|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 22:58:50 GMT -5
Why can we only have one or the other? Why can't we have both? So it's ok to spy on citizens if it is under the guise of fighting crime or stopping terror? Guy tweeted something racist, he was arrested and thrown in jail. But they aren't doing anything wrong, right? news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57405599-71/british-man-jailed-for-racist-tweet/Hating someone should not be illegal. Racism is terrible but someone who is racist should not be jailed for their opinions. "after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred." Key words: inciting racial hatred. Yes, that should be illegal. That's where the US and the UK differ. There's a difference between having an opinion and being an abusive racist who is trying to hurt others. And yes, cameras should be allowed in certain circumstances. Again, it all comes down to conspiracy theories about the government being out to get people. There's no basis in fact. Should a shopkeeper not have the right to protect his store by installing cameras to catch thieves then? Since "if not all is okay, then nothing is okay", right? Inciting racial hatred is just code for someone being a racist. The UK jails people for their opinion. No one should be jailed for their opinion, no matter how terrible it is. Oh no, someone got their feelings hurt. Better jail the person who did that. Bunch of babies. A business owner can install cameras. If you don't like it then don't shop there. If the government does it, you can't avoid it (unless you never leave your house). Why should their tax dollars go to spying on them especially when they've done nothing wrong. I know the argument is that if they have nothing to hide they shouldn't be worried. But we shouldn't have to put up with that. We shouldn't be spied on. Innocent until proven guilty but with the cameras and other spying it is guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 23:01:03 GMT -5
The US has veto power over the UN. We could just say no to any action they would take. It's how no action has been taken on Syria because Russia has vetoed it along the way. But stopping the government from becoming tyrannical is one of the reasons we have the second amendment. Jefferson said so himself. So these theories are well within the realm of possibility. Just because Jefferson said it, means nothing. What makes Jefferson any more knowledgeable than anybody else in predicting the future? He isn't. It's a moot point. As for America disregarding the UN, okay fine. What's to stop the UN from ignoring America though? Just because America veto something doesn't mean the UN have to stop. Just like how just because there's a constitution doesn't mean the US government can't just rip that up and do whatever they want, right? Since we all know the US government is out to get everyone.... I'm talking about why the second amendment was created. He'd have some incite as to why it was created. So yes, it's a very vaild point. Because we fund the UN. They would miss out on huge sums of money and would not have a HQ because we'd kick them out of New York. I am not saying the government is out to get everyone. I'm saying we shouldn't be unprepared should they become out to get everyone.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 23:03:20 GMT -5
LA riots were 20 years ago. Business owners defended their property with guns. Businesses that were not protected got ransacked and set on fire.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 23:12:32 GMT -5
"after being found guilty of inciting racial hatred." Key words: inciting racial hatred. Yes, that should be illegal. That's where the US and the UK differ. There's a difference between having an opinion and being an abusive racist who is trying to hurt others. And yes, cameras should be allowed in certain circumstances. Again, it all comes down to conspiracy theories about the government being out to get people. There's no basis in fact. Should a shopkeeper not have the right to protect his store by installing cameras to catch thieves then? Since "if not all is okay, then nothing is okay", right? Inciting racial hatred is just code for someone being a racist. The UK jails people for their opinion. No one should be jailed for their opinion, no matter how terrible it is. Oh no, someone got their feelings hurt. Better jail the person who did that. Bunch of babies. A business owner can install cameras. If you don't like it then don't shop there. If the government does it, you can't avoid it (unless you never leave your house). Why should their tax dollars go to spying on them especially when they've done nothing wrong. I know the argument is that if they have nothing to hide they shouldn't be worried. But we shouldn't have to put up with that. We shouldn't be spied on. Innocent until proven guilty but with the cameras and other spying it is guilty until proven innocent. So, if I send you homophobic insults through PM, it's okay because it's just my opinion? Okay, buddy. Maybe I'll remember that Oh no, some poor Americans won't have their precious guns. Poor things. AKA a bunch of babies I'd rather live in a country where people get jailed for being racists than a country where there's a school shooting every week and there's a bunch of gun nuts running around spouting a bunch of conspiracy theories. Maybe if I'm presented some facts, I'll re-enter this thread. Until then, it's just going around in circles. Goodbye. EDIT: Also, the UN wouldn't have a problem finding another building if they were kicked out of New York. There's a recession y'know, plenty of vacancies.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 23:18:10 GMT -5
Inciting racial hatred is just code for someone being a racist. The UK jails people for their opinion. No one should be jailed for their opinion, no matter how terrible it is. Oh no, someone got their feelings hurt. Better jail the person who did that. Bunch of babies. A business owner can install cameras. If you don't like it then don't shop there. If the government does it, you can't avoid it (unless you never leave your house). Why should their tax dollars go to spying on them especially when they've done nothing wrong. I know the argument is that if they have nothing to hide they shouldn't be worried. But we shouldn't have to put up with that. We shouldn't be spied on. Innocent until proven guilty but with the cameras and other spying it is guilty until proven innocent. So, if I send you homophobic insults through PM, it's okay because it's just my opinion? Okay, buddy. Maybe I'll remember that Oh no, some poor Americans won't have their precious guns. Poor things. AKA a bunch of babies I'd rather live in a country where people get jailed for being racists than a country where there's a school shooting every week and there's a bunch of gun nuts running around spouting a bunch of conspiracy theories. Maybe if I'm presented some facts, I'll re-enter this thread. Until then, it's just going around in circles. Goodbye. You shouldn't go to jail over it. If a website feels a user is being racist or homophobic and it goes against their TOS, they can terminate the account. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government then stepping in and jailing a person because of it. One has a right to a gun, one does not have a right to not be offended. Because conspiracy theories are only spouted by "gun nuts". No one in the UK believes in any conspiracy theory. What facts are you presenting?
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 4, 2013 23:19:28 GMT -5
So, ProBoards are against freedom of expression?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 23:23:16 GMT -5
So, ProBoards are against freedom of expression? The rights enshrined in the Constitution only apply to government. Meaning things like government cannot stop free speech. A private business can. The government cannot encroach on your right to own a gun. A private business can tell you guns are not allowed inside their property. You know why? Because you are not forced to go to those privates businesses. You can go elsewhere where they may allow guns or allow free speech. You are forced to live with the government we have so government must follow the rules set for it and must protect our rights.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 4, 2013 23:34:06 GMT -5
so much for the assault weapon defense. this article has endless gun facts with the citings for it's sources every step of the way: m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check it's sad, americans seem to be more concerned with their own personal 'freedoms' than the damage those said freedoms are blatantly causing to them as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 4, 2013 23:57:22 GMT -5
Illinois, for instance, is proposing confiscation. Assault weapons have been banned since the 30s. The ones they call assault weapons now are not true assault weapons. The only difference between a non-assault weapon and what they call an assault weapon is an extra grip. States with high gun ownership also have lower violent crime rates. "Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those who do not believe most people can be trusted, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage." So out of 6 categories, they focus on one. Owning a gun is not going to make you gesture obscenely or not. Those with a gun license are more likely to threaten someone with a gun? Wow. What investigative work they did. I bet angry people with butcher knives are more likely to threaten you with a butcher knife than those who don't carry butcher knives. You mean more criminals are being killed by the people they try to harm than in states without laws allowing it? Shocked. Their source that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings is their own website. That's hilarious. That means that shootings at an ER are 4 out of 5 times not with a gun taken from a guard. I always hate people who use those kind of statistics. "You are 20% likely to do A." Uh, that means you are 80% not likely to do A. I can't see much of the study about kids and unlocked firearms because I have to purchase a subscription to do so. It doesn't state how many people were surveyed and where they were surveyed. The survey about 8-12 year old boys is a sample from a sample of those who. Again, it doesn't say how many or where. I love all these studies that focus on one city or one state or a couple hundred people and assume that it means it fits everyone. Maybe if the women had guns themselves they'd be able to take out their abusive boyfriend/husband. Not even going to argue point 8 because I don't believe video games cause violence at all. We do have more guns now than 20 years ago and our violent crime rate has been cut in half. They are making a point about how 40% of gun sales don't have background checks and they use a study done 20 years ago? How can you compare? Oh, they investigated 125 sellers, so that means every seller is like them. Right. No ATF administrator is not caused by the NRA like they are implying. It is caused by THE CONSTITUTION that says the Senate must approve nominees.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 5, 2013 0:23:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Feb 5, 2013 0:28:11 GMT -5
Because every study needs to be funded with tax payer dollars. Our tax dollars should not be going to different studies, doesn't matter what the subject. Guns, mating of fish in Montana or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Feb 6, 2013 9:04:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 6, 2013 13:25:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 6, 2013 13:35:15 GMT -5
That's all well and good, but what did that evil person use? A gun. What would he have done if he didn't have a gun? Probably use a baseball bat or something much easier to defend. As I said before, I'm not in favour of a gun ban per se. I just wish guns could magically disappear from the arms of civilians forever. I hate the way it's made out like they're some kind of wonderful magic lifesaver. They are a bad thing. Unfortunately, America has gotten into these bad habits of owning guns for hundreds of years now. It's too late to reverse the process.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 6, 2013 13:41:39 GMT -5
That's all well and good, but what did that evil person use? A gun. What would he have done if he didn't have a gun? Probably use a baseball bat or something much easier to defend. As I said before, I'm not in favour of a gun ban per se. I just wish guns could magically disappear from the arms of civilians forever. I hate the way it's made out like they're some kind of wonderful magic lifesaver. They are a bad thing. Unfortunately, America has gotten into these bad habits of owning guns for hundreds of years now. It's too late to reverse the process. But the debate is "if guns were illegal", not "if guns didn't exist".
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 6, 2013 13:48:26 GMT -5
I'm actually not even going to argue this topic anymore. I just posted that video because it's interesting to see someone who was actually involved in the incident that sparked this whole gun control BS have an opinion that's based off of more than "Guns are bad".
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 6, 2013 13:49:31 GMT -5
That's all well and good, but what did that evil person use? A gun. What would he have done if he didn't have a gun? Probably use a baseball bat or something much easier to defend. As I said before, I'm not in favour of a gun ban per se. I just wish guns could magically disappear from the arms of civilians forever. I hate the way it's made out like they're some kind of wonderful magic lifesaver. They are a bad thing. Unfortunately, America has gotten into these bad habits of owning guns for hundreds of years now. It's too late to reverse the process. But the debate is "if guns were illegal", not "if guns didn't exist". How about we ban bullets then? If you don't have any ammo, you can't use a gun. Ammo supplies will run out eventually. Of course a lot of people will find try and find a way around it, but the likelihood is it would drastically cut down the amount of gun-related deaths a year. Just throwing it out there.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 6, 2013 13:50:42 GMT -5
I'm actually not even going to argue this topic anymore. I just posted that video because it's interesting to see someone who was actually involved in the incident that sparked this whole gun control BS have an opinion that's based off of more than "Guns are bad". So what if he was involved with the incident? What about all the other victims? Not to mention, being a victim of gun crime doesn't make you an expert on guns, nor does it mean your opinion is more important than others.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Feb 6, 2013 13:55:01 GMT -5
I'm actually not even going to argue this topic anymore. I just posted that video because it's interesting to see someone who was actually involved in the incident that sparked this whole gun control BS have an opinion that's based off of more than "Guns are bad". So what if he was involved with the incident? What about all the other victims? Not to mention, being a victim of gun crime doesn't make you an expert on guns, nor does it mean your opinion is more important than others. I never said it was. Stop assuming things. I just said it was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 6, 2013 13:57:34 GMT -5
So what if he was involved with the incident? What about all the other victims? Not to mention, being a victim of gun crime doesn't make you an expert on guns, nor does it mean your opinion is more important than others. I never said it was. Stop assuming things. I just said it was interesting. Okay fine, I apologise for assuming things. However.... You didn't exactly help matters by saying gun control was BS and accusing anyone who isn't a gun nut of only having an argument consisting of "Guns are bad".
|
|