal law against murder, various international laws of war etc., but didn't care to discuss or explain it whatsoever, nor contribute anything to the article regarding it. They just said "Okay we have a legal authority to do this, but we wont tell you what it is." That's a hallmark of a government that is not cognizant of it's restrictions, or feels any compulsion to obey it's very own laws. They just say they have a 'secret document' that allows them to do what all kinds of authoritative shit says they do NOT have the authority to do, regardless of how bad the guy was.

They also had trials in all the obligatory bad guy places...you know, the 'bad' Germany, USSR, etc.

The idiot this thread is about was asked to unencrypt, she said no pleading the fifth. Court couldn't do much at that point, she then went on under no duress or persuasion and inferred there was evidence on the laptop. It's her fucking fault. You can't say it isn't. Yup. If this ridiculous bitch did this in Chicago, it'd be YOUR MONEY paying the court, CIA or whomever to unencrypt the stupid laptop on their own; which costs you more than making her do it immediately under a federal act. Weak arguement. I'll pay the tax to keep the 5th amendment intact. If you disagree, great. Besides, it seems you have little disdain for paying governments money to use ineptly, anyway. As for my money. Chicago taxes bottled water....bottled water. Not soft drinks, the shit that makes us fat and unhealthy. All the fatties would throw a fit. They sold thier parking meter operation to private interests for a lump sum because they're so broke. This, in spite of having the highest sales tax in the nation. You know what? Yeah, I DO want them to pay to unencrypt it...it'd be the best, most intelligent expenditure they've done in years.

The court did the right thing, just accept it. okay.

Just as you say only some protests turn to riots, a low percentage. I'm sure it's a low percentage of courts making the wrong ruling or indeed, as you say, infringing on rights and bending the law to their case. That's been true up until recently. The "interpretive leeway" has gotten quite expansive. I'm less concerned with courts occasionally making the "wrong" ruling...that is going to happen occasionally. It's in the context of judicial precedent, and seeing it go one step further each time, that's discomforting. Why I oppose gay marriage ban? Remember, I'm a stupid christian....shouldn't I demand that everyone remain celibant until marriage and then only marry someone of the opposite gender? No. I do not want a government that has the ability to define or illegitimize the most basic institution of society : family. A government that can dictate what a legitimate marriage is along the lines of gender, according to judicial precedent, may also have the power to do so along other lines, too. It's a very dangerous thing when the government is given latitude to do something it wasn't supposed to.

The Care Bears, for one.
So sarcasm being the effect of none here? What?

America's soldiers are enemies of somebody. So when war is afoot laws and rights are irrelevant. Really? You need to brush up on your rules of engagement for U.S. military. We were hampered to a fault by laws and rules. That's why we don't 'win' anymore. But, that's also why we go so easily...over nothing.

So what? Life isn't fair. Your pension is probably better than most of your country, give it all away if you're so furious that somebody has a good pension.
does the 27th amendment apply to pensions? If it does I guess you're hooped and shouldn't care.

It isn't the size of the pension, Diz. It's that we are compelled, without choice, to contribute to a system that is going broke. They are changing the rules as time progresses, and not in our favor. I don't care if the pensions congress gets is big. I don't care if it's fair. I love succes, I love making money, I love it when other people make shit fucking tons of it. But I do not like having mine taken from me and put to sleep. It isn't about 'fair', or somebody with a good pension. It's about..taking...my....money and putting into a system that is going broke and they will have to raise the retirement age twice by the time I get there. But they take more of my money and give themselves a great pension. Pensions are great, but most pensions people have to pay into, and have to work long enough to be vested. Not them. If you consider that 'being successful' and not bullshit corruption, then it's just another degree of seperation between us. I love people being able to assume mass wealth. I don't like having my money taken from be, and divided between a black hole, and sweet-heart deal makers.
Disabled. Too late.
Then you can only complain about the 27th just before the new president takes over and no other time. And all the fun amendments that didn't say anything about slaves or women's rights, until they were amended. So yeah. So yeah, what? That the freedoms weren't extended to everyone in the beginning is not an effective refutation of the freedoms themselves in the first place. It was the government that decided to whom they were applicable to.

Who decides what protests are pointless?
Well, in the democratic process, I guess the majority. Not necessarily democratic. More accurately, the representative process. U.S. is not a democracy.

No, just police and criminals should have them.
So pick one and join, or move to one of those fun states with fun gun laws. Bingo. Remember the state vs fed law a few paragraphs up? That's a good example. If you like more expansive gun control...my state, Illinois is the state for YOU. It has THE most restrictive gun laws. If you like "fun" gun laws, Texas (where I'm originally from) works among others.. Having a choice is something that can mitigate a lot of political discord in the U.S. Go to the state that fits your preferences.

What I think exemplifies my position is this : (Bullet in the head) : "Fools follow rules with the set commands you" .
When they write a song that says police and government officials should do nothing when protesters turn into rioters, I'll quote back. Why? I didn't say police and government officials shouldn't do anything when protesters turn into rioters.


You'd do well to stop guessing what my solution is and read it instead. I never said anything about ablishing police or prisons. I'm saying it wont eradicate crime. Crime cannot be prevented.
So again, do nothing. With regard to proactive prevention? They can do WHATEVER they want to prevent crime. ANYTHING under the sun, moon, stars, or clouds. So long as it doesn't violate civil rights. Put cameras every square foot outside private residences if you want to. The Constitution never gave me the right to be unseen in public.
I'm sure this will work until some devious trickster happens upon the never thought of idea of killing somebody and claiming self defense lol. Absolutely, so how do you bust him for that murder before he does it?
As opposed to telling them we're going to start selling automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds to whomever we please and city policing will stay the same.
Or do nothing. Well...those bullet holes came from automatic weapons.....So maybe they should just make it extra illegal for me to buy one so those gang bangers wont have them. They already have them. So, like drugs, banning shit does NOTHING to solve the issue. As for armor peircing rounds, meh. I can make my own out of standard ammo. Not as good as the real deal depleted uranium munitions, though. Besides, I don't need them to make it legal to own a full auto. Bump-firing from the shoulder is the same thing, and legal. Dumb ass government.
Constantly saying they don't work is why I do what I do. You keep arguing that it will happen anyway, so my point is why bother if that is the case. Um yeah...I agree with that, when it comes to proavtive preventative infringements. You put bulletproof windows and doors up, why? They'll still be shot at, I don't think anything is truly bulletproof after a certain point; even if they do they could just as easily be shot as soon as they walk outside. Why bother. I will agree with the 'why bother' when it comes to the preventative perspective. I believe in having a more effect reactionary protocol. But that's exactly what those doors and windows are. They're not preventative, as in they don't prevent the gang bangers from shooting. They will shoot regardless of what the preschool does. To turn it around, the school could hire me and a couple of other yahoos you'd probably consider just as dumb to goose-step around the place with our assualt rifles and shoot people that come within line-of-site of the day care, so as to prevent any potential shootings that might've happened if we hadn't been there, even though just a small percentage of passers by actually shoot the place. That's how daft I consider infringing on rights to prevent potential crime is.

Unless you're at these protests your rights aren't being infringed on so who cares. Beyond speculation that it will eventually infringe on all rights everywhere ever, then you'll have the chance to revolt then yay new america with liberal guns, drugs, whores, and oh yes, baseball. That's basically what we have now : lots of guns, drugs, whores, and baseball. Except we don't have to pretend baseball doesn't exist. So yeah, why bother? Out all the funds that go into playing cat and mouse bullshit over prostitution and drug laws into something that can actually yeild results and improve our county.

This post has been edited by ilyushin: Sat Feb 18, 2012 02:08 AM

[Q]

Anyone have the Cliff Notes for this ?

[ilyushin]

Q, on Tue Feb 21, 2012 03:53 AM, said:

Anyone have the Cliff Notes for this ?

None required, really. It's simple debating until we see who gets bored with it first. But, if you'd like :

To what degree, if any, does logical government protection supercede supposed "unaliable" rights given by our constitution? Is there justification to, at times, infringe on personal freedoms? If the government does, in the eyes of the masses, go too far...what is acceptable means of recourse for the people? To what extent should "innocent until proven guilty" be carried? Is it ok to violate that concept because if potential calamity, in order to minimize the damage?

I cannot ascertain where D personally stands with all of this, though I'm inclined to believe she's arguing some points more for exercise than to support what she truly thinks in some of these cases....but it appears as though I err on the side of accepting some drawbacks, property damage in rare cases, and tolerating some inconveniences that government could make easier for the sake of keeping personal freedom and civil liberties off the negotiating table. Where as D argues (not sure to what extent she personally adheres to this...maybe totally, maybe not at all) that perhaps for the sake of mitigating, limiting, and avoiding needless damages, government should be permitted some discretion as to "infringing" rights when appropriate. (who's definition of appropriate is another topic entirely)

Though I have dissonance with my own views....While I still adhere and am committed to it, I concede that my perpsective, too, has some explaining to do. You see, I say let people do whatever they please until they infringe on the rights of another. The issue with that is, there are scenarios where it's too late. (I think this is some of the crux of D's assertions).

For example, it's entirely possible that I can drive down a residential street in a neighborhood at 105mph and not hurt anyone, or "infringe" on their rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. And for the government to tell me to go 25mph is infringing on me needlessly based on the assumption that I might kill somone if I drive fast. If I stuck to my logic like glue, I'd be complaining about speed limits. But I do not. It isn't right for me to pick and choose what offends me and only apply my reasonings to that which does. So I'd be lying if I said I dont think there should be laws that protect public safety while infringing on total freedom, because I really don't get miffed by things like speed limits, even though I'd like to think driving down a neighborhood street doing a buck-fifty because it's a free-ass country isn't illegal......

[Dizy83]

Far more often than not, that's exactly what the people do.
Until they don't and it makes the government look inept. Because nobody did anything to protect their stores. You have to acknowledge the fact that other people do care if their property gets destroyed, and if they watch as their police, their government does fuck all to stop idiots from ruining shit. They'll be complaining as much as anybody complaining that their rights are being stepped on.

Wrong. A great many "christian" circles do not believe in policing the world. (Ron Paul is Christian, and Texan) It's the globalists/U.N.-actually-works crowd that think we should be making the world "right". Hence the existence of U.N. Peacekeepers.
They believe in policing homosexuals who live in their own neighborhoods, I find it hard to believe that there aren't any militant christians chomping at the bit to send kids to die for no reason. Or a bad reason.

Hey...sometimes I'd get the wrong guy...just like the police do occasionally, whether it's imprisoning them wrongly for 20 years or beating a mentally disabled man to death. Don't see why one's such an inexcusable transgression and not the other.
Man gets out of prison and has a chance to see his family, maybe scrape a shitty life together, dead guy is dead. Yeah life sucked pretty bad for 20 years, will probably suck pretty bad but maybe a bit less for the next 20; At least he's gets those 40. I didn't infer that one is better than the other, but more often than not I'd rather not be dead.

That's kind of the fulcrum, here. There's no solution of people riot. They're gonna do it, po-po or no. They question is it worth while to give up basic freedoms on the alter of preventing a rare riot. If you do, that's great. Most of the world's governing bodies and thier populaces agree with you. I believe otherwise.

My solution is to at least make an attempt at protecting your city, 20 blocks destroyed is less than 50, I did the math and everything. Comes up the same every time. These Great Infringements are due mostly to a logistical problem, no city has that many police to be at any protest at any time. I agree that protesters should have all the little propaganda they want, they'd never attempt to deceive anybody with incorrect or cherry picked statistics. But that isn't my main point, the police need to be there.

Only one side of the city was taken by the Germans. And the Soviets defended it staunchly as opposed to running like hell for the same reason the Germans got distracted by it when they were only 12 miles from Moscow : It's name.
Didn't those crafty potatoes change a bunch of their cities names' to stalingrad? And hitler sucked as a military strategist.

What planes?
You'd ban air travel? And with your shoot first policies, they might be Fallschirmjager for all you know.

That's the reason for a weaker federal government. My perspective, which is obviously a bit libertarian, is that state governments should take precedent over federal. (See 10th amendment) If it was left to the states to determine things like this for themselves, no one would be pissed about changes in THE government.

No one will have to live under the dictatorship of the radical minority or stupid majority they aren't a part of.

Yeah but what's going to keep them staying as one country? What's going to stop secession? You know people would be looking for that little haven of everybody thinks like me.
There's some fairly zealous people on every side, you start segregating them to whichever state they claim; Why would they just leave the heathens alone? That isn't even a stab at christians, other than my choice of words, but why wouldn't they. The real question is which state does westboro get?

For example, I probably fall into the category of those you refer to as "deeply christian", but I do not support any government initiative to regulate marriage, along any lines whatsoever.
Unless you oppose gay marriage(for religious reasons, not the whole government thing) I wouldn't consider you the deeply christian type.

Oh you got me there.....No one's addicted to drugs in the U.S. People in the U.S. aren't doing every drug they want, in any quantity they want, aren't getting prostitutes on friggin' Craigslist. Yeah, none of that's happening.
And nobody requires piss tests for jobs; even if they fake it that's still fairly relevant. You can evade the point if you want, but a bunch of juiced up idiots in a factory is going to cause problems, put somebody baked out of his mind in most jobs and he's going to fuck up.

Funny you should mention that. The FBI considers using cash instead of check or plastic indicative of potential terrorist activity, and is "probably cause" to investigage someone.
Nobody has their credit cards stolen, wouldn't have a reason to steal credit cards if there was none of that dirty money.

Can't ban everything that messes people up. Well...you can....but they'll still do it. Oh wait...there's no coke, meth, E, whippits, Wikistix, or anything like that in the U.S. because it was made illegal.
Would there be more or less of it if police made no seizures on substances? Or would people suddenly stop doing it, because it's only cool if it's illegal and nobody does it. What ever would those drug cartels do if they had no drug profits , probably kidnap, ransom, and murder more people. Oh no, they'd all be nice guys with real jobs, smoking doobs with the janitor.

Then I guess I'm sad. What's so sanctified about books as opposed to anything else? If someone wants to burn Mein Kampf, let them. What do I care? Burn the Koran? Whatever floats your boat...burn the Bible, get some marshmallows and some graham crackers. Communist Manifesto? I hear it's cold up there in Canada! No, book burning doesn't bother me. What do I give a shit if someone hates someone else's, or my, ideas? This brings to mind some RATM song that talked about burning some school text books...
There are more than just the big books of fairy tales right? There is a wealth of information and history in books. I consider history to be fairly important, most of which... is written down. As do you. I see you left the constitution and declarations out of your smart assed examples; But those are just parchments, not books! So if somebody had burned those you'd still be fine right, base your rights off what the government wrote dow.. no wait, you'd have to base it off what some idiot 200 years ago thought he saw written on paper before it was incinerated; and told people. People never get anything wrong; 200 year game of broken telephone is now your constitution. Awesome.
Yeah I'm sure rage is deeply concerned about math books.

They don't always feel compelled to do that....sometimes they just figure 'it's obvious enough that he doesn't need a trial"

Notice how the administration "found a legal way" to do it, despite an executive order banning, despite a federal law against murder, various international laws of war etc., but didn't care to discuss or explain it whatsoever, nor contribute anything to the article regarding it. They just said "Okay we have a legal authority to do this, but we wont tell you what it is." That's a hallmark of a government that is not cognizant of it's restrictions, or feels any compulsion to obey it's very own laws. They just say they have a 'secret document' that allows them to do what all kinds of authoritative shit says they do NOT have the authority to do, regardless of how bad the guy was.
They assassinated a brown guy?! You know what I find interesting here, american citizens were probably outraged!! and then told ny state to ban mosques. And screamed and threatened other brownies that weren't even islamic for being in america. Faaaaaaaaaantastic.
All amusing racism aside, yeah so what. The government killed somebody, which they must have done before but they got caught doing it; then they lied to you. They've been lying for many hundreds of years. I didn't read half that article, but apparently there was mucho espionage and many treasons. But yeah, it's all sad.
Besides, it seems you have little disdain for paying governments money to use ineptly, anyway. As for my money. Chicago taxes bottled water....bottled water.
And yet you've done nothing to put an end to this. You still live there, you still pay that money, you still follow the gun laws. Seems to me you hate everything about your city(The things you seem to believe the most important, anyway). Move. Governments make shitty decisions, mine does all the time; It's yet to be so egregious that I feel compelled to bitch about it, and if it was so bad I'd be well on my way to Korea. The exchange rate on currency is laughably in my favor.

Why I oppose gay marriage ban? Remember, I'm a stupid christian....shouldn't I demand that everyone remain celibant until marriage and then only marry someone of the opposite gender? No.
Nobody in the world follows the bible to the letter, not even any of the popes. Even if some may be frivolous or trivial matters, everybody who tries, fails.

The Care Bears, for one.So sarcasm being the effect of none here? What?
Sarcastic deflection, with no example of who is better.

Really? You need to brush up on your rules of engagement for U.S. military. We were hampered to a fault by laws and rules. That's why we don't 'win' anymore. But, that's also why we go so easily...over nothing.
Oh yes yes, soldiers can't shoot first and all that terribly interesting bullshit that means nothing to anybody when guns are in faces. You think you, as a citizen, should be able to shoot if you're threatened, I assume. I also assume you'd want that same.. privilege? for troops. Hardly an outrageous claim, but I think this is where war crimes come in, what with the whole american troopers walked in, saw weapons, killed everything, then asked questions.

It's that we are compelled, without choice, to contribute to a system that is going broke.
Move, pack your family up and move away. Zoom zoom chicago has 2 airports doesn't it? They have hundreds of measures to make moving and living in other countries easier than it could be. What's really stopping you, you don't like many things that your government does, but you still pay them oodles and oodles of your money, you buy shit from them, giving them even more of your moneys. All you're really doing is supporting it, then complaining about it to a Canadian, at least at this moment.

It's about..taking...my....money and putting into a system that is going broke and they will have to raise the retirement age twice by the time I get there. But they take more of my money and give themselves a great pension. Pensions are great, but most pensions people have to pay into, and have to work long enough to be vested. Not them. If you consider that 'being successful' and not bullshit corruption, then it's just another degree of seperation between us. I love people being able to assume mass wealth. I don't like having my money taken from be, and divided between a black hole, and sweet-heart deal makers.
I don't know the details of your pension or really care, but you aren't going to get just your money from your pension plan, if all that happened with a pension is you paid a bunch of money, then got it back... I mean, people are stupid but I doubt billions of people could be bamboozled into something so pointless so easily. You're going to be collecting somebody else's money, whether it's just interest or whatever, you've still swiped cash from somebody. And what if that person is some 20 something year old, how many times are they going to raise his retirement after you're fat and happy on your pension.
Oh no they don't pay into it... yeah well that sucks, get a job in the government and there you go, your money isn't being taken. Or again, move. Solves almost all of your problems, except the gun thing.

So yeah, what? That the freedoms weren't extended to everyone in the beginning is not an effective refutation of the freedoms themselves in the first place. It was the government that decided to whom they were applicable to.
So you argue for the freedoms, amendments, and rights as they are written today. If they changed the free speech shit tomorrow, what are you going to do? What if through these very stupid amendments you defend they turn it to the other side of the argument? I argue again, women's right to vote is a stupid, stupid right. What right is there, if there is no government. Women everywhere, CONGRATULATIONS, you can now participate in the decision of how your country and your lives are governed, by the government that doesn't exist and thus has no candidates to vote for. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic, what a glorious step forward for human beings.

These things are ONLY THERE because of the government, you argue they should follow the amendments/rights/laws to the letter, unless it detracts from your argument; So what then when if they change it to state the time/place/manner are regulated, but not wholly stopped. You're still free to say I hate the government, you're all idiots and should be hit by buses, well within your rights to say it; The government just wants it there, then, how. If it was written that way to begin with, would that change your mind? What if it was amended 100 years ago?

Not necessarily democratic. More accurately, the representative process. U.S. is not a democracy.
And in the case of a revolution, who's the representative? The majority?

Bingo. Remember the state vs fed law a few paragraphs up? That's a good example. If you like more expansive gun control...my state, Illinois is the state for YOU. It has THE most restrictive gun laws. If you like "fun" gun laws, Texas (where I'm originally from) works among others.. Having a choice is something that can mitigate a lot of political discord in the U.S. Go to the state that fits your preferences.
I don't even care about guns laws, I just disagree with some notion that any weapon can or should be sold to anybody, that's absurd. And please, anywhere in america probably has more lenient gun laws than Canada, but I don't own a gun so I wouldn't know.

Why? I didn't say police and government officials shouldn't do anything when protesters turn into rioters.
Neither did rage, that's the point. You can't quote them as some end all argument when they don't even present both sides of something. Yeah boo-hoo, gun laws, pointless drug arrests, and protesters not being allowed everywhere 24/7. Following shitty rules made by idiots, what a horrendous age we live in, the same thing happens at every job everywhere. If everybody that listened to rage gave a shit beyond the bass line or a clever lyrics referencing shit from 50 years ago something drastic would actually fucking happen. Seeing as it hasn't, it isn't as apocalyptic as I'm led to believe.
Tom Morello is a hypocrite anyway, couldn't care less what that idiot says. Says it's wrong for police to use their rubber bullets and gas on protesters or rioters for "expressing their opinion", then turns around in the next sentence and says they should use them on government officials. Yeah, real peace loving stand up guy right there. "I disagree, you should be shot" Sounds pretty fucking familiar.
Absolutely, so how do you bust him for that murder before he does it?
Dunno, just give everybody a hair trigger and hope they hold true to the honor system. Guess that works.

Well...those bullet holes came from automatic weapons.....So maybe they should just make it extra illegal for me to buy one so those gang bangers wont have them.
Again, logic and maths. If they were more readily available, would there be moooooore or less of them in circulation? Would there be an increase in breaking and entering and then theft of these weapons? Or is everybody going to have to carry all their arms around them on various slings or in holsters. And I suppose the kids in the daycare should learn how to shoot, maybe fashion some sort of machine gun emplacement to cover the front hall when the baddies come.
There are shootings with the amount of guns on the streets now, so I suppose if there were more guns... there would be less shootings, because math is for squares and logic for dweebs. And neither should be accepted in society anymore.
They already have them. So, like drugs, banning shit does NOTHING to solve the issue.
And what effect does producing MORE and selling MORE do for the issue? Other than make MORE of it.
As for armor peircing rounds, meh. I can make my own out of standard ammo. Not as good as the real deal depleted uranium munitions, though. Besides, I don't need them to make it legal to own a full auto. Bump-firing from the shoulder is the same thing, and legal. Dumb ass government.
Well congratulations gunnery sergeant, when your band of ruff and tumble warriors runs low on the good ammo, you'll be able to make more! Your position is of high value and you'll be able to market your skills when anarchy reins and gangs run rampant. Fallout is a cool video game series and all, but I wouldn't want to live that way.

To turn it around, the school could hire me and a couple of other yahoos you'd probably consider just as dumb to goose-step around the place with our assualt rifles and shoot people that come within line-of-site of the day care, so as to prevent any potential shootings that might've happened if we hadn't been there, even though just a small percentage of passers by actually shoot the place. That's how daft I consider infringing on rights to prevent potential crime is.
You say I paint with a wide brush, everything you say sounds like some post apocalyptic hoedown; With miniguns strapped to the back of trucks and nobody leaving buildings without the threat of sniper fire or to be eaten. I didn't spend much time in the ghettos of chicago, but for fuck sakes, if it's that bad why doesn't the military roll in and shoot first. Since they have all the fun guns and shit.

That's basically what we have now : lots of guns, drugs, whores, and baseball. Except we don't have to pretend baseball doesn't exist. So yeah, why bother? Out all the funds that go into playing cat and mouse bullshit over prostitution and drug laws into something that can actually yeild results and improve our county.
You could stop paying shitty baseball "athletes" the billions of dollars, and do something more productive. And then there would be better sports on tv, like literally anything at all. Like CURLING .

[ilyushin]

Dizy83, on Wed Feb 22, 2012 09:08 AM, said:

Until they don't and it makes the government look inept. Too late.

You have to acknowledge the fact that other people do care if their property gets destroyed, and if they watch as their police, their government does fuck all to stop idiots from ruining shit. They'll be complaining as much as anybody complaining that their rights are being stepped on. I don't know why we're debating (perpetually agreeing with) police presence at protests. I'm not opposed to it.

They believe in policing homosexuals who live in their own neighborhoods, I find it hard to believe that there aren't any militant christians chomping at the bit to send kids to die for no reason. Or a bad reason. "They" do not believe in policing the gay and lesbian community. There is no "they". Christians are more diverse than any other faith. There are demoninations that support gay marraige, abortion, and other progessive positions, and some don't. Those that don't do so to varying degrees. Some are merely ambivalent and non-commital to one side, others are decidedly against...and of those that are against, some a diplomatic and merely state thier positions, others are militant. Try to find a theistic faith that is so varied in thier positions. You are vastly over simplifying the Christian population..but that's pretty typical, but it's certainly your right to do so.

My solution is to at least make an attempt at protecting your city, 20 blocks destroyed is less than 50, I did the math and everything. Comes up the same every time. These Great Infringements are due mostly to a logistical problem, no city has that many police to be at any protest at any time. I agree that protesters should have all the little propaganda they want, they'd never attempt to deceive anybody with incorrect or cherry picked statistics. But that isn't my main point, the police need to be there. And dictating when, where, and the manner of thier speech will protect 30 out of 50 city blocks. Or are we (again) talking about police presence, which I agree with?

Didn't those crafty potatoes change a bunch of their cities names' to stalingrad? And hitler sucked as a military strategist.
Rommel and Monstein didn't. Hitler should've stuck with PR and getting people pissed at Slavs, Jews, and every else that didn't have too many consecutive consenants in thier names.....although Slavs do that, too....and it didn't save them.

You'd ban air travel? And with your shoot first policies, they might be Fallschirmjager for all you know. I'd be shooting down Volksjagers. I was asking why I'd be shooting at planes. What planes would I be shooting at?

Yeah but what's going to keep them staying as one country? What's going to stop secession? You know people would be looking for that little haven of everybody thinks like me.
There's some fairly zealous people on every side, you start segregating them to whichever state they claim; Why would they just leave the heathens alone? That isn't even a stab at christians, other than my choice of words, but why wouldn't they. The real question is which state does westboro get? Well, if that should be avoided at all costs, then you and I need to petition for the U.S. and Canada to go back under the crown of England, then.

Unless you oppose gay marriage(for religious reasons, not the whole government thing) I wouldn't consider you the deeply christian type. You should...I don't know what you mean by oppose...if you're talking about prohibit it, I wouldn't prohibit it whatsoever...but that's the "government" thing. As for religious reasons, I don't agree with gay marriage. But what business is it of mine? What concern is it of mine? If people want to get married, then get married. It'll all get sorted out in the end regardless, and if I'm wrong about my theism then so be it.

And nobody requires piss tests for jobs; even if they fake it that's still fairly relevant. You can evade the point if you want, but a bunch of juiced up idiots in a factory is going to cause problems, put somebody baked out of his mind in most jobs and he's going to fuck up. Well, they don't require piss tests for welfare, but they do for jobs so people can pay taxes and pay that welfare. I wont evade the point. I'm not opposed to piss tests. A private firm should be able to require it if they want.

Nobody has their credit cards stolen, wouldn't have a reason to steal credit cards if there was none of that dirty money.

That does nothing to invalidate my point.

Would there be more or less of it if police made no seizures on substances? Or would people suddenly stop doing it, because it's only cool if it's illegal and nobody does it. What ever would those drug cartels do if they had no drug profits , probably kidnap, ransom, and murder more people. Oh no, they'd all be nice guys with real jobs, smoking doobs with the janitor.

I don't see drug-funded criminal cartels in Amsterdam. I'm not concerned with making there be more or less of "it". The same amount will exist regardless of it being legal or illegal. Trying to make less of it by banning it will fail. Already has. But will de-fund a lot of criminal organizations. That you're using the idea of keeping grugs illegal to keep these organizations from kidnapping, ransom, and murder by giving them, literally, something else to do is hilarious, Diz...I'm pretty sure you're yanking my chain now. Have you been reading what the cartels are doing now? Kidnapping, ransoming, beheading people, hanging thier heads from over-passes. That's with drugs illegal...

There are more than just the big books of fairy tales right? There is a wealth of information and history in books. I consider history to be fairly important, most of which... is written down. As do you. I see you left the constitution and declarations out of your smart assed examples; Burn 'em. Just parchments of.....hemp paper.

They assassinated a brown guy?! You know what I find interesting here, american citizens were probably outraged!! and then told ny state to ban mosques. And screamed and threatened other brownies that weren't even islamic for being in america. Faaaaaaaaaantastic.

All amusing racism aside, yeah so what. The government killed somebody, which they must have done before but they got caught doing it; then they lied to you. They've been lying for many hundreds of years. I didn't read half that article, but apparently there was mucho espionage and many treasons. But yeah, it's all sad. Then I guess we can agree to disagree on whether or not to care.

And yet you've done nothing to put an end to this. I voted...more people voted the other than the way I voted. Taxes are legal, and don't violate my rights. But interestingly enough, I am currently house shopping now to move out of Cook County (chciago)..moving by the end of June. You still live there see previous response., you still pay that money it's a legal tax. Stupid, but legal., you still follow the gun laws ............................yep. Move. I am...but look at your own argument about states authorities. You argued against giving a people a choice to live with laws that they agree with. Using that logic, that's tantamount to segregating the nation. Governments make shitty decisions, mine does all the time; It's yet to be so egregious that I feel compelled to bitch about it, and if it was so bad I'd be well on my way to Korea. The exchange rate on currency is laughably in my favor. I'm not motivated so much by shitty decisions. If I were dictator, I'd make terrible decisions, both objectively and subjectively. It's the blatant disregard for it's lawful limitations, while freely becoming more intrusive and consumptive of my resources, to the point of being illegal. Simply put, I can't do anything illegal. The government can. That is not the rule of law.

Nobody in the world follows the bible to the letter, not even any of the popes. Even if some may be frivolous or trivial matters, everybody who tries, fails. I am familiar with the concept of depravity. No one can be without sin entirely....in my archaic mysticism.

The Care Bears, for one.So sarcasm being the effect of none here? What?
Sarcastic deflection, with no example of who is better. No, not none. Anyone, albeit doing no worse. Can't be done.

Hardly an outrageous claim, but I think this is where war crimes come in, what with the whole american troopers walked in, saw weapons, killed everything, then asked questions. No, not if there is no war declared. If war is declared, then yes. Light 'em up, then ask questions. We and the Brits bombed the shit out of plenty of German cities full of unarmed civilians. Tons of civilians died in collateral damage of taking german cities in 1945. That's the way the cookie crumbles in war. It can't be totaly clean. That's why I think we should stop "military actions" and only attack if there is a declaration of war. (which is pretty impossible short of another Pearl Harbor) And if a state of war is declared, all bets are off. Somebody wins, no terms. And when it's over, it's over. Last time we did that, Japan and (west) German ended up being U.S. allies with stalwart economies. Win. But if we keep doing these military actions but with donkey-dick parameters, more people will die in the long run because invading nation after nation will be no big deal.

Move, pack your family up and move away. Zoom zoom chicago has 2 airports doesn't it? They have hundreds of measures to make moving and living in other countries easier than it could be. What's really stopping you, you don't like many things that your government does, but you still pay them oodles and oodles of your money, you buy shit from them, giving them even more of your moneys. All you're really doing is supporting it, then complaining about it to a Canadian, at least at this moment.

Nope. I was disagreeing with circumventing the 5th amendment for an idiot so it can remain judicially intact for those who aren't stupid, nor guilty. The aforementioned Canadian is quite complicit in expanding the horizons of this convo. But I don't bitch about it. I disagree with it. I respond to those who question me about it.

It's funny, I wouldn't expect to see a "love it or leave it" mentality, found mostly in right-wing mindsets, coming from you. I'm pretty sure you'd be aghast if the U.S. took that attitude with gays and lesbians right to marry instead of willing to change laws for their judicial equality. So you propose freezing the endeavor to legalize gay marriage and support making the gay community in Chicago go to those two airports and move to a place where they can get married? For the gay community, they have a right to fight for change. I do not? They have the right to complain and change the laws where they live to suit them, but I have to move? I think that's more than just a little duplicitious, Diz. I make no such assertion that they should have to move in order to avoid judicial/legislative inequality. Why is it my chocies are put up or shut up, but others are not so limited?

I don't know the details of your pension or really care, but you aren't going to get just your money from your pension plan, if all that happened with a pension is you paid a bunch of money, then got it back... I mean, people are stupid but I doubt billions of people could be bamboozled into something so pointless so easily. You're going to be collecting somebody else's money, whether it's just interest or whatever, you've still swiped cash from somebody. And what if that person is some 20 something year old, how many times are they going to raise his retirement after you're fat and happy on your pension.
Oh no they don't pay into it... yeah well that sucks, get a job in the government and there you go, your money isn't being taken. Or again, move. Solves almost all of your problems, except the gun thing. Ditto gay marriage advocates? Or is moving only relagated to those like me? But yes, Social Security is baboozling hundreds of millions. (not billions, our population is just over 300 million) It, along with Medicare and Medicaid, is going bankrupt. They wont let it, they will take money from elsewhere to keep it propped up (essentially admitting that the SS contributions wont be enough, ergo social security is NOT self-sustained and therefore doesn't work)....eventually, the bill will come due. Look at Euro debt crisis. They're more fucked than the media lets on. Wanna know why? They're more indebted than the U.S. is.

So you argue for the freedoms, amendments, and rights as they are written today. No. If they changed the free speech shit tomorrow, what are you going to do? What if through these very stupid amendments you defend they turn it to the other side of the argument? I argue again, women's right to vote is a stupid, stupid right. What right is there, if there is no government. Women everywhere, CONGRATULATIONS, you can now participate in the decision of how your country and your lives are governed, by the government that doesn't exist and thus has no candidates to vote for. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic, what a glorious step forward for human beings. That's entirely nonesensical, or I'm truly an idiot. Let's simplify this and say the latter.

These things are ONLY THERE because of the government, you argue they should follow the amendments/rights/laws to the letter, unless it detracts from your argument; So what then when if they change it to state the time/place/manner are regulated, but not wholly stopped. You're still free to say I hate the government, you're all idiots and should be hit by buses, well within your rights to say it; The government just wants it there, then, how. If it was written that way to begin with, would that change your mind? What if it was amended 100 years ago? Then they need to amend the laws so that they aren't breaking it. What will I do then? I will vote for those who will be proactive in preserving them and bringing them back. Therein lies the rub. The idea is that any Congress or president that passes unpopular amendments will be voted out, and presidents and congresses that pass popular amendments will win, and will preserve or re-instate them. (see, prohibition) Make no mistake, I will move if I decide my freedoms are watered down to the point of being unworkable for me. But I'm not very good at put up or shut up....I guess that's one degree of similarity I have with those who act to change gay marriage laws.

Not necessarily democratic. More accurately, the representative process. U.S. is not a democracy.
And in the case of a revolution, who's the representative? The majority? Either that, or an incredibly proficient minority and apethetic, incompetent, or ambivalent majority. But I am not advocating secession or revolution currently. I believe we just need to wind the government back to it's constitutional restraints and let state governments have a try at doing what the federal government can't do with cookie-cutter laws and programs in one of the worlds most diverse populations.


I don't even care about guns laws, I just disagree with some notion that any weapon can or should be sold to anybody, that's absurd. And please, anywhere in america probably has more lenient gun laws than Canada, but I don't own a gun so I wouldn't know. Canada is more restrictive. So far, the only entities that have used chemical weapons, nulcear weapons, etc, are governments. Of course, we regular folks haven't had access to them, generally. But governments have shown a willingness to use them. It's not like anyone's safe because regular people can't have weapons. Do I think I should be able to go buy a SS18 Satan ICBM on ebay? No...so it's one of those "where do we draw the liens" issues. Full auto assault rifles? Sure. They're less dangerous in full auto than semi. Anyone with training will tell you spray n' pray is ineffective. When in combat, we only use full auto for surpressing....when we're shooting at a combatant, it's semi-auto, double tap center mass all day long. Full auto being a bigger "killer" is a myth...Don't believe everything you see in movies.


Absolutely, so how do you bust him for that murder before he does it?
Dunno, just give everybody a hair trigger and hope they hold true to the honor system. Guess that works.

Hella better than busting someone before they may or may not commit a crime. That's how it worked in the west in the 1800's....cats walkin' around with 6-shooters, everywhere. There was no holocuast among very widely armed citizenry....execpt of the native americans at the hands of our sometimes idiotic but well-meaning goverment.

Again, logic and maths. If they were more readily available, would there be moooooore or less of them in circulation? There would be no difference in the circulation among criminals. They already have them. The bullets are already there. The circulation would be higher among law abiding citizens, yes. So basically, it's be the same as far as the gun crime is concerned. Chicago's gun ban is proof that banning guns simple doesn't work, no matter how much we prefer it did.

Would there be an increase in breaking and entering and then theft of these weapons? Like someone willing to break into my house for a full auto AK47 isn't so willing if it's a semi-auto? Doubt it.

There are shootings with the amount of guns on the streets now, so I suppose if there were more guns... there would be less shootings, because math is for squares and logic for dweebs. And neither should be accepted in society anymore. Check your math, and read the whole article:

http://www.huffingto...e_n_627773.html

Chicago police statistics show that Chicago gun violence and gun murders went UP AFTER THE GUN BAN....28 years. Not a blip.

And what effect does producing MORE and selling MORE do for the issue? Other than make MORE of it. Nothing. If there's a demand for it, it will be produced and demand will be met, regardless of the law. It's daft to think otherwise. The only difference is, we do want criminal organizations to do it and make money from it, or legitimate, job-producing and tax-paying enterprise to do it. Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam. So's dope and herion, etc. Big deal. It exists and people who want it, get it regardless of what the government has to say about it. If you believe it's worthwhile to sink hundreds of billions to barely put a dent in it while it grows in total market value, making it a perpetually losing war, ok fine. Think that. I disagree. No biggie.

Well congratulations gunnery sergeant, when your band of ruff and tumble warriors runs low on the good ammo, you'll be able to make more! Your position is of high value and you'll be able to market your skills when anarchy reins and gangs run rampant. Fallout is a cool video game series and all, but I wouldn't want to live that way. I don't either....but if it happens, it's not like you'll have a choice. Fallout was great. Only played the first one, though.

You say I paint with a wide brush, everything you say sounds like some post apocalyptic hoedown; With miniguns strapped to the back of trucks and nobody leaving buildings without the threat of sniper fire or to be eaten. I didn't spend much time in the ghettos of chicago, but for fuck sakes, if it's that bad why doesn't the military roll in and shoot first. Since they have all the fun guns and shit. I was being sarcastic. I, uh, don't really propose the goose-stepping, machine gun toting merc brigade moping around the daycare. About 90% of what you're attributing to me isn't remotely close to accurate nor said by me. Saying that law-abiding citizens should be able to own firearms doesn't correlate with me promoting putting GE mini-guns on the back of my car. But, ok. As for how bad Chicago is....

You could stop paying shitty baseball "athletes" the billions of dollars, and do something more productive. And then there would be better sports on tv, like literally anything at all. Like CURLING .

I'd agree with you, but baseball paid for my college education. Curing wouldn't have. Pro ball players are paid way too much. But that's what happens anytime unions get involved.

If you really think gun crime should be curbed, as I do, consider this:


When the chicago gun ban was overturned, Mayor Daley said "Why don't we just go back to the Old West" and settle it in the street:


http://articles.chic...s-narrow-ruling


But what really happened (which the media COMPLETELY ignores) with gun crime in Chicago AFTER the ban was lifted in summer of 2009:



Murder, Aggrevated Assault and Battery are all down double digit percentages...you know, the kinds of crimes that guns are actually used in. Immediately after the gun ban. Mayor Daley, a huge supporter of the gun ban, said it would be mayhem and murder in the streets because, according MATH, and LOGIC (that is what you were using in your argument, right?) more guns on the streets means more violence!


There are more guns on the streets now....but what isn't really understood by some is that the only difference is law-abiding citizens have them...the number of criminals possessing them is unchanged...didn't go up or down. The ban is irrelevant on criminally owned firearms. But now, the criminals, whether we arrogantly scoff at the Old West mentality or not, have to consider the possibility that the guy they're gonna jack just might put two in thier sternum before they can tilt thier peice sideways and spout off 8-9 rounds (missing because that's not a good way to shoot, silly gangstas) before they actually hit him.


I didn't do very well in math in HS or college. I took the required minimum, and was a C student. I concede that much. But that the insane concept of legal gun ownership being introduced in chicago saw an immediate drop of 13%-14% in violent crime shows that my math works better than gun ban math.

[Shakeyman]

ilyushin, on Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:57 PM, said:

If you really think gun crime should be curbed, as I do, consider this:


When the chicago gun ban was overturned, Mayor Daley said "Why don't we just go back to the Old West" and settle it in the street:


http://articles.chic...s-narrow-ruling


But what really happened (which the media COMPLETELY ignores) with gun crime in Chicago AFTER the ban was lifted in summer of 2009:



Murder, Aggrevated Assault and Battery are all down double digit percentages...you know, the kinds of crimes that guns are actually used in. Immediately after the gun ban. Mayor Daley, a huge supporter of the gun ban, said it would be mayhem and murder in the streets because, according MATH, and LOGIC (that is what you were using in your argument, right?) more guns on the streets means more violence!


There are more guns on the streets now....but what isn't really understood by some is that the only difference is law-abiding citizens have them...the number of criminals possessing them is unchanged...didn't go up or down. The ban is irrelevant on criminally owned firearms. But now, the criminals, whether we arrogantly scoff at the Old West mentality or not, have to consider the possibility that the guy they're gonna jack just might put two in thier sternum before they can tilt thier peice sideways and spout off 8-9 rounds (missing because that's not a good way to shoot, silly gangstas) before they actually hit him.


I didn't do very well in math in HS or college. I took the required minimum, and was a C student. I concede that much. But that the insane concept of legal gun ownership being introduced in chicago saw an immediate drop of 13%-14% in violent crime shows that my math works better than gun ban math.

I have a general media knowledge of the Chicago gun ban. I didnt even know you could ban certain citizens from owning guns (in TX felons cannot own guns). But your argument is based on a statistical assumption that the drop in crimes committed during the ban is wrong because the statistics are decieving and scewed. It doesnt tell you the 2009 stats. Also, it does not tell you if the crimes commited such as the ones listed under murder were killings directly associated with guns. It also does not tell you of any other types of murders such as murders committed with knives or any other type of violence that could result in a murder. The gun ban could have actually resulted in an increase of murders. Additionally, you cannot say with any certainty whatsoever that the number of criminals possessing fire arms has not changed or that any of the murders listed in the chart were committed by known criminals or by law-abiding citizens that just fucked up and killed someone. Also the possibility of a criminal getting shot down by a private citizen has always been a consequence of being a criminal in the first place.

I have always been suspiscious of charts trying to prove points based on their own findings. Math and Logic are one in the same - take it from me - I have a BS in Mathematical Science and a Law Degree.

And I got screwed in my divorce - go figure!?!!