SkyDekker

And those same parents would probably have a different view of things when their kids start slapping them around when they do something stupid at an advanced age. People often say the elderly start behaving like children. Why then can we not slap them around a bit?

Work a little harder and you don't have to go to WalMart. How is it anybody's fault you are too lazy to get off your ass and work harder so you can afford something above WalMart?

I don't disagree with this, but don't see it as a reason not to legalize it. Even after legalization there will be a sebset which will continue without following regulations and laws. This illegal subset will continue to have other criminal elements and associations. However, completely banning it has not done anything to combat the criminal element. Should it be legalized, there is an option for both prostitutes and john's to work in a regulated and legal industry. It would allow Law Enforcement to truly focus on the criminal underbelly of prostitution and related crimes.

I thought the original post just forgot the smiley's and he was trying to make a point by posting a Devil's Advocate position..... I didn't think a lot of the crowd would see that so went to get some popcorn..... I still think so. This.

Yup, and their verification is so good that 5.2% of respondents indicated they are not current or former/retired LEO.

Fair enough, but then how do you feel about lying fuckers who don't want to subvert constitutional rights?

So clearly prior to the Bill of Rights coming into effect, slaves and women had an inherrent right to free speech and the bearing of arms? Was it then the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that took these rights away from them, or did they just not have these rights to begin with? If they didn't have these rights to begin with, then how are they inherrent rights simply just confirmed in writing? you guys all like to talk like the southern states invented slavery and all things bad. Can we think a moment? Where did white Europeans learn about slavery? They encountered black slave owners in africa among other places who actually decided they could sell the Europeans some slaves to increase their productivity in the colonies. It wasn't just Americans. Pretty much all European nations used slaves at some point. Some European nations gave up on slavery before the states, but it still took decades after the civil war was lost before most if not all nations gave up on using slaves, and some nations still do. The states were by no means the worst perpetrators of the slave trade and considering how long ago it does, it certainly doesn't do your present day arguments a lot good trying to dredge up ghosts of slavery in the now. So, did they have the right to free speech and the right to bear arms? If not, then how can they be inherrent rights?

All I am trying to say is that when it comes to reports it is entirely normal to take into account who the writers are. Everybody has a bias and it will show through in most, if not all reporting. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest there is likely a fair bit of bias in a report written by Republicans on how a Democrat handled a situation. Might they be right on some points? Maybe, but I wouldn't be overly inclined to take it as gospel. There is no way of knowing what evidence was ignored, how stories were skewed etc.

How much time would you spend reading a physics lecture from the Flat Earth Society? Or maybe that lecture from the Westboro Church on "How to take the moral high ground"? I mean both might make some valid points.

So clearly prior to the Bill of Rights coming into effect, slaves and women had an inherrent right to free speech and the bearing of arms? Was it then the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that took these rights away from them, or did they just not have these rights to begin with? If they didn't have these rights to begin with, then how are they inherrent rights simply just confirmed in writing?

If you think passing more laws that criminals will just ignore will have any effect on gun related crime,, then you clearly don't understand the issue or you have very little experience understanding how criminals think. Has nothing to do with being arrogant. Has to do with just plain being wrong or naive. Take your choice. I don't think passing more laws is going to do anything. However, I do think that the easy availability of firearms is partly to blame for gun crime and (accidental) gun deaths. Firearms have become a big part of American culture and with it firearm use has become a relatively big part of American culture. With that comes positive and negative impact. For Americans it is hard to imagine that many outside of the US think it is odd to feel a need to walk around with a firearm. For many Americans it is hard to imagine that anybody would find the above odd. The US consitution has laid the groundwork for this culture. Yes it has granted a lot of protection on intrusions on free speech, unwarrented searches etc. However, it has also created a gun culture. A culture with inherent positives and negatives. Personally I believe that Canada's version of gun laws is a better option, however have no illusion that the US will ever get to that, or that there even is interest to get to that. (Though the gun registry was a horrible idea and implementation) It is unfortunate that the subject has denigrated into something that cannot be discussed. There might very well be very successful compromises to be made, which could reduce the prevalence and severity of gun crime. However, it would need all sides to compromise, soemthing that is just very unlikely in the current politcal climate.

Another one who drank the cool aid.

You mean the cool aid that says your guns are going to protect you from the government? Or the cool aid that says you live in the best country in the world? Or the cool aid that your flag is more important than any other flag. Or the cool aid that your form of government is superior to anything else. Any of that cool aid?

This +1

Then it doesn't work, cause it still happened. I further highly doubt that using a firearm would have worked in the favour of the home owner. So, if this is why the founding father's wrote the 2nd Amendment, they failed.

I don't remember saying anything about him getting run over by car...just said there is a picture floating around showing that large gash the previous poster was talking about. Don't see what the relevance is of what I ahve or haven't seen. Nor would you believe, whatever it is I would tell you I have or haven't seen, if it doesn't fit into what you already believe to be true.

Actually, Tamerlan ran out of ammo and got gang tackled by police who had gotten handcuffs on him while holding him down on the street when the younger brother hit the gas and headed straight for them. The officers dived out of the way and Tamerlan got run over, not only that, but also dragged for a block. That was the second story to be told. The other one was the first version. The two versions are widely divergent. The second one allows the govt to charge T-2 with T-1's murder. Just sayin'. Actually, I heard a doctor who examined the deceased stating that there was a massive injury across the chest which was not a gunshot. This made no sense until I later read the story about him being run over. There is a picture of the corpse floating around. That large wound is very visible and certainly doesn't appear to come from a gun shot.

Meh, not really. My Greek teacher once asked one of my classmates if her boyfriend's sperm had gone to her head when she failed to answer his question correctly.

Would have made no difference to my life, but it probably would have been much better for the cop's career. Like I said before, it was stupid decision making. He should have known there would be some serious "blow back", so why go down that road unless there is a significant incremental benefit? Symbolism is powerful, a cop should know that, many, if not most of them deal with it on a daily basis.

I am not going after any object lol, you can have as many guns as you can afford as far as I am concerned. However, to me it makes sense that you prohibit the sale of a firearm to a 10 year old, while not prohibiting the sale of pressure cookers to a 10 year old, based purely on the primary purpose of the object. I know, absolute sillyness. I am also okay with oher substances not being widely and easily available, just because they can do a lot of damage.

And maybe one needs to be American to understand that. I simply do not see being able to have free speech and being able to carry a gun around as equally important to the wellbeing of a society.

I'll contend that firearms, knives, bows and arrows, spears, etc etc etc were invented to help PEOPLE kill others (amongst many other applications) or that use was a 2ndary application if not primary. so ..... now that you have that position. what do you want to do with it to restrict the rights of citizens that don't have any inclination toward murder? it's a non-starter. You might try just as decisively "you know, dogs bark...therefore we need to tighten border security" Thank you. So with that in mind, I don't think it is unusual one would take a bit more precaution in dealing firearms than one would in dealing pressure cookers, even if both can be used for nefarious purposes Which goes back to the OP. That was a lot of huffing and puffing to get to a pretty simple truth and some simple logic.

I actually said the opposite. But let's not have facts stand in the way. It is silly to blindly believe that a person could not change his ideas in 220 years. Specially when the technology that fueled the idea has drastically changed. I also understand that to an American the idea of a founding father changing his mind is akin to a catholic being told there might not be a jesus.

Okay, so you can agree that the firearm was invented to kill then? And is it a strawman or a gross simplification, or are you just throwing terms out and hoping one will stick? And how is it either, when it is the simple truth? Firearms were invented to be used to kill living beings. And mate is not commonly used in Canadian English. But then Americans do tend to have problems with their geography. Just to help out, Australia and Canada aren't all that close together.

And what facts do you have of the tendency of a man to change his mind after 200 years? Oh, so you mean it is, like, your opinion? I thought you wanted to only stick to facts? Fact is: we don't know how a person would feel about his own ideals, thoughts and opinions 220 years later. Which is what I said in my first post.