07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 96979899100 ...
tools
  1. dchawk81's Avatar
    Was that meant to respond to me? If so, I don't hate cops. I just don't want them to be in body armor, etc. like storm troopers. My uncle was a police officer and several of my friends and students are and they'd all love to go back to the friendly neighborhood officer mentality. The person you asked for assistance and waved hello to.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    I didn't mean you hate cops. I was just describing my area. No, it's not Mayberry but it's not the ghetto where everyone hides and curses them when they're out of earshot. We appreciate their existence but prefer to not see them as it means there isn't any trouble at the moment. If they are around though, we help them if we can rather than holding out information just because they're cops.

    We do hate when they give us speeding tickets though! ;-)
    Aquila likes this.
    05-26-2013 05:59 AM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    ... I just don't want them to be in body armor, etc. like storm troopers. My uncle was a police officer and several of my friends and students are and they'd all love to go back to the friendly neighborhood officer mentality. The person you asked for assistance and waved hello to.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    But society in those days was different than it is now. Militarized police reflect our society. They are the result of our society as it stands today. Sad, but true.


    msndrstood and jdbii like this.
    05-26-2013 07:04 AM
  3. dchawk81's Avatar
    But society in those days was different than it is now. Militarized police reflect our society. They are the result of our society as it stands today. Sad, but true.


    And even still, not all police are militarized. It's usually a necessity due to their jurisdiction's criminal profile. You can blame the citizens for that. They don't WANT to wear all that armor.
    05-26-2013 07:09 AM
  4. llamabreath's Avatar
    And even still, not all police are militarized. It's usually a necessity due to their jurisdiction's criminal profile. You can blame the citizens for that. They don't WANT to wear all that armor.
    And another reason for militarized police is for use in high terror risk areas, such as Manhattan. It's not just for jurisdictions with a lot of criminals.

    05-26-2013 07:15 AM
  5. dchawk81's Avatar
    And another reason for militarized police is for use in high terror risk areas, such as Manhattan. It's not just for jurisdictions with a lot of criminals.

    Exactly. It's not as though they go through such extensive training and buy all that equipment because they're bored.
    05-26-2013 07:24 AM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    Is someone really?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-26-2013 02:37 PM
  7. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    I hope! Aren't they trying to rescind the 22nd Amendment?
    Is someone really?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp
    Don't say I never gave you something

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums
    Aquila and palandri like this.
    05-26-2013 03:52 PM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Its amazing to me that people think the second amendment only pertains to muskets, but the first amendment protects you online, and through emails, etc.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The Hustleman likes this.
    05-26-2013 03:59 PM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment
    Don't say I never gave you something

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums
    My mother-in-law gets those crazy emails every few weeks and believes them. The last one was tell your congressman to vote no on proposition 551 which will attached a 10 cent surtax on every email you send.

    I normally send her the link from snopes, so she realizes that proposition 551 doesn't exist.
    Aquila and Jennifer Stough like this.
    05-26-2013 04:04 PM
  10. metz65's Avatar
    Its amazing to me that people think the second amendment only pertains to muskets, but the first amendment protects you online, and through emails, etc.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    First the guns then we will take away those other things you mentioned comrade.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    05-26-2013 04:27 PM
  11. jova33's Avatar
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ves.htm?p=full

    When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

    What's changed? The media making these mass killers famous? The decline in affordable mental health care? People are just crazy?
    I don't know what's changed. But I do know we guard our money with armed security. I know our upper class citizens and politicians have armed guards at their children's schools. I think the average citizen should be able to have that same protection for our children. Are the politicians children more important than yours?

    And if my home is protected by a firearm, why shouldn't my children's school be as well?

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    05-26-2013 09:12 PM
  12. GadgetGator's Avatar
    NRA's Wayne LaPierre Advocates Armed School Guards Like At Columbine - Investors.com

    When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

    What's changed? The media making these mass killers famous? The decline in affordable mental health care? People are just crazy?
    I don't know what's changed. But I do know we guard our money with armed security. I know our upper class citizens and politicians have armed guards at their children's schools. I think the average citizen should be able to have that same protection for our children. Are the politicians children more important than yours?

    And if my home is protected by a firearm, why shouldn't my children's school be as well?

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    False equivalence. People in politics/on TV have different needs than the average joe out there in the world. People wanting to kidnap the President's kids, or a senator's kids are a very real possibility due to their high profile. You and me, not so much. Guarding money? An armored car maybe, because again the potential is high for robbery during movements of large sums of cash. I couldn't tell you when the last time I saw an armed guard inside a bank though. It's been MANY years.

    As for schools..yeah you can put armed guards in schools, but that didn't prevent Colombine from happening. And I'll ask again: how are you paying for that? And then how are you protecting your children in between home and school? Armed guards on buses and field trips too? Guards in the parking lots? Armed crossing guards? Now you're talking about a whole lot more people and even greater expense.
    05-27-2013 08:15 PM
  13. jova33's Avatar
    So normal kids aren't at risk of being kidnapped?
    I think a sick ******* that wants to kidnap or harm a child would more likely do it to "average Joe's" children than say, a child who has an armed guard.
    And I have a concealed carry permit, so there's the protection on the way home.
    And if Columbine didn't have armed security probably more people would've died.
    And still, the average person has a right to defend themself, their property, and their family. Why should that security stop as soon as my sons go to school?

    And the money is there, it's just being used for BS that doesn't matter.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    05-27-2013 09:19 PM
  14. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Its amazing to me that people think the second amendment only pertains to muskets, but the first amendment protects you online, and through emails, etc.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The written and spoken word is still the same written and spoken word. Other then yelling fire in a crowded theatre, your words probably will not lead to anyone's death. Meanwhile, technology has allowed more and more people to be killed by a single weapon. The 2nd amendment was written in a vacuum. It did not have the benefit of knowing what future weapons would be like and how much loss of life they would contribute to. Not just in defending ourselves from a foreign enemy, but even within our own boarders on an ongoing basis. That's far FAR apart and away from the "well regulated militia" that the 2nd amendment makes reference to.

    Even the 1st amendment has limits. There's no reason why the 2nd shouldn't either. It should NOT be a case of anything goes.
    msndrstood likes this.
    05-27-2013 09:20 PM
  15. ItnStln's Avatar
    Is someone really?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Yes sir!
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...cond-amendment

    http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...22nd-amendment
    05-27-2013 10:18 PM
  16. The Hustleman's Avatar
    I found this earlier today and thought I would share it here. The letter does raise some valid points.

    Californians Opposing Gun Restrictions Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein | Survival
    I have no respect for that gun nut Feinstein.

    She actually thinks an AR-15 is a military style weapon.

    Just proves that the anti gun people don't know what they're talking about

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    05-27-2013 10:47 PM
  17. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    There have been many congressmen who have proposed this in the last 30 years, and continue to propose it every term. It never makes it high enough to reach a vote before congress.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums
    palandri and Aquila like this.
    05-27-2013 11:22 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    I think it's a bad idea to think about gun control in the context of school shootings. Not only have we covered this in some 750 comments in a previous thread dedicated to that line, but it's also taken over a couple other threads not meant for that purpose. As was pointed out in each of those, of all of the people who die this year, trends from recent years indicate that approximately .5% will die following an intentional shooting. Of those, approximately 5% will be shot with a long gun (any type of rifle, "military assault weapon", musket, or shotgun, etc). Of those, approximately 10% will be in a school or other public place in a, "mass shooting" scenario.

    Quick multiplication says that we're wasting a lot of words (and for some a lot of anger) on something that will impact .25% of all those who die; which is approximately 2.5 million people a year (out of approximately 330 million citizens), which is .7575...% of the population in a given year. Whether you look at it form an "odds of this happening to you" standpoint, (odds of dying in a mass shooting are 52,800:1 or .000189%) or, if you take it for granted that you're one of the .5% (400:1) of those who die that will die from a firearm related homicide, your odds are approximately 4% or 25:1 that you'll be shot with a rifle and .25% or 400:1 that it'll be in a mass shooting scenario.

    Clearly, IF we take it for granted that violence with weapons should be a national priority, we should be ready to accept that mass shootings and long guns in general are not the crux of the problem. I'm not sure this should be a priority. Sure, it rips you apart inside every time someone's kid is on the news having being shot, but that same kid isn't on the news in most cases if it happened in a high crime area, if they fell off a slide or even when they die to child abuse at home. It's a much more honest debate if we focus on the other 99% of people killed by firearms and perhaps include all of the other weapons used in crimes in that conversation, instead of singling out something that causes death in less than 1% of all people who die per year.

    We can focus on gang crime, domestic violence, poverty, education issues.... bringing more guns into schools won't fix anything because it doesn't address the problem at all.
    jdbii likes this.
    05-28-2013 04:09 AM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    I actually have no problem with repealing that amendment. IF we replace it with another to get money out of politics. If the people are choosing their representatives, rather than the lobby and private fascism regime, yeah... let them have who they want. If we don't jump head first into campaign finance reform... well, then I'm in favor of a 1 term limit on all congress and the president.
    05-28-2013 04:13 AM
  20. grumpyjoe's Avatar
    Molon labe!!!
    05-28-2013 05:44 AM
  21. ItnStln's Avatar
    There have been many congressmen who have proposed this in the last 30 years, and continue to propose it every term. It never makes it high enough to reach a vote before congress.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums
    Let's hope it stays that way too!
    05-28-2013 09:20 AM
  22. ItnStln's Avatar
    No I don't truly believe it, but I was kind of interested in what the other guy or girl had to say since he made such great points, but your response was good too. However, I am going to contradict myself, because I do believe a civilian population armed with small arms does provide some protection against potential abuse by the state. For instance I think police are much more likely to treat disadvantaged people in poorer sections of cities with more respect if the inhabitants of those sections have arms. If only the police were armed, there is the potential for police abuse. I believe that if you are going to disarm citizens then the de-militarization of the police needs to be part of the plan.

    Nexus 7 via Android Central App
    Well said.
    I don't want to disarm normal citizens, but I'm in favor of demilitarization of the police. I am in favor of educating people and trying to reduce the paranoia, ignorance and seething hatred that seems to rule over people as a whole. That irrationality and fear is encouraged by the puppeteers and too many people lap it up, forever seeking drama to entertain the reptilian...
    I say enforce the Second Amendment. Let everyone have a gun, and see what happens to street violence. I'm willing to bet that if the gang member thought that the average citizen might be carrying that day, said gang member would back off. After all, where does the Second Amendment require background checks? I just hate that the street thugs can go to the local street corner and buy a gun, whereas us law abiding citizens have to wait, often upwards of a month, just to get a gun.
    05-28-2013 09:36 AM
  23. llamabreath's Avatar
    No time to provide a link, but Google Kennesaw, Georgia gun law. All householders REQUIRED to own gun.
    Interesting results.





    Come one, come all, hop on the Lllllllama Bandwagon! FREE POPCORN!!! You'll need it! (bring your own Babycakes)
    05-28-2013 09:40 AM
  24. ItnStln's Avatar
    No time to provide a link, but Google Kennesaw, Georgia gun law. All householders REQUIRED to own gun.
    Interesting results.





    Come one, come all, hop on the Lllllllama Bandwagon! FREE POPCORN!!! You'll need it! (bring your own Babycakes)
    I remember hearing about that! Also, I believe that some sheriff in Wisconsin (I think) told the citizens to buy guns because of the budget cuts were making response times longer.
    05-28-2013 09:44 AM
  25. jova33's Avatar
    It's a lot less than 2.5 million a year killed intentionally by firearms, at least in the United States. I'm too lazy to pull up the FBI website, but it's closer to 8,500, with 300 being rifles of any type.
    Edit: and most of those deaths are drug and gang related.
    And don't include suicides in those numbers. In Japan firearms are almost completely illegal, yet they have a higher suicide rate than the US. People will kill themselves whether or not a firearm is available.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...#disablemobile

    Edit: and another point I wanted to bring up, that 90% of Americans want stricter background checks was BS. I found the origin of the survey, Quinnipiac University. The question was, "Do you support background checks at gun shows?"
    Well, I support that. I don't know anyone who would be against that. Who are the 10% that don't support that idea? The problem is, they already do background checks at all gun shows. Go to a gun show and try to purchase a gun without a background check. The only type of gun sales that don't require a background check are private sales. If I wanted to sell my buddy, Billy Bob, a gun, no background check is required. If Billy Bob is a felon, and I sell him a gun, then guess what, I'm going to jail. So even private sales that don't require a background check, usually people don't sell to someone they don't know. And the type of person who would knowingly sell a gun to a felon, do you think they are going to obey the law and perform a background check on the guy?
    So that bill that got knocked down in the Senate had little to do with background checks. We already have those. And 90% of Americans did not support it.

    Edit: You have a 0.0027% chance of being murdered with a firearm of any type in the US.

    Sent from my wireless telephonic device.
    05-28-2013 09:53 AM
4,617 ... 96979899100 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD