Gaucho wrote:I don't think bringing up specific examples will or should change anyone's mind.
DelPen wrote:Kaizer wrote:if that was a gay dude, he'd be hanging from someones tailgate.
SMH. It's not as if I don't already know these things, but it makes me more frustrated every time I read it.
Can you imagine putting $800k of contributions into a retirement account and have only $700k available in retirement?
pfim wrote:llipgh2 wrote:Factorial wrote:Jane Harmon on NPR now intimating right-wing anti gun control extremists most likely the culprits...
Some gun rights activists are basically exploiting this as well, with ill concived "ban bombs" jokes.
Heaven forbid people on either side of the argument respect the victims of the bombing right now. Got to push your own agenda first and foremost.
Not to get off course, but bombs are banned. Those people are morons.
DelPen wrote:All crime is against the law. Criminals do bad things and more laws won't prevent that which is kind of the point.
Pucks_and_Pols wrote:DelPen wrote:All crime is against the law. Criminals do bad things and more laws won't prevent that which is kind of the point.
I think sometimes we have to draw a line between actions a government takes in response to crime that has already been committed by criminals, something that I think a vast majority of the public agrees with, and preventive regulations and security measures taken to prevent or blunt the impact of these mass tragedies, which is where the controversy and debate are focused.
Crime response is not particularly politically controversial most of the time. Bad guys get punished. There are some kinks in the system, but people agree with the principle pretty soundly. I would be willing to bet that 100% of this board wants to see the person(s) who committed this heinous act brought to justice.
But what are we willing to do to stop these events before they actually occur?
Regulations and preventive security ARE where the debate is really at. This is because we, the many, are all punished in response to the acts of a few sick psychos who want to unleash terror upon the masses. How much in the way of civil liberties are we willing to sacrifice in order to ensure our own security? How much regulation on firearms can we have without violating the 2nd amendment? How much anti-terrorism surveillance can we have without violating the 4th amendment? Those are the questions that can get people (literally and figuratively) up in arms.
I know it may not be the popular choice around here, but I would come down on the side of more reasonable and proper government regulation and security measures in response to mass shootings and terrorist attacks that rock our nation. I am glad and proud to live at this great moment in time, in a free and prosperous nation where I have been endowed with much liberty and well being. I am willing to trust that my government, by, of, and for the people, can get things right and provide some additional security to us freedom loving people to go about our lives without as much fear of terror and violence coming from nowhere to shake us to our very core. I trust the people, our representative elective process, our court system, and our common decency enough to cede some ground on civil rights to make sure the “bad guys” do not have as much access to create such havoc as we have seen in recent years. Call me naive and foolhardy, but I do trust the United States of America and feel that this is a challenge that we can overcome without drastically changing who we are.
stinky wrote:I cant off the top of my head think of a time that a central government has voluntarily and without conflict rolled back its powers which at one time had been granted to them by the people under the guise of safety of its citizens. Personally I do not put much faith in those in power to work within the constraints granted to them. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, great men are almost always bad men". Are there noble men in government, yes, will there always be noble men in government, absolutely not. Good men come and go, but an institution such as a growing government only builds momentum. You have to ask yourself, whatever power you grant this government today, do you grant this power and more to the our leaders in government 30 years from now, 50 years from now (what ever powers you grant Obama today, do you grant and trust Dick Cheney tomorrow)? What about after the next bombing, or shooting, do you think the "leaders" will be content working within the constraints granted to them, or will they seek more power? If we as population continue to cede the liberties and freedoms granted to us in the name of safety, I truly fear for the quality of life for my children. Will they be safe, maybe, will they have to check in with a government agency once a week while being tracked 24 / 7 with a GPS microchip under their mandatory body armor, maybe? What a blissful life, the only thing they will have to worry about is drones falling on their head.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests