Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 09-11-2009, 03:23 PM
Kardas the Great's Avatar
Kardas the Great Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wikipedia it! ^_^
Posts: 288
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayotui View Post
yeah but they have to carry guns so that they are at par with the rest of the people. in other countries where guns arent allowed cops dont carry guns (that includes special services).
What the governments in those countries are trying to do is prevent an arms race. If the cops carry guns, criminals will need to carry bigger weapons if they want to support that "lifestyle." Then the cops will need bigger guns...uh, soon they will be in trenches throwing grenades at each other! :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
I highly support the idea of bringing guns... practically anywhere. I'm not an enemy of Obama nor the United States of America. A lot of people don't understand that the second amendment has reason. It's actually the most important one. Without arms, we can't defend ourselves, just like Obama apparently can't give a good speech without teleprompters. No offense to him.


Us without arms equals a non-democratic government. Wait... could that be a sign of socialism, making the common people all equal, while the government is allowed to have power? Sounds like socialism to me.

Take away that second amendment, we're not America anymore, people. Guns aren't bad, neither are cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, or even modern technology. It's the person possessing those things that shifts the line between good and bad.
The problem is, the law doesn't allow us to defend ourselves. Lets say someone breaks into my house. OK, I have a pistol and shoot him in the foot twice so he can't get away before the police arrive. soon I'm on the news because he can't walk and is suing me for all I gotz! That is what US law allows unfortunately, that if you are attacked, but you overwhelm the attacker, you get the blunt of the punishment! :(

Well, in some states you CAN get arrested for possession, but not in most...stupid loop holes...

The USA doesn't give a $#!* what you do to yourself, that's your business (coincidentally what this country was founded on too! :P). But if what your doing is endangering the American people, then it's a problem. At least 200,000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand smoke at work. 15,387 die annually from drunk driving.

"Data collected from male arrestees in 1998 in 35 cities showed that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged from 42.5 percent in Anchorage, Alaska, to 78.7 percent in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Female arrestees testing positive ranged from 33.3 percent in Laredo, Texas, to 82.1 percent in New York, New York."

That quote shows the percentages of crimes that involved drugs. Can you see the pattern?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
In truth, there's very little the SS can do to protect the president from a good and determined shooter...
The SS does a complete security walk trough, making a sniper unlikely. BUT, considering Obama Being the first black president, I wouldn't doubt that his life is at risk. Unfortunately, this country still has some radical racists... :(
__________________


Yay! you found the hidden text! Here's a cookie! ^^

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-11-2009, 11:16 PM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
What the governments in those countries are trying to do is prevent an arms race. If the cops carry guns, criminals will need to carry bigger weapons if they want to support that "lifestyle." Then the cops will need bigger guns...uh, soon they will be in trenches throwing grenades at each other! :P



The problem is, the law doesn't allow us to defend ourselves. Lets say someone breaks into my house. OK, I have a pistol and shoot him in the foot twice so he can't get away before the police arrive. soon I'm on the news because he can't walk and is suing me for all I gotz! That is what US law allows unfortunately, that if you are attacked, but you overwhelm the attacker, you get the blunt of the punishment! :(

Well, in some states you CAN get arrested for possession, but not in most...stupid loop holes...

The USA doesn't give a $#!* what you do to yourself, that's your business (coincidentally what this country was founded on too! :P). But if what your doing is endangering the American people, then it's a problem. At least 200,000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand smoke at work. 15,387 die annually from drunk driving.

"Data collected from male arrestees in 1998 in 35 cities showed that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged from 42.5 percent in Anchorage, Alaska, to 78.7 percent in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Female arrestees testing positive ranged from 33.3 percent in Laredo, Texas, to 82.1 percent in New York, New York."

That quote shows the percentages of crimes that involved drugs. Can you see the pattern?



The SS does a complete security walk trough, making a sniper unlikely. BUT, considering Obama Being the first black president, I wouldn't doubt that his life is at risk. Unfortunately, this country still has some radical racists... :(
Dude, if a guy breaks into your house and you blow his damn foot off, he can't sue because he was at fault for breaking into your house anyway. That's just self-defense - you can't be faulted for it.

Also, those "loop holes" occur because intrastate commerce is always regulated by the states themselves, whereas Congress can control interstate commerce so much as to only benefit the "general welfare" of the country. If more power was bestowed upon Congress, we'd gradually digress into disputes about the same ideas that provoked the Civil War. If you look at the Heart of Alabama Motel v. United States (I think it was Alabama...), it was only found that the motel was encroaching upon the "general" welfare of commerce because it was located near interstate highways, and 75% of their customers came from out of state. As African Americans were generally very mobile at the time (1960s), the motel's discrimination against them was considered to be a threat to interstate commerce, as they would discourage African American travel and compromise the "general welfare" of the states. In this case, each state is entitled to their specific laws on guns because gun regulations do not particularly encroach upon interstate commerce.
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-12-2009, 01:46 PM
Kardas the Great's Avatar
Kardas the Great Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wikipedia it! ^_^
Posts: 288
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarago View Post
Dude, if a guy breaks into your house and you blow his damn foot off, he can't sue because he was at fault for breaking into your house anyway. That's just self-defense - you can't be faulted for it.

Also, those "loop holes" occur because intrastate commerce is always regulated by the states themselves, whereas Congress can control interstate commerce so much as to only benefit the "general welfare" of the country. If more power was bestowed upon Congress, we'd gradually digress into disputes about the same ideas that provoked the Civil War. If you look at the Heart of Alabama Motel v. United States (I think it was Alabama...), it was only found that the motel was encroaching upon the "general" welfare of commerce because it was located near interstate highways, and 75% of their customers came from out of state. As African Americans were generally very mobile at the time (1960s), the motel's discrimination against them was considered to be a threat to interstate commerce, as they would discourage African American travel and compromise the "general welfare" of the states. In this case, each state is entitled to their specific laws on guns because gun regulations do not particularly encroach upon interstate commerce.
This might be of interest to you :3

Link
__________________


Yay! you found the hidden text! Here's a cookie! ^^

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-12-2009, 07:10 PM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
This might be of interest to you :3

Link
Dude, that case isn't even going to get a ruling. It'll just be thrown out, because the only defense that guy has is whatever BS his attorney makes up about his psychological status. However, that's a moot point because he robbed a store and threatened someone with a knife - the owner had every right to protect his store.
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:14 PM
Kardas the Great's Avatar
Kardas the Great Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wikipedia it! ^_^
Posts: 288
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Don't get me wrong, I believe what your saying should be true, it just isn't >50% of the time. It disgusts me as much as it disgusts you. Let me see if I can find some other cases.

Edit 1: link

Edit 2: Different link

Edit 3: People can also sue for "unnecessary force." Bull$#*!. Link one, this is a bit different as to what I'm saying, but it has the same premise. Each can easily be used as a loop hole.
__________________


Yay! you found the hidden text! Here's a cookie! ^^


Last edited by Kardas the Great; 09-12-2009 at 08:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:24 PM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
Don't get me wrong, I believe what your saying should be true, it just isn't >50% of the time. It disgusts me as much as it disgusts you. Let me see if I can find some other cases.

Edit 1: link
But that's England. Their legal system doesn't work the same way ours does. I understand that it strives to achieve the same goal, but the technicalities and loopholes are different.

Besides, both these cases have culminated in the claim that the original criminal is suffering psychologically. Neither of them have had an official ruling. My take on them is that they will not be taken seriously.
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2009, 08:28 PM
Kardas the Great's Avatar
Kardas the Great Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wikipedia it! ^_^
Posts: 288
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

If you take another look, I edited my post another 2 times. The 2nd edit is one where there was a ruling that was overturned. The third edit I'm getting some info on. Also, another point. Almost ANYTHING is possible with a good attorney.
__________________


Yay! you found the hidden text! Here's a cookie! ^^

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:02 PM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
If you take another look, I edited my post another 2 times. The 2nd edit is one where there was a ruling that was overturned. The third edit I'm getting some info on. Also, another point. Almost ANYTHING is possible with a good attorney.
However, that was in Australia. Forgive me if I do not have sufficient knowledge of their legal system, but my original claim about one's right to defend himself/herself was based on the American legal system.
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:08 PM
Kardas the Great's Avatar
Kardas the Great Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wikipedia it! ^_^
Posts: 288
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
Don't get me wrong, I believe what your saying should be true, it just isn't >50% of the time. It disgusts me as much as it disgusts you. Let me see if I can find some other cases.

Edit 1: link

Edit 2: Different link

Edit 3: People can also sue for "unnecessary force." Bull$#*!. Link one, this is a bit different as to what I'm saying, but it has the same premise. Each can easily be used as a loop hole.
Just so you can see the last link. To summarize my point, I believe that criminals and robbers should get less rights and loop holes available to them. You should have the right to defend yourself, but yet you do have to fear that the person will take you to court for "unnecessary force" and other technicalities. But I have to thank you for fighting this out, I did learn that the law for defending yourself is less worse then I thought it was.
__________________


Yay! you found the hidden text! Here's a cookie! ^^

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:23 PM
Hypocrisy is Fun Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,852
Send a message via AIM to Hypocrisy is Fun
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

You should feel safest around the president when armed citizens are nearby.

Everywhere the president goes, snipers are positioned ontop of buildings. I'll bet you anything that when these guys with guns are anywhere near the president, sharpshooters have their crosshairs inbetween their eyes. The moment they try anything suspicious, they'll be shot at.

It's legal, and they're doing it for a cause. (I don't know/care enough to support it/not support it, but a cause is a cause) They've been holding up signs that reference the Tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-12-2009, 09:26 PM
-Holland-'s Avatar
-Holland- Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posts: 2,494
Send a message via AIM to -Holland- Send a message via MSN to -Holland- Send a message via Yahoo to -Holland-
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardas the Great View Post
Just so you can see the last link. To summarize my point, I believe that criminals and robbers should get less rights and loop holes available to them. You should have the right to defend yourself, but yet you do have to fear that the person will take you to court for "unnecessary force" and other technicalities. But I have to thank you for fighting this out, I did learn that the law for defending yourself is less worse then I thought it was.
I agree that severely injuring someone to the point of immobility or even death is a little much for robbery, but as people are entitled to self-defense, I think that morality can be stretched to blame only who was first at fault. It's not so much that we should follow a legal system in which we only fault those who first committed crimes, but in terms of self-defense, that should be the priority. Thus, I do agree with you that criminals should have less rights - perhaps they should not be able to sue because they violated the law anyway, but based on their testimonial of the incident, then the person who defended himself/herself against that criminal should be inquired if the criminal's injuries were somewhat unnecessarily severe.

And, yeah, no problem. A reasonable discussion is always nice.
__________________
4 8 15 16 23 42

My Battle Log
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-12-2009, 10:20 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Guns at Presidential Events... wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Us without arms equals a non-democratic government. Wait... could that be a sign of socialism, making the common people all equal, while the government is allowed to have power? Sounds like socialism to me.
How is not having guns equating to socialism? Might I point out gun bans/heavy restrictions in pretty much every democratic country outside of America?

What's wrong with "common people" being equal anyways? In a completely democratic society, all people are equal under the circumstance that each and every one of their voices are heard through their votes. The idea of the right to vote equates all people specifically because each vote counts exactly as one vote. Having unequal power in a democracy in the sense that a number of groups that are not heard via their votes would equal to oppression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Requiem of Verities View Post
Take away that second amendment, we're not America anymore, people. Guns aren't bad, neither are cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, or even modern technology. It's the person possessing those things that shifts the line between good and bad.
I disagree that guns aren't bad. Guns are weapons. There is no doubt that weapons serve only one purpose: to cause harm. Do not confuse this with situational events, such as self-defense, as the purpose of a weapon will not change even under the situational circumstances. That is, even in self defense you are causing harm. Weapons are intrinsically maleficent; a person using such an item will always cause harm.

Cigarettes and illegal drugs are also intrinsically bad, as the use of them cause harm to the user, even though the initial interaction may be that of euphoria. Again, these items are intrinsically maleficent. A person using either item will always cause harm.

The only two that have benefits are alcohol and modern technology. These you can say aren't intrinsically bad, although alcohol is one of those cases that may be intrinsically bad as well, despite the health benefits of moderate consumption. Here you can see gray area in use (like my alcohol example).
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com