Originally posted by Surtur
That is the point though, why can a botched investigation lead to someone not even being charged? Since a botched investigation wouldn't necessarily mean there is no evidence. It could mean something as little as the cop didn't follow proper procedure for something. Why do we not say "this person shouldn't not be charged because someone messed up" ?
Due process is there to protect people, it can unfortunately help scumbags if the police make an honest mistake or like in the OJ case, purposely mess with evidence when they didn't need to.
So you take the bad that comes along with the greater good.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It does not work because the criminals cannot drive down the street and buy guns because they are criminals.Gotcha👆
Correction: Gun free zones don't work because of the extreme ease of buying a gun in America. I could easily buy several guns using the Brady law loophole and then enter a gun free zone.
Okay so, the gun control debate in America.
Does anyone here have specific thoughts on it (and the problem of mass shootings/gun crime)?
I mean an amendment to your constitution is obviously of legal importance, but the fact that less guns = less gun crimes is pretty much a immutable fact. I mean here (UK) and Europe/Australia etc there is very very very strict gun control and as such gun crime is relatively low, at least when compared to the US.
Now obviously the idea of complete gun control we have here doesn't quite work in the US for a number of reasons, 2nd Amendment and the ubiquity of firearms being the main two.
The debate about Chicago's gun control is part of the ubiquity debate: gun control laws are state level rather than federal level in the US so that's a big difference to Europe etc. And as such guns can and will easily move over state borders.
I'm just wondering what Americans think is a good solution- obviously it's a huge debate for you guys and it's interesting to know what actual people think is the solution in regards to the abuse of the second amendment...
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Just reading this thread alone, it seems that even Americans have different interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment means to them.
It seems righteous for one cause but taken out of context for another depending on if you're a White American or a Black American.
I figured you and Kaz would be over here guns blazing the new frontier, with Riv as your butler.
Originally posted by AlmightyKfish
Okay so, the gun control debate in America.Does anyone here have specific thoughts on it (and the problem of mass shootings/gun crime)?
I mean an amendment to your constitution is obviously of legal importance, but the fact that less guns = less gun crimes is pretty much a immutable fact. I mean here (UK) and Europe/Australia etc there is very very very strict gun control and as such gun crime is relatively low, at least when compared to the US.
Now obviously the idea of complete gun control we have here doesn't quite work in the US for a number of reasons, 2nd Amendment and the ubiquity of firearms being the main two.
The debate about Chicago's gun control is part of the ubiquity debate: gun control laws are state level rather than federal level in the US so that's a big difference to Europe etc. And as such guns can and will easily move over state borders.
I'm just wondering what Americans think is a good solution- obviously it's a huge debate for you guys and it's interesting to know what actual people think is the solution in regards to the abuse of the second amendment...
"Immutable fact", my ass. Tell that to the tens of millions of people who were effortlessly slaughtered by their own governments in countries like Germany, Russia, China, and many others after they had their guns taken away. Tell that to the hundreds of innocent people who were slaughtered in Paris recently like lambs to the slaughter because they were all defenseless. Oh wait... you can't can you? They're all already dead.
Bottom line is that our right to bear arms protects all of our other rights. It's not just for self-defense against criminals and terrorists but also for an out-of-control government. Without our right to bear arms the Constitution might as well be torn up because if you can't defend your rights then you don't really have any. Our founding fathers understood this well. I'm not going to get into another drawn-out debate over gun control (especially not with a foreigner who doesn't understand how important our rights are to us here in America) because that's not the topic of thread and I've said pretty much all I need to say in the thread in link below:
Germans loved Hitler. He said he would get rid of the Treaty of Versailles. He did. He said he would end unemployment. He did that to. He said he would end democracy. He didn't try and hide it, he bold face said democracy was making Germany weak. Considering how crippled the Wiemar Republic was, it wasn't hard to convince people democracy wasn't working.
Hitler didn't need to take away guns to gain power.
Originally posted by Star428
"Immutable fact", my ass. Tell that to the tens of millions of people who were effortlessly slaughtered by their own governments in countries like Germany, Russia, China, and many others after they had their guns taken away. Tell that to the hundreds of innocent people who were slaughtered in Paris recently like lambs to the slaughter because they were all defenseless. Oh wait... you can't can you? They're all already dead.Bottom line is that our right to bear arms protects all of our other rights. It's not just for self-defense against criminals and terrorists but also for an out-of-control government. Without our right to bear arms the Constitution might as well be torn up because if you can't defend your rights then you don't really have any. Our founding fathers understood this well. I'm not going to get into another drawn-out debate over gun control (especially not with a foreigner who doesn't understand how important our rights are to us here in America) because that's not the topic of thread and I've said pretty much all I need to say in the thread in link below:
Okay then.
A) F**k off with your 'a foreigner' talk, among other things it's dismissive to someone who was actively engaging in talking to you about this issue; despite the fact I live in the UK, I'm able to follow current affairs and thus comment (and question) upon them. That kind of dismissive behaviour is exactly why people who debate within and without the US have issues with many of the people involved in the pro-gun debate who don't pay any mind to opinions other than themselves.
B) 'Germany, Russia and China'. So different in every way possible to the current US gun control debate. If you in any way think that the the lack of guns to the ordinary citizen in these states was relevant to the various atrocities over the 20th century that happened to them you are so very, very uninformed about reality and more important history.
C) Terrorist attacks happen and they're awful, but in no situation has it been proved that giving randoms guns which they are not trained in using would improve anything.
And finally, your right to bear arms is an amendment to your constitution, literally proving within itself that changes can be made. Much like how the 13th Amendment banned slavery despite the fact that there was nothing denying it in the initial Bill of Rights
Originally posted by Lucius
Germans loved Hitler. He said he would get rid of the Treaty of Versailles. He did. He said he would end unemployment. He did that to. He said he would end democracy. He didn't try and hide it, he bold face said democracy was making Germany weak. Considering how crippled the Wiemar Republic was, it wasn't hard to convince people democracy wasn't working.Hitler didn't need to take away guns to gain power.
Why do Hitler and Obama have so much in common?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why do Hitler and Obama have so much in common?
In other worse, these are subsidized people complaining they aren't getting enough stuff from the government.
One isn't really a marine, another claims to be an Army Ranger but wasn't.
The Army Rangers, traditionally, do *not* like people claiming to be them 🙂
“A lot of our research on these guys turns up evidence that they usually fail at their military careers and for some reason they like to get back in the camo and strut around with devices and awards they didn’t earn,” said Jonn Lilyea, one of the moderators for This Ain’t Hell, a veteran watchdog site. “Especially if they can openly carry their guns, too.”
So basically we got some Stolen Valor losers involved in this.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea they took over some park building out in the wilderness, I love how people act like this is remotely as disturbing as BLM. People here are just stupid.
BLM? You mean the one that regularly have peaceful, unarmed, protests (Mall of America, no violence, no guns, riot police get called on them... ) and can point to crime statistics showing black people are killed by police 3:1 over white people nationally? (and do not have 3x the crime, and that's just national average, some areas are notably worse)
It's sad you think that's disturbing. Those are people with a real, demonstrable point that definitely exists, who aren't threatening violence.
These are people who were getting an easy deal, decided they wanted more, and thought the best answer was to take someone else's property with guns, indefinitely, and threaten to shoot people who kick them out of a building that isn't theirs.
"These terrorists in the woods out in the middle of no where are causing so much drama!"Funny enough the feds have not done anything😂
Because when there's a lot of people with guns threatening to shoot people, you want to deal with it without violence if possible.
Heck, this is exactly what BLM wants: To be treated by the authorities the same way this bunch is being treated, like the authorities *don't* want a gunfight.