Nobody knows for sure what the 2nd amendment means for sure. There's been countless debates about it. I'd give your post a lot more credibility if you weren't attempting to pass off your opinions as facts.
Also, something tells me you don't even know what the 2nd amendment says in it's entirety. You just know the little bit that is important to you forming your opinions. If in fact you have studied it in it's entirety to form your opinions, keep in mind that you're in the minority to a huge degree.
18 Million here, 18 Million there, sooner or later you're talking about real money.
And from what I read, it seems like they're going to pack all sorts of useless crap into that website that there's no use for. This is just another case of a $300 hammer on a massive scale. To be more specific, there's points where it mentions SMS messaging, Flickr, Myspace, etc, etc. Just a bunch of junk that there's no need for in this sort of project which I consider to be very important that it be done right and be done efficiently.
Why is it to much to ask for government to spend our money responsibly? Instead of having to support the war to be patriotic, why shouldn't we have to take a bigger interest in government to be a Patriot? I imagine some politicians would take a bigger interest in doing their jobs better for us, instead of their campaign funds?
You didn't think about it hard enough. A theft in which no one is harmed:
I steal recipe for Coca-Cola by copying, the source still remains. I then go on to delete the recipe. This isn't un-stealing it. But in no way is the Coca-Cola company harmed.
We've got to hand it to the terrorists... They're good at what they do. They set out to affect our lives in a detrimental way, and we let them do it, doing their work for them most of the time, with "anti-terror" measures and "national security" legislation.
I am afraid that you are correct. The USA is acting so paranoid that it has become ludicrous; I for one am not interested in visiting the USA nor host any websites or applications there. With every irrational and paranoid knee jerk the USA is becoming more irrelevant to the rest of the world. Handing victory to the bad guys on a silver platter; show some character for a change, and make the bad guys work for it !
These things aren't for you to worry about. Just be happy that you're safe and keep quiet. Good boy!
The first two are from Canada, I have a feeling a lot of things are better in Canada, but I don't live there.
Let's talk about the state of things in the US. The third link is from Connecticut, but it's just a report comparing two sets of recommendations. Neither are rules or regulations that are in effect. I guess Connecticut is actually looking at implementing some, which is good news.
"You asked us to compare the guidelines for Taser use recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with those recommended by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). "
Some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter what anyone says and how much evidence is provided, their mind is made up, and can never be changed. Which made me wonder if I should either bother responding, but since it's not your mind that will be changed, maybe someone else's will.
Think what you want about the ACLU and the NAACP, but the fact is, they're trying to fight for people's rights that so often get trampled.
Bullshit. They stopped fighting for the rights of anyone but criminals 20 years ago. They have actually been involved in suing homeowners for injuries suffered BY BURGLARS.
Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies. The bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection, due process, and the right to privacy.
It has also taken positions on other issues such as religious liberty, drug decriminalization, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, abolition of capital punishment, access to contraception and abortion, civil rights for gays, affirmative action (which is the only thing I don't agree with), the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices, privacy issues, immigrants rights, and gun control.
I can see how you, most certainly being a republican, would have a problem with this organization. Being a democrat that is governed by reason, not religion, I consider this to be a very heroic organization. Someone has to be defending the constitution while people like George W. Bush call it "Just a damn piece of paper". I consider anyone who's an enemy of the ACLU to be an enemy of our country's Constitution which I consider to be the most important document to our freedom. And anyone who's an enemy of the Constitution is an enemy of our country.
The old lady who was being unruly on the side of the road could have easily been restrained and handcuffed, but instead, she was tased. Another incident that got me mad as hell was an incident in Southern Illinois at a state home for orphaned children. The cops went in and tased three minors, threatened one with sodomy, held a 17 year-old girl up against a wall by her neck while the cop asked if she wanted to live or die. Now I concede that as there's no video of this incident there's no way of knowing if that's the truth or not, but as the police department only responded with, "the officers acted appropriately", that's the only side I have to go by.
Yawn. In the first place, the "old lady" bit? I've seen the video. She was tased to prevent her from running into traffic and getting her ass run over.
Silly me for thinking he could've just grabbed her and pulled her away. But then again, I'm just a big ol' dummy.
As for the kids bit, I have to wonder what really went on. You're believing the story of a bunch of kids, who have every reason to lie, and you're basing it on the fact that the police acted properly within their legal limitations by keeping as much commentary OUT of the media as possible (something, I assure you, the chickenshit-little types who love to sue police departments never do: they always want to try the case in the media, rather than a courtroom where facts actually matter).
When you're being attacked in public, it's generally a good idea to get out your side of the story, lest people only have one side to go off of. I'd like nothing more than for it not to be true, but we'll never really know until there's been a real investigation, which I've asked representatives, senators, and the governor to initiate. Doesn't it trouble you that it might be true, and the police department is just hoping that it'll go away?
Your attempted insinuation that only those "hopped up on cocaine" are susceptible to fatal consequences from tasers is laughable. A countless number of si
Wow that's infuriating. I can't believe that the city/state is allowed to discriminate against people like this and for the courts to be okay with it... They can legally discriminate just as long as they discriminate against enough people. Absolutely unbelievable.
I wish some brilliant attorney would take this to the supreme court for him pro-bono so that there would be precedence and nobody else would try this sort of thing. I gotta say, at least someone reported it. Friggin' America...
I'm sure they're trained. But can you show me any laws or regulations saying when you can and when you can't tase someone? I bet not...
Also, we're not talking about when a cop's only options are to tase or shoot. We're talking about when many more options are available and the taser is what is used. You have to be living under a rock to not realize that this happens every...single...day!
Your post is moronic. The first part of the post you show your prejudices and then go on to ask that we keep an open mind about what police officers go through.
Think what you want about the ACLU and the NAACP, but the fact is, they're trying to fight for people's rights that so often get trampled. It's good that they fought for less lethal equipment for law enforcement. Now I'm sure the police are wondering what they ever did without them.
Problem is, now the police are abusing them. They didn't give those weapons to police so they could go around tasing anybody that wasn't complying with their orders, do you agree?
Any sort of weapon should only be used as the last resort. The old lady who was being unruly on the side of the road could have easily been restrained and handcuffed, but instead, she was tased. Another incident that got me mad as hell was an incident in Southern Illinois at a state home for orphaned children. The cops went in and tased three minors, threatened one with sodomy, held a 17 year-old girl up against a wall by her neck while the cop asked if she wanted to live or die. Now I concede that as there's no video of this incident there's no way of knowing if that's the truth or not, but as the police department only responded with, "the officers acted appropriately", that's the only side I have to go by. Another problem with the case is, it wasn't until a year later that the news went national and then only because a civil lawsuit was filed. And then, only because as it was a state home, the administrators were obligated to do so on behalf of the boys and girl who were assaulted.
Your attempted insinuation that only those "hopped up on cocaine" are susceptible to fatal consequences from tasers is laughable. A countless number of situations, circumstances, and medical conditions could put someone at risk of fatal injury from high voltage electric shock. All police officers have to keep this in mind when they are considering employing such means to subdue a suspect.
Please, please don't get me wrong. If a suspect is attempting to attack and officer or someone else, I have absolutely no problem with tasers being used! In fact, in some cases, with the kind of evil criminals that are out on their streets, I wish sometimes that there was no less lethal solution to be utilized and we could avoid the trouble of a trial with a trip to the morgue. (I'm not condoning murder, just a shortcut to justice.)
On to the second part of your post, the part where you actually show that you're intelligent and capable of compassion, or at least would like others to have compassion for you, if you are as I suspect, a police officer.
I am very appreciative of those good police who approach their jobs with humility and respect for others. I understand the risks they incur to protect the rest of us. I'm not sure that the 'vast majority', as you say, approach their jobs in this manner. I wish they did. I think that the police who treat people with respect, until they lose that right, will most times receive the same in return. If you are a police officer as I suspect, do you really have a problem finding people who appreciate what you do? I really can't imagine that being true. Unless you're out there throwing the book at everyone while being disrespectful. Why don't you try and think about how you'd act if someone acted toward you the same way you act toward them?
What scares me is when I watch the TV Show, Cops, I see injustices of all sorts, not necessarily of the illegal variety, possibly just unfair. If the officers feel comfortable doing things like that on the small screen, I have to assume what goes on off camera is that much worse. Also I assume they put only their best officers on the show, what are the bad ones doing?
For instance, using tinted windows as probable cause to stop and search a car. Or a tail light with translucent tape over an area that got broken out for probable cause to stop and search a car. Both stops lead to arrests and I can
Ugh, Jesus. A cloud goes over the house, you grab some surplus energy from a few neighbors, and the earth keeps spinning. If all the houses were sufficiently solar, there would be no more Power company. Is that what you're afraid of?
Just because you're attached to something doesn't mean you're using it. If they use it, their meter spins, they pay for that. If they don't use it, it doesn't. Why can't it be just that simple without tacking on all of these redundant fees and charges?
LOL! If they're getting such a raw deal, what in the world makes you think someone else would want to take this supposed 'loser' off their hands for a fair price?
All due respect, try to think before saying something so ridiculous in such a public forum.
(Can anyone tell me why all my paragraphs are getting shoved together?)
I've been sitting here for a while trying to wrap my brain around all the different aspects of this discussion. The thing that I can't seem to figure out is why are so many of you coming to the defense of the corporate conglomerate? They have a legal monopoly and you're concerned that they're going to lose money because some dude slaps a solar panel on his roof? Just doesn't make any sense.
Everyone just loves capitalism, and socialism is the dirtiest new four letter word. What makes capitalism so great is that it governs itself just as long as you stand back and don't try to fuck with it.
A simple example is if you go to Home Depot and buy 100 bags of manure to fertilize your crops and every week you go back in and they've raised the price of that manure another quarter. Sooner or later that manure is going to be so expensive you're going to find a cheaper way to get your manure. So you buy yourself some cattle, they're expensive, but sooner or later you end up with a surplus, and even sell off some of that surplus to Home Depot for half of what they sell it for. They go on to sell it to others at a 100% profit. There's capitalism, and it's worked itself out.
But now Home Depot's knocking on your door talking about how you're not buying manure from them anymore and they can't turn a profit unless you continue to pay them. They cite how they've still got to maintain their store, even though you're no longer using it, so you're obligated to pay a minimum monthly fee for having the ability to go get your manure from them should you run out at any time during the month.
Of course we wouldn't let this happen, Home Depot just isn't that powerful. What makes it okay for the Power Company to do it and for so many people to stand up in their defense and say it's okay? Especially with global warming finally gaining legitimacy, and it becoming clear that we need to move fast to change the way we live before we run out of time to be successful. We need to be making it cheaper to use renewable energy, not harder. I can see how the Power Company wouldn't be trilled about losing customers, so why don't they start producing renewable energy themselves, the bigger the equipment, the more efficient it usually is, so that people don't feel the need to do it themselves?
However, instead of the Power Company figuring out cheaper ways to make electricity, they just submit requests to raise their rates any time their costs go up. Eventually making it not a whole lot more expensive to buy a few solar panels and a battery backup. Having a added benefit of being "Green".
When the Power Company opened it's doors they had the idea that it was a fool-proof business plan.
"We have a constantly growing customer base with no chance of losing those customers. We will submit a rate hike whenever our costs go up, so no need to worry about figuring out better ways to do things, and will always turn a profit. What a great business we're getting into!"
Well, something's happened that they never imagined would happen. They lost a customer to Solar and now they're trying to figure out a way to make it cost too much to operate solar panels so that they don't lose any more.
As long as we protect old business models that are no longer working very well, new business models will never be allowed to succeed. But this seems to be the way America works nowadays. General Motors was making cars that Americans didn't want to buy anymore because the price of fuel went up and people started buying foreign cars that were more efficient and instead of GM building more efficient cars, they got a huge bail-out from the tax payers who were the ones who didn't want to buy their cars anymore in the first place.
We can't continue to protect failing industries, else we'll end up destroying ourselves. The only way our economy is going to recover is to let capitalism kill the dying so it can give birth to the strong.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody knows for sure what the 2nd amendment means for sure. There's been countless debates about it. I'd give your post a lot more credibility if you weren't attempting to pass off your opinions as facts.
Also, something tells me you don't even know what the 2nd amendment says in it's entirety. You just know the little bit that is important to you forming your opinions. If in fact you have studied it in it's entirety to form your opinions, keep in mind that you're in the minority to a huge degree.
The joke was that the government redacted 12 lines of his post. ;)
18 Million here, 18 Million there, sooner or later you're talking about real money.
And from what I read, it seems like they're going to pack all sorts of useless crap into that website that there's no use for. This is just another case of a $300 hammer on a massive scale. To be more specific, there's points where it mentions SMS messaging, Flickr, Myspace, etc, etc. Just a bunch of junk that there's no need for in this sort of project which I consider to be very important that it be done right and be done efficiently.
Why is it to much to ask for government to spend our money responsibly? Instead of having to support the war to be patriotic, why shouldn't we have to take a bigger interest in government to be a Patriot? I imagine some politicians would take a bigger interest in doing their jobs better for us, instead of their campaign funds?
I steal recipe for Coca-Cola by copying, the source still remains. I then go on to delete the recipe. This isn't un-stealing it. But in no way is the Coca-Cola company harmed.
That work for ya?
F'ing hilarious! If only the mods got that. You got your bar code? Where's your bar code?!?!
We've got to hand it to the terrorists... They're good at what they do. They set out to affect our lives in a detrimental way, and we let them do it, doing their work for them most of the time, with "anti-terror" measures and "national security" legislation.
I am afraid that you are correct. The USA is acting so paranoid that it has become ludicrous; I for one am not interested in visiting the USA nor host any websites or applications there. With every irrational and paranoid knee jerk the USA is becoming more irrelevant to the rest of the world. Handing victory to the bad guys on a silver platter; show some character for a change, and make the bad guys work for it !
These things aren't for you to worry about. Just be happy that you're safe and keep quiet. Good boy!
The first two are from Canada, I have a feeling a lot of things are better in Canada, but I don't live there. Let's talk about the state of things in the US. The third link is from Connecticut, but it's just a report comparing two sets of recommendations. Neither are rules or regulations that are in effect. I guess Connecticut is actually looking at implementing some, which is good news. "You asked us to compare the guidelines for Taser use recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) with those recommended by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). "
No, your post is moronic.
Some people just can't be reasoned with, no matter what anyone says and how much evidence is provided, their mind is made up, and can never be changed. Which made me wonder if I should either bother responding, but since it's not your mind that will be changed, maybe someone else's will.
Think what you want about the ACLU and the NAACP, but the fact is, they're trying to fight for people's rights that so often get trampled.
Bullshit. They stopped fighting for the rights of anyone but criminals 20 years ago. They have actually been involved in suing homeowners for injuries suffered BY BURGLARS.
Due to the nature of its legal work, the ACLU is often involved in litigation against governmental bodies. The bulk of the ACLU's cases involve the First Amendment, Equal Protection, due process, and the right to privacy. It has also taken positions on other issues such as religious liberty, drug decriminalization, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, abolition of capital punishment, access to contraception and abortion, civil rights for gays, affirmative action (which is the only thing I don't agree with), the rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional police practices, privacy issues, immigrants rights, and gun control.
I can see how you, most certainly being a republican, would have a problem with this organization. Being a democrat that is governed by reason, not religion, I consider this to be a very heroic organization. Someone has to be defending the constitution while people like George W. Bush call it "Just a damn piece of paper". I consider anyone who's an enemy of the ACLU to be an enemy of our country's Constitution which I consider to be the most important document to our freedom. And anyone who's an enemy of the Constitution is an enemy of our country.
The old lady who was being unruly on the side of the road could have easily been restrained and handcuffed, but instead, she was tased. Another incident that got me mad as hell was an incident in Southern Illinois at a state home for orphaned children. The cops went in and tased three minors, threatened one with sodomy, held a 17 year-old girl up against a wall by her neck while the cop asked if she wanted to live or die. Now I concede that as there's no video of this incident there's no way of knowing if that's the truth or not, but as the police department only responded with, "the officers acted appropriately", that's the only side I have to go by.
Yawn. In the first place, the "old lady" bit? I've seen the video. She was tased to prevent her from running into traffic and getting her ass run over.
Silly me for thinking he could've just grabbed her and pulled her away. But then again, I'm just a big ol' dummy.
As for the kids bit, I have to wonder what really went on. You're believing the story of a bunch of kids, who have every reason to lie, and you're basing it on the fact that the police acted properly within their legal limitations by keeping as much commentary OUT of the media as possible (something, I assure you, the chickenshit-little types who love to sue police departments never do: they always want to try the case in the media, rather than a courtroom where facts actually matter).
When you're being attacked in public, it's generally a good idea to get out your side of the story, lest people only have one side to go off of. I'd like nothing more than for it not to be true, but we'll never really know until there's been a real investigation, which I've asked representatives, senators, and the governor to initiate. Doesn't it trouble you that it might be true, and the police department is just hoping that it'll go away?
Your attempted insinuation that only those "hopped up on cocaine" are susceptible to fatal consequences from tasers is laughable. A countless number of si
I wish some brilliant attorney would take this to the supreme court for him pro-bono so that there would be precedence and nobody else would try this sort of thing. I gotta say, at least someone reported it. Friggin' America...
Also, we're not talking about when a cop's only options are to tase or shoot. We're talking about when many more options are available and the taser is what is used. You have to be living under a rock to not realize that this happens every...single...day!
Let's get real, okay?
Think what you want about the ACLU and the NAACP, but the fact is, they're trying to fight for people's rights that so often get trampled. It's good that they fought for less lethal equipment for law enforcement. Now I'm sure the police are wondering what they ever did without them.
Problem is, now the police are abusing them. They didn't give those weapons to police so they could go around tasing anybody that wasn't complying with their orders, do you agree?
Any sort of weapon should only be used as the last resort. The old lady who was being unruly on the side of the road could have easily been restrained and handcuffed, but instead, she was tased. Another incident that got me mad as hell was an incident in Southern Illinois at a state home for orphaned children. The cops went in and tased three minors, threatened one with sodomy, held a 17 year-old girl up against a wall by her neck while the cop asked if she wanted to live or die. Now I concede that as there's no video of this incident there's no way of knowing if that's the truth or not, but as the police department only responded with, "the officers acted appropriately", that's the only side I have to go by. Another problem with the case is, it wasn't until a year later that the news went national and then only because a civil lawsuit was filed. And then, only because as it was a state home, the administrators were obligated to do so on behalf of the boys and girl who were assaulted.
Your attempted insinuation that only those "hopped up on cocaine" are susceptible to fatal consequences from tasers is laughable. A countless number of situations, circumstances, and medical conditions could put someone at risk of fatal injury from high voltage electric shock. All police officers have to keep this in mind when they are considering employing such means to subdue a suspect.
Please, please don't get me wrong. If a suspect is attempting to attack and officer or someone else, I have absolutely no problem with tasers being used! In fact, in some cases, with the kind of evil criminals that are out on their streets, I wish sometimes that there was no less lethal solution to be utilized and we could avoid the trouble of a trial with a trip to the morgue. (I'm not condoning murder, just a shortcut to justice.)
On to the second part of your post, the part where you actually show that you're intelligent and capable of compassion, or at least would like others to have compassion for you, if you are as I suspect, a police officer.
I am very appreciative of those good police who approach their jobs with humility and respect for others. I understand the risks they incur to protect the rest of us. I'm not sure that the 'vast majority', as you say, approach their jobs in this manner. I wish they did. I think that the police who treat people with respect, until they lose that right, will most times receive the same in return. If you are a police officer as I suspect, do you really have a problem finding people who appreciate what you do? I really can't imagine that being true. Unless you're out there throwing the book at everyone while being disrespectful. Why don't you try and think about how you'd act if someone acted toward you the same way you act toward them?
What scares me is when I watch the TV Show, Cops, I see injustices of all sorts, not necessarily of the illegal variety, possibly just unfair. If the officers feel comfortable doing things like that on the small screen, I have to assume what goes on off camera is that much worse. Also I assume they put only their best officers on the show, what are the bad ones doing?
For instance, using tinted windows as probable cause to stop and search a car. Or a tail light with translucent tape over an area that got broken out for probable cause to stop and search a car. Both stops lead to arrests and I can
Plus is repels demons and ghosts, evil spirits of all sorts! Double good! ;)
Ugh, Jesus. A cloud goes over the house, you grab some surplus energy from a few neighbors, and the earth keeps spinning. If all the houses were sufficiently solar, there would be no more Power company. Is that what you're afraid of?
Just because you're attached to something doesn't mean you're using it. If they use it, their meter spins, they pay for that. If they don't use it, it doesn't. Why can't it be just that simple without tacking on all of these redundant fees and charges?
Just an FYI...
LOL! If they're getting such a raw deal, what in the world makes you think someone else would want to take this supposed 'loser' off their hands for a fair price? All due respect, try to think before saying something so ridiculous in such a public forum. (Can anyone tell me why all my paragraphs are getting shoved together?)
I've been sitting here for a while trying to wrap my brain around all the different aspects of this discussion. The thing that I can't seem to figure out is why are so many of you coming to the defense of the corporate conglomerate? They have a legal monopoly and you're concerned that they're going to lose money because some dude slaps a solar panel on his roof? Just doesn't make any sense. Everyone just loves capitalism, and socialism is the dirtiest new four letter word. What makes capitalism so great is that it governs itself just as long as you stand back and don't try to fuck with it. A simple example is if you go to Home Depot and buy 100 bags of manure to fertilize your crops and every week you go back in and they've raised the price of that manure another quarter. Sooner or later that manure is going to be so expensive you're going to find a cheaper way to get your manure. So you buy yourself some cattle, they're expensive, but sooner or later you end up with a surplus, and even sell off some of that surplus to Home Depot for half of what they sell it for. They go on to sell it to others at a 100% profit. There's capitalism, and it's worked itself out. But now Home Depot's knocking on your door talking about how you're not buying manure from them anymore and they can't turn a profit unless you continue to pay them. They cite how they've still got to maintain their store, even though you're no longer using it, so you're obligated to pay a minimum monthly fee for having the ability to go get your manure from them should you run out at any time during the month. Of course we wouldn't let this happen, Home Depot just isn't that powerful. What makes it okay for the Power Company to do it and for so many people to stand up in their defense and say it's okay? Especially with global warming finally gaining legitimacy, and it becoming clear that we need to move fast to change the way we live before we run out of time to be successful. We need to be making it cheaper to use renewable energy, not harder. I can see how the Power Company wouldn't be trilled about losing customers, so why don't they start producing renewable energy themselves, the bigger the equipment, the more efficient it usually is, so that people don't feel the need to do it themselves? However, instead of the Power Company figuring out cheaper ways to make electricity, they just submit requests to raise their rates any time their costs go up. Eventually making it not a whole lot more expensive to buy a few solar panels and a battery backup. Having a added benefit of being "Green". When the Power Company opened it's doors they had the idea that it was a fool-proof business plan. "We have a constantly growing customer base with no chance of losing those customers. We will submit a rate hike whenever our costs go up, so no need to worry about figuring out better ways to do things, and will always turn a profit. What a great business we're getting into!" Well, something's happened that they never imagined would happen. They lost a customer to Solar and now they're trying to figure out a way to make it cost too much to operate solar panels so that they don't lose any more. As long as we protect old business models that are no longer working very well, new business models will never be allowed to succeed. But this seems to be the way America works nowadays. General Motors was making cars that Americans didn't want to buy anymore because the price of fuel went up and people started buying foreign cars that were more efficient and instead of GM building more efficient cars, they got a huge bail-out from the tax payers who were the ones who didn't want to buy their cars anymore in the first place. We can't continue to protect failing industries, else we'll end up destroying ourselves. The only way our economy is going to recover is to let capitalism kill the dying so it can give birth to the strong.