|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 13:07:00 GMT -5
I came across the 10 deadliest school massacres
#1 took place in Japan.
Then I thought of dag riddick
Dag Riddick: you're trying to tell me that the worst massacre to ever occur at a school occurred in Japan... Come on Norway, we can do better than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 13:31:06 GMT -5
Gun licensing is required, and is heavily regulated by the National Police Agency of Japan. The weapons law begins by stating "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed. -Wikipedia Looks like we should definitely ban guns so that no one ever could ever possibly get them in America. Meanwhile, let's legalize illegal drugs because even though they're illegal, people still get them, and enforcing the law is expensive and such. Liberalism! Edit: I don't know how to add a quote box so I quoted your post but I guess I can't delete the part that says you said what I'm quoting, so the point is I want it to look like I'm quoting Wikipedia |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 13:58:40 GMT -5
No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in a safe a reasonable manner. And make sure that they're not selling to people who won't respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected.
As for legalizing illegal drugs. I suppose you're speaking of marijuana which has been proven to have several medicinal purposes and is not nearly as bad as cigarettes or alcohol as far as its effect on the human body.
Don't make gross generalizations. That's like me saying that all conservatives are racists which is far from true.
I'm all down for a meaningful and respectful conversation, my quote was directed at the character. Not the handler. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2016 14:09:07 GMT -5
No, I know you're fucking around, and so am I!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 14:20:31 GMT -5
I gotcha. I realized I was in OOC boards talking about a character Ic. So I didn't want to offend
|
|
|
|
Post by Odin Balfore on Jun 2, 2016 14:30:32 GMT -5
It has been noted by the department of justice that the War on Drugs while had good intentions has cost a ton of money; over 15 billion ( Drugsense.org). And that is because the War on Drugs was meant for the manufacturer of drugs and the cartels and yet due to a loop hole in the laws, anyone in possession can receive a crippling prison sentence. In addition to this, it costs more to house an inmate then it does it house and educate that inmate and give them skills a cost of around 40 BILLION ( Vera.org, 2012) The prison system is designed to get you there and keep you there. This country is focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. When a prisoner gets out of prison they have a extremely hard road thats set up against them. Dag, you're young and you'll realize that system isnt perfect and is set up so that people will fail. Prisons are run by a lot of private companies.. that mean that prisoners are a necessary for those business to make money and those beds need to flip. Also, arrests are bound by area, the more arrests a police precinct makes, the more it LOOKS like they are doing their job and revcieve more funding. It it also known that police make more arrests in poor areas because poor suspects can not afford a lawyer and will most likely take a plea deal. thats why the majority of prison is of minority population. on average, anglo-americans can afford a lawyer and this fight the charge rather than just take the charge or the plea. It is just one giant revolving system that the DOJ is now realizing isnt working and costing a ton of money and is a waste of time, money and other resources. Drug Sense.Org ( 2016). The Drug War Close. Para. 1. Retrieved from: www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclockThe Vera Institute, ( 2012). The Price of prisons. para 3. Retrieved from: www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-version-021914.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 2, 2016 14:41:24 GMT -5
It it also known that police make more arrests in poor areas because poor suspects can not afford a lawyer and will most likely take a plea deal. Just want to make one comment on this here because it's something I have first hand knowledge of. We don't make more arrests in poor neighborhoods because we know they will take a plea deal. Once I make an arrest I'm done with it it. I have no say in what happens after that and frankly I don't care. I couldn't care less if the guy pleas out, goes to court, or gets the charges dropped. That's entirely up to the prosecutor. The arrests get made at a higher rate in poor neighborhoods because that is where the majority of crime occurs (which in and of itself is an issue that needs attention). You are correct that poor people will be more likely to take a plea deal but that isn't what is in my head when I make a collar |
|
|
|
Post by Odin Balfore on Jun 2, 2016 14:47:20 GMT -5
And like you said, it not up to you what happens during the judicial process. But you know that the more arrests the police make, the better it is for them. You'll get more funding, you'll get better PR. It is also known the racial use of drugs is about the same but there is a reason why anglo-americans and minorities have vastly different arrests rates and poverty is a good part of that reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Battle on Jun 2, 2016 16:16:24 GMT -5
It it also known that police make more arrests in poor areas because poor suspects can not afford a lawyer and will most likely take a plea deal. Just want to make one comment on this here because it's something I have first hand knowledge of. We don't make more arrests in poor neighborhoods because we know they will take a plea deal. Once I make an arrest I'm done with it it. I have no say in what happens after that and frankly I don't care. I couldn't care less if the guy pleas out, goes to court, or gets the charges dropped. That's entirely up to the prosecutor. The arrests get made at a higher rate in poor neighborhoods because that is where the majority of crime occurs (which in and of itself is an issue that needs attention). You are correct that poor people will be more likely to take a plea deal but that isn't what is in my head when I make a collar Guys... It's a narc! Hide your weed |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 2, 2016 16:20:39 GMT -5
Hahaha legal where I'm at
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 16:28:32 GMT -5
Hahaha legal where I'm at Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 2, 2016 16:35:12 GMT -5
Hahaha legal where I'm at Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. Oh Jesus Christ I didn't mean to open up this can of worms. |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 16:37:25 GMT -5
Not according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (Supremacy Clause) Legal according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.(Powers of Congress) Legal according to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (State's Rights Amendment). More to come in a moment. Oh Jesus Christ I didn't mean to open up this can of worms. It's been opened... Can't close it now! Much...too...powerful!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 2, 2016 16:42:59 GMT -5
You're far more versed in this than I am. I know the laws that apply in my jurisdiction, I know fourth amendment law like the back of my hand and I know traffic law. Everything else I can look up if I need it.
I read the legal updates when they come out. Last one said a little bit of weed on your person is ok now. I'm a worker bee, legal says it's good to go now I stop locking you up for it lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wolf on Jun 2, 2016 16:49:15 GMT -5
I can't wait until someone starts the abortion debate thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 16:50:05 GMT -5
No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in a safe a reasonable manner. And make sure that they're not selling to people who won't respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected. Ah, subjects of Law and Politics, some of my favorite topics… So here we go. Gemini said that “No one wants to ban firearms. They want to make sure that they are sold in safe a[n] reasonable manner. And make sure that they’re not selling to people who won’t respect guns as much as they deserve to be respected.” Gemini, I wish I could agree with you here, but I can’t. Legislative “acts” in both the Federal and State governments have moved to ban firearms. Far too many States and Commonwealths have passed laws limited or restricting particular firearms, or the carrying of firearms. Just recently in the House of Representatives, Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) introduced H.R.4269, otherwise known as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015. It has yet to pass, but it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Then there’s the Gun Control Act of 1968, and so forth. I understand the desire to make sure they are sold in a safe and reasonable manner, but this is not within the powers of the State, nor is this within the powers of the Federal government. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The very wording of the Amendment makes any Gun Control act illegal, and therefore null and void. The first law violating the Second Amendment was an ordinance in the Commonwealth of Kentucky prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. In Bliss v Commonwealth (KY, 1822), the high court of Kentucky ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that the amendment is to be taken whole, and that any law violating the Constitution was void. However, in the case of Barron v Baltimore (1833), the United States Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshal (a man I regard as one of the biggest traitors in our history), declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States in complete violation of the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the Constitution. This caused the Supreme Court to not hear a case in the matter until 2010, the States making the ruling for their own particular States. In the case of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), a case argued successfully by Ted Cruz amongst others, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied to the rights of the individual, and not restricted only to the service of the militia. This case shattered the longest running argument of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd used since Aymette v State (TN, 1840), which claimed that the Second Amendment only applied to the Militia. As successful as Heller was for the Second Amendment, it still did not apply to the State as the District of Columbia is a Federal District and not a State. Barron removed our Rights from the State, but not from the District. In the case of McDonald v Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the State via the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment, and the individual right, applies to all 50 States even by the Federal government’s corrupted view of the Constitution. Thus, as the final words of the Second Amendment states; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 16:53:08 GMT -5
You're far more versed in this than I am. I know the laws that apply in my jurisdiction, I know fourth amendment law like the back of my hand and I know traffic law. Everything else I can look up if I need it. I read the legal updates when they come out. Last one said a little bit of weed on your person is ok now. I'm a worker bee, legal says it's good to go now I stop locking you up for it lol Thank you for the kind words. I can only imagine how difficult your job is. You have rules to go by, and those rules are not always the law, but you must follow them or you have legal problems yourself. If you're able, which Alphabet Soup group are you part of, or was it a local department? |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 16:55:48 GMT -5
I can't wait until someone starts the abortion debate thread. I have found some of the most hateful people when it comes to the case of abortion. I have argued against abortion, and I saw first hand the evil the world has in that argument. I have had debates, arguments, even fights with full blown militant Atheists and Muslims that were more civil than that. I would not want to argue that here. NOTE: Not saying all pro-abortion people are evil, just that I have witnessed some of the most evil people on the planet that praised abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Spearman on Jun 2, 2016 17:29:39 GMT -5
I can't wait until someone starts the abortion debate thread. I have found some of the most hateful people when it comes to the case of abortion. I have argued against abortion, and I saw first hand the evil the world has in that argument. I have had debates, arguments, even fights with full blown militant Atheists and Muslims that were more civil than that. I would not want to argue that here. NOTE: Not saying all pro-abortion people are evil, just that I have witnessed some of the most evil people on the planet that praised abortion. In fairness, some of the most intolerant hateful people I know are theistic and therefore pro life. But you're right. Let's not get into that argument here. No ones opinion ever changes. I'd rather not say exactly where or what agency I work for. It's asking for trouble and frankly, I love the WCF because I'm NOT a cop here. I like to be able to make off color comments without worrying about a higher up somehow finding it |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Uriel Bates on Jun 2, 2016 17:35:40 GMT -5
In fairness, some of the most intolerant hateful people I know are theistic and therefore pro life. But you're right. Let's not get into that argument here. No ones opinion ever changes. I'd rather not say exactly where or what agency I work for. It's asking for trouble and frankly, I love the WCF because I'm NOT a cop here. I like to be able to make off color comments without worrying about a higher up somehow finding it We're going to find intolerance and hate everywhere we go. My personal experience found not intolerance, not hate, but evil in a discussion on the "pro-life" boards. In fairness, I know not all pro-life people are this way, but this board was without a doubt pro-abortion and pro-child murder. I hope they are the exception and not the rule. As for your agency... shit, you're NSA ain't you? No, sounds more like DEA to be honest, based on other things you've said. Or you could be FBI, ATF, CIA, ECC, EWA, FFS, FFE, FFC, GGF, ABC, DEF, HIJ, KLM, NOP, QRS, TUV, WXY, or the worse of the worse; Z. Yes, I made up a bunch of letters, threw a bunch of them in. In seriousness, I'm glad you found an escape from the real world here. |
|
