* Citizens and anyone that pays taxes, should have free medical care payed for by our taxes.
Just making a few less bombs, jets, etc... would pay for the entire process in the US.
If I were made president that is one of the things I would do :)
* I would withdraw the troops from the Middle East and let them fix their own problems.
* I would bring back the death penalty in all states in the case of guilty without a doubt situations. And reform all the prisons.
* Free education for all Tax paying citizens and their children.
* I would combine all the different groups of military into one Military. No more Navy,
Marines, Air force, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard. Combined offices would save money.
And I would do a lot of other good shit :)
Just making a few less bombs, jets, etc... would pay for the entire process in the US.
If I were made president that is one of the things I would do :)
* I would withdraw the troops from the Middle East and let them fix their own problems.
* I would bring back the death penalty in all states in the case of guilty without a doubt situations. And reform all the prisons.
* Free education for all Tax paying citizens and their children.
* I would combine all the different groups of military into one Military. No more Navy,
Marines, Air force, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard. Combined offices would save money.
And I would do a lot of other good shit :)
|
|
|
|
コメント(47)
> * I would bring back the death penalty in all states in the case of guilty without a doubt situations. And reform all the prisons.
TOG, seriously rethink this one. Even when there's no doubt, there are serious problems, like the fact that black people are way more likely to receive the death penalty than whites, for the same crime. (And blacks who committed a crime against a white are WAY more likely.)
TOG, seriously rethink this one. Even when there's no doubt, there are serious problems, like the fact that black people are way more likely to receive the death penalty than whites, for the same crime. (And blacks who committed a crime against a white are WAY more likely.)
Miszou (#4)
Everything in my list above, except probably for (1), could be done if I were the president today.
(2) The Congress leans towards this. It is just the current administration and Republican senators from Michigan tht don't like the idea.
(3) Time for an executive order... :-)
(4) All I'd have to do is not veto the current legislation.
(5) I'm sure the Congress would love to hear me say yes to this.
It's even funny how the executive branch seems to be against everything the Congress comes up with lately.
Everything in my list above, except probably for (1), could be done if I were the president today.
(2) The Congress leans towards this. It is just the current administration and Republican senators from Michigan tht don't like the idea.
(3) Time for an executive order... :-)
(4) All I'd have to do is not veto the current legislation.
(5) I'm sure the Congress would love to hear me say yes to this.
It's even funny how the executive branch seems to be against everything the Congress comes up with lately.
#8 fenomas I would only consider the death penalty for the very violent, sick, crimes.. like mass murder etc... situations where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. Anything other than that would only get jail terms. All of my appointed Judges would understand this. And I would have the final say in all cases. As president I would hope that the people would trust my judgement :)
#3 tos Free education would not destroy the school system. Why would it ? All those that want to learn would have the opportunity regardless of being rich or poor. If education had been free while I was growing up I may have made different decisions.
#3 tos Free education would not destroy the school system. Why would it ? All those that want to learn would have the opportunity regardless of being rich or poor. If education had been free while I was growing up I may have made different decisions.
1) Because there are differen levels of education. Some schools are good and some are not. Free edication would cause more corruption in education. Poor children probably would never go to a good school. Good schools would have troubles with funding, Better teachers want better income. Clean buildings require funding etc. The state funding is always official circumlocution, slow, inefficient etc.
Non-state funding is more efficient.
2) Runnig to extremes is not good, It would be better if there were free education and not free.
Non-state funding is more efficient.
2) Runnig to extremes is not good, It would be better if there were free education and not free.
Ok I see your point. Having a choice of using the free system or opting for the Non-state run system. But I can still see how that could also get complicated. Instead of assuming that state funding will be inefficient why don`t we make sure that it is efficient. That would solve the problem. Under my administration I would make sure things got done the right way.
In reading a lot of these posts, I see most of you want MORE government control over everything. Free this, free that... you can't have all of that without the government increasing its own power massively.
What I would do:
1) Pardon all non-violent drug offenders (jail is a lousy place for rehab) and end the hideous failure known as "the war on drugs".
2) Set up a tax system (such as a the fairtax (www.fairtax.org)) that abolishes the IRS.
3) Get the federal government out of the way and revert power back to the states (as the founders of USA had envisioned).
4) Encourage people to succeed on their own instead of with handouts. Barring a mental or physical handicap, there is no reason ANYONE in America should be dependent on the government for anything, other than enforcing laws (mainly limited to harm caused by others thru force or fraud).
among other things...
But everything I propose means LESS government and MORE individual freedom - and yes, that means more individual responsibility. Otherwise, we will become a nanny-state.
As for what others have said...
"Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws. Go look at UK and Australia since their strict gun laws went into effect. They have MORE crime, not less.
"Passing the Kyoto treaty" - Oh great idea... Allow super-polluting countries like India, China, and Philippines to continue to pollute (since they are exempt from the treaty) while economically crippling successful countries like Japan and USA with unobtainable goals (as set forth by the treaty) based on science that is sketchy at best (the overall average temperature of the Earth has increased by only 1 degree f in the past 100 years). The Kyoto treaty was written for one purpose: to punish rich, successful countries like ours.
"Ban all smoking" - A noble idea - I know I hate smoking, but this is a freedom issue. We should have the freedom to do stupid things to ourselves. Who owns your body? You or the government? If you say "I own my body" then how can you support such laws? (including laws that ban drugs, alcohol, abortion, suicide, homosexual activity, etc). As long as you are not harming anyone else with your actions and are a consenting adult, why should you let others decide what's right for you? Maybe we can have our own version of the Saudi "religious police" who go around making sure we don't do all these "harmful" things to ourselves.
Miszou is absolutely right. The Prez doesn't actually make law. You can't completely blame everything on him (recessions OR prosperity, etc) without looking at what he was given to work with by congress. Unfortunately, congressmen (and women) have only one major goal: getting re-elected. And unfortunately, that sets their agenda (e.g. pork-barrel spending - which I would also end if I could)
I hope I didn't stir the puddin' too much...
What I would do:
1) Pardon all non-violent drug offenders (jail is a lousy place for rehab) and end the hideous failure known as "the war on drugs".
2) Set up a tax system (such as a the fairtax (www.fairtax.org)) that abolishes the IRS.
3) Get the federal government out of the way and revert power back to the states (as the founders of USA had envisioned).
4) Encourage people to succeed on their own instead of with handouts. Barring a mental or physical handicap, there is no reason ANYONE in America should be dependent on the government for anything, other than enforcing laws (mainly limited to harm caused by others thru force or fraud).
among other things...
But everything I propose means LESS government and MORE individual freedom - and yes, that means more individual responsibility. Otherwise, we will become a nanny-state.
As for what others have said...
"Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws. Go look at UK and Australia since their strict gun laws went into effect. They have MORE crime, not less.
"Passing the Kyoto treaty" - Oh great idea... Allow super-polluting countries like India, China, and Philippines to continue to pollute (since they are exempt from the treaty) while economically crippling successful countries like Japan and USA with unobtainable goals (as set forth by the treaty) based on science that is sketchy at best (the overall average temperature of the Earth has increased by only 1 degree f in the past 100 years). The Kyoto treaty was written for one purpose: to punish rich, successful countries like ours.
"Ban all smoking" - A noble idea - I know I hate smoking, but this is a freedom issue. We should have the freedom to do stupid things to ourselves. Who owns your body? You or the government? If you say "I own my body" then how can you support such laws? (including laws that ban drugs, alcohol, abortion, suicide, homosexual activity, etc). As long as you are not harming anyone else with your actions and are a consenting adult, why should you let others decide what's right for you? Maybe we can have our own version of the Saudi "religious police" who go around making sure we don't do all these "harmful" things to ourselves.
Miszou is absolutely right. The Prez doesn't actually make law. You can't completely blame everything on him (recessions OR prosperity, etc) without looking at what he was given to work with by congress. Unfortunately, congressmen (and women) have only one major goal: getting re-elected. And unfortunately, that sets their agenda (e.g. pork-barrel spending - which I would also end if I could)
I hope I didn't stir the puddin' too much...
>> "Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws. Go look
>> at UK and Australia since their strict gun laws went into effect. They have
>> MORE crime, not less.
Would you mind showing me the statistics that back up this claim?
At least in Japan, I never hear of high school or college students shooting their classmates at school.
>> at UK and Australia since their strict gun laws went into effect. They have
>> MORE crime, not less.
Would you mind showing me the statistics that back up this claim?
At least in Japan, I never hear of high school or college students shooting their classmates at school.
だいはど:
Yes! As a matter of fact I do!
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm
That should get you started. If you need more, feel free to ask!
The reason there are fewer school shootings in Japan is not because of Japan's gun laws, it's because of the society and culture. You never hear of school shootings in Switzerland, either. However, nearly EVERY household is required by law to keep a gun in the house. Need stats for that, too? Glad you asked!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
If banning things solves problems, then maybe you should ban volcanoes and tall buildings - that should work wonders for Japan's suicide rate!
Btw, good luck disarming the Yakuza of their guns. Let me know how that goes for you.
Yes! As a matter of fact I do!
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/guns_save_lives.html
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm
That should get you started. If you need more, feel free to ask!
The reason there are fewer school shootings in Japan is not because of Japan's gun laws, it's because of the society and culture. You never hear of school shootings in Switzerland, either. However, nearly EVERY household is required by law to keep a gun in the house. Need stats for that, too? Glad you asked!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
If banning things solves problems, then maybe you should ban volcanoes and tall buildings - that should work wonders for Japan's suicide rate!
Btw, good luck disarming the Yakuza of their guns. Let me know how that goes for you.
論 (#18)
Without having looked at the actual stats, I find it interesting that all those links you provided above seem to be from gun ownership advocates. Of course, I won't say anything about that until I've read those pages. :-)
As for fewer shootings in Japan, you probably know that there have been a couple of incidents in Japan where school children were victimized in the last few years. They just did not involve guns.
>> Btw, good luck disarming the Yakuza of their guns.
Do you honestly believe that having a gun yourself would help you defend yourself from the Yakuza? They are professionals. They'd shoot you right between the eyes if they figured you had a gun. :*(
>> . You never hear of school shootings in Switzerland, either. However,
>> nearly EVERY household is required by law to keep a gun in the house.
Doesn't it simply tell you that far more citizens are law-abiding (i.e. don't take their guns with them) than the U.S. citizens? I don't think we're allowed to carry guns with us either unless we have a concealed weapon license.
Without having looked at the actual stats, I find it interesting that all those links you provided above seem to be from gun ownership advocates. Of course, I won't say anything about that until I've read those pages. :-)
As for fewer shootings in Japan, you probably know that there have been a couple of incidents in Japan where school children were victimized in the last few years. They just did not involve guns.
>> Btw, good luck disarming the Yakuza of their guns.
Do you honestly believe that having a gun yourself would help you defend yourself from the Yakuza? They are professionals. They'd shoot you right between the eyes if they figured you had a gun. :*(
>> . You never hear of school shootings in Switzerland, either. However,
>> nearly EVERY household is required by law to keep a gun in the house.
Doesn't it simply tell you that far more citizens are law-abiding (i.e. don't take their guns with them) than the U.S. citizens? I don't think we're allowed to carry guns with us either unless we have a concealed weapon license.
I am currently reading the information that will (hopefully) help me present a strong case for gun control. What I've found interesting is that searching for such information via Google USA (www.google.com) didn't give me much, but as soon as I switched search engines to Google Canada (www.google.ca), I got a lot more information concerning gun control and its effects. I wonder how that's the case. :-)
Of course the references I've provided come from pro-gun groups - obviously, an anti-gun group wouldn't want those facts published! Regardless of who posts them, they ARE facts. Sure, there are opinions written in as well, but you DID ask for supporting facts.
Here's one I forgot to post:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641
This is from LAW ENFORCEMENT... Not what I'd consider a "pro-gun advocacy group".
Personally, I have a concealed license and I've never shot anyone - just the opposite - I've been able to deter an attack simply by indicating that I am carrying and am prepared to defend myself.
As for the Yakuza, you just proved my point! Gun laws only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals (as I believe the Yakuza are considered in Japan). And btw, I'm a damn good shot, also... If it's a one-on-one gun fight you're talking about, don't be so quick to bet on him...
You are right - if a professional assassin wants you dead, you're dead. But most of the time, you're just facing a petty thief who just wants to jack you up for some cash. Go ahead - you give him your wallet, your possessions -- maybe even your wife or daughter's virtue.
I'm keeping mine.
Gattsu:
"Unless you are a tree-hugging hippy."
haha! Damn right! I couldn't have said it any better!
I'm surprised no one has disagreed with my position on the war on drugs!!! Come on! SOMEONE out there needs to challenge me on that!
Here's one I forgot to post:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641
This is from LAW ENFORCEMENT... Not what I'd consider a "pro-gun advocacy group".
Personally, I have a concealed license and I've never shot anyone - just the opposite - I've been able to deter an attack simply by indicating that I am carrying and am prepared to defend myself.
As for the Yakuza, you just proved my point! Gun laws only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals (as I believe the Yakuza are considered in Japan). And btw, I'm a damn good shot, also... If it's a one-on-one gun fight you're talking about, don't be so quick to bet on him...
You are right - if a professional assassin wants you dead, you're dead. But most of the time, you're just facing a petty thief who just wants to jack you up for some cash. Go ahead - you give him your wallet, your possessions -- maybe even your wife or daughter's virtue.
I'm keeping mine.
Gattsu:
"Unless you are a tree-hugging hippy."
haha! Damn right! I couldn't have said it any better!
I'm surprised no one has disagreed with my position on the war on drugs!!! Come on! SOMEONE out there needs to challenge me on that!
論 (#22)
I don't want my repy to get too lengthy. Nor do I have the brain to write a long reply without losing some important points. So here's one entry that discusses the situation in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia
This seems like an objective observation, both pointing out the possible positive effects of gun control and a conclusion drawn by statisticians that says the 1996 gun control has had no measurable effect.
>> Personally, I have a concealed license and I've never shot anyone -
>> just the opposite
People like you woud have no problem owning guns even after stricter gun control has been introduced. It is the potential criminals - who would fail on stringent background checks - that a stricter gun control law could prevent from killing innocent citizens with guns.
>> . But most of the time, you're just facing a petty thief who just wants
>> to jack you up for some cash.
You're probably right. OTOH, I've never read or heard about those petty thieves threatening people with guns in Japan. It's not that they don't exist. They just don't have access to handguns. (They use knives, baseball bats, and what not.)
I don't want my repy to get too lengthy. Nor do I have the brain to write a long reply without losing some important points. So here's one entry that discusses the situation in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia
This seems like an objective observation, both pointing out the possible positive effects of gun control and a conclusion drawn by statisticians that says the 1996 gun control has had no measurable effect.
>> Personally, I have a concealed license and I've never shot anyone -
>> just the opposite
People like you woud have no problem owning guns even after stricter gun control has been introduced. It is the potential criminals - who would fail on stringent background checks - that a stricter gun control law could prevent from killing innocent citizens with guns.
>> . But most of the time, you're just facing a petty thief who just wants
>> to jack you up for some cash.
You're probably right. OTOH, I've never read or heard about those petty thieves threatening people with guns in Japan. It's not that they don't exist. They just don't have access to handguns. (They use knives, baseball bats, and what not.)
To clarify, I'm NOT one of those NRA nuts who thinks "free guns for everyone!" - I certainly believe in background checks and other filters before handing out licenses. After all, I only want RESPONSIBLE citizens carrying. However, Japan allows practically no one (except police and military) to carry. I respect Japanese laws and traditions, however, with only government officials able to carry, it reminds me of the days of ancient Japan when only samurai could carry swords, while the "common folk" were forbidden from carrying anything for protection and samurai practically had free-reign to chop off peasant heads as they saw fit. (Maybe it wasn't completely like that... my Japanese history isn't so great)
Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
As we say, "don't knock it til you try it" - if you're ever here, I'll take you to the shooting range. If you can get over any fears you may have about firearms, I bet you will enjoy yourself!
Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
As we say, "don't knock it til you try it" - if you're ever here, I'll take you to the shooting range. If you can get over any fears you may have about firearms, I bet you will enjoy yourself!
> it reminds me of the days of ancient Japan when only samurai could carry swords, while the
> "common folk" were forbidden from carrying anything for protection and samurai practically had
> free-reign to chop off peasant heads as they saw fit.
Please, imagine a policeman shooting a citizen.......
I think it's different now from what it was in the days of ancient Japan.
>Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
Do you know the difinition of the term "police state"?
Would you mind asking these questions?
> "Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws.
Would you consider those people who shot a lot of people in public places in Americs recently criminals? Before the shooting?
>SOMEONE out there needs to challenge me on that
So you' just waiting for the right chance, aren't you?
> "common folk" were forbidden from carrying anything for protection and samurai practically had
> free-reign to chop off peasant heads as they saw fit.
Please, imagine a policeman shooting a citizen.......
I think it's different now from what it was in the days of ancient Japan.
>Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
Do you know the difinition of the term "police state"?
Would you mind asking these questions?
> "Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws.
Would you consider those people who shot a lot of people in public places in Americs recently criminals? Before the shooting?
>SOMEONE out there needs to challenge me on that
So you' just waiting for the right chance, aren't you?
"Please, imagine a policeman shooting a citizen.......
I think it's different now from what it was in the days of ancient Japan. " Actually an off duty Japanese cop shot his girl friend not too long ago.
Guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it a little easier.
If we can drink alcohol (which kills us and causes us to kill others) we (adults) should be able to use any drugs we want. I don`t need anyone telling me what I can and can not do to my own body.
I think it's different now from what it was in the days of ancient Japan. " Actually an off duty Japanese cop shot his girl friend not too long ago.
Guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it a little easier.
If we can drink alcohol (which kills us and causes us to kill others) we (adults) should be able to use any drugs we want. I don`t need anyone telling me what I can and can not do to my own body.
tos:
First of all, have you ever known a police state to allow the common citizen to carry arms or even own them? Nazi Germany disarmed its civilians in the name of "safety" BEFORE commencing with mass exterminations. Also, it is possible for a policeman to use his firearm to harm others. It has been done before. Hopefully, you don't believe all policemen are infallible with "Jedi-like" powers over guns that private citizens could never hope to obtain.
2nd... your argument about "before the shooting" is all semantics. The moment a person decides to harm someone else, he is a criminal. Here are your possible scenarios:
Guns are illegal:
Guy wants to shoot people. He obtains a firearm despite the laws (by stealing, black market, smuggling, already owns one and never turned it in when the gun ban went into effect, or whatever) and shoots people until the police arrive to take him out. Body count is high.
Guns are legal:
Same guy. He gets the gun legally or illegally. He goes to shoot people but gets taken out by someone legally carrying a weapon who happens to be there. Body count: much much lower (possibly including ONLY the criminal gunman).
The problem with banning guns is making the EXISTING guns all go away. Japan has the advantage that people (to my knowledge) have never in Japan's history really had that right. In other countries, it's a different story. They exist. You cannot magically get rid of them all. Even if you could, they can still be smuggled in - just like drugs are.
First of all, have you ever known a police state to allow the common citizen to carry arms or even own them? Nazi Germany disarmed its civilians in the name of "safety" BEFORE commencing with mass exterminations. Also, it is possible for a policeman to use his firearm to harm others. It has been done before. Hopefully, you don't believe all policemen are infallible with "Jedi-like" powers over guns that private citizens could never hope to obtain.
2nd... your argument about "before the shooting" is all semantics. The moment a person decides to harm someone else, he is a criminal. Here are your possible scenarios:
Guns are illegal:
Guy wants to shoot people. He obtains a firearm despite the laws (by stealing, black market, smuggling, already owns one and never turned it in when the gun ban went into effect, or whatever) and shoots people until the police arrive to take him out. Body count is high.
Guns are legal:
Same guy. He gets the gun legally or illegally. He goes to shoot people but gets taken out by someone legally carrying a weapon who happens to be there. Body count: much much lower (possibly including ONLY the criminal gunman).
The problem with banning guns is making the EXISTING guns all go away. Japan has the advantage that people (to my knowledge) have never in Japan's history really had that right. In other countries, it's a different story. They exist. You cannot magically get rid of them all. Even if you could, they can still be smuggled in - just like drugs are.
to TokyoOG:
> Actually an off duty Japanese cop shot his girl friend not too long ago.
What happend to that cop after he did that?
What would happan to a samurai if he killed a peasant?
> samurai practically had free-reign to chop off peasant heads as they saw fit.
Do you think cops can do the same?
> Actually an off duty Japanese cop shot his girl friend not too long ago.
What happend to that cop after he did that?
What would happan to a samurai if he killed a peasant?
> samurai practically had free-reign to chop off peasant heads as they saw fit.
Do you think cops can do the same?
>Do you think cops can do the same?
They can if the government tells them it's OK. (e.g. Nazi Germany)
The 2nd amendment wasn't actually written for "hunting" or "home defense" purposes. It was written so that the people would have a means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Yeah, yeah... I know - the government has tanks and war planes, blah blah blah... But if small-arms in the hands of common citizens isn't a threat, then why do governments fear them so much? It's not safety - you can save more lives by banning swimming pools or dropping speed limits than you can by banning guns.
They can if the government tells them it's OK. (e.g. Nazi Germany)
The 2nd amendment wasn't actually written for "hunting" or "home defense" purposes. It was written so that the people would have a means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Yeah, yeah... I know - the government has tanks and war planes, blah blah blah... But if small-arms in the hands of common citizens isn't a threat, then why do governments fear them so much? It's not safety - you can save more lives by banning swimming pools or dropping speed limits than you can by banning guns.
to 論:
>First of all, have you ever known a police state to allow the common citizen to carry
> arms or even own them?
I know. It's America.
> Also, it is possible for a policeman to use his firearm to harm others.
Is it legal? If a person hasn't done anything?
Was it legal for samurai to use there weapon as they saw feet?
--------------------------
The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
--------------------------
> (Maybe it wasn't completely like that... my Japanese history isn't so great)
> Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
You can't say Japan is a police state.
> your argument about "before the shooting" is all semantics. The moment
> a person decides to harm someone else, he is a criminal.
Oh, I see now. "The moment a person decides......"
By the way, what do you think about "assumption of innocence" and courts?
When is that moment? Does the person have a gun before the moment?
If the person is not criminal, he should obey the law, doesn't he?
-> >>>> "Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws.
> He goes to shoot people but gets taken out by someone legally carrying a weapon who
> happens to be there.
Let's face reality. Who took out those shoters in public places in the US?
> Body count: much much lower (possibly including ONLY the criminal gunman).
Any facts?
>First of all, have you ever known a police state to allow the common citizen to carry
> arms or even own them?
I know. It's America.
> Also, it is possible for a policeman to use his firearm to harm others.
Is it legal? If a person hasn't done anything?
Was it legal for samurai to use there weapon as they saw feet?
--------------------------
The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
--------------------------
> (Maybe it wasn't completely like that... my Japanese history isn't so great)
> Anyway, when only the police can carry guns, it's called a police state.
You can't say Japan is a police state.
> your argument about "before the shooting" is all semantics. The moment
> a person decides to harm someone else, he is a criminal.
Oh, I see now. "The moment a person decides......"
By the way, what do you think about "assumption of innocence" and courts?
When is that moment? Does the person have a gun before the moment?
If the person is not criminal, he should obey the law, doesn't he?
-> >>>> "Banning guns" - this does not work. Criminals don't obey laws.
> He goes to shoot people but gets taken out by someone legally carrying a weapon who
> happens to be there.
Let's face reality. Who took out those shoters in public places in the US?
> Body count: much much lower (possibly including ONLY the criminal gunman).
Any facts?
>> Do you think cops can do the same?
> They can if the government tells them it's OK. (e.g. Nazi Germany)
I hope we are talking about reality now.....
I understand "if they told him, he would do that"
> The 2nd amendment wasn't actually written for "hunting" or "home defense" purposes.
Why did you write this here? Do I need to know it now?
What would happen to a samurai if he killed a peasant for nothing?
What would happen to a cop if he did the same?
> They can if the government tells them it's OK. (e.g. Nazi Germany)
I hope we are talking about reality now.....
I understand "if they told him, he would do that"
> The 2nd amendment wasn't actually written for "hunting" or "home defense" purposes.
Why did you write this here? Do I need to know it now?
What would happen to a samurai if he killed a peasant for nothing?
What would happen to a cop if he did the same?
To respond:
Once again, yes cops can do the same (that is, have the ability to freely kill citizens at their leisure), IF given permission by the government. My point about the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) is relevant because it was written specifically for that reason: in case government decides to allow the police to have the power to perform summary executions.
Samurai had that right, if I recall. Disrespect one, off came your head.
America is not a police state. You may have that opinion, but it is not. We are a representative republic. Do some reading. Your definition of "police-state" does not fit America - maybe your opinion of it, but that's all. All governments exercise SOME measure of control over its people, but if you think America is as you described it, then I'm not sure what planet you are on.
I never said Japan was a police state. You can have a free-market society and NOT have gun rights.
Let's face another reality: most shootings happen in "gun-free" zones where the shooter KNOWS his victims will not be armed. And there ARE instances where they have been stopped by citizens. Those instances are VASTLY under-reported in the media.
"The moment a person decides"... it's called "criminal intent". Obviously, it is their murderous actions that are to be judged by a court of law. But those actions are illegal regardless of whether guns are illegal. Obviously, the law-abiding citizen keeps his arms to himself and hidden until they are needed for self-defense. When guns are illegal, he automatically loses that ability to defend himself and is at the mercy of the criminal as mentioned above.
Body count... if an armed citizen takes out a shooter before he has a chance to empty several clips into the general populous, obviously, the body count would be lowered because he did not have the chance to shoot all of his intended victims. Do you really need stats for this?
Obviously, we are deadlocked... I believe you are taking what has become a tete-a-tete a bit too seriously. I prefer to enjoy a friendly, lively debate and not to furrow our brows over it.
Once again, yes cops can do the same (that is, have the ability to freely kill citizens at their leisure), IF given permission by the government. My point about the 2nd amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) is relevant because it was written specifically for that reason: in case government decides to allow the police to have the power to perform summary executions.
Samurai had that right, if I recall. Disrespect one, off came your head.
America is not a police state. You may have that opinion, but it is not. We are a representative republic. Do some reading. Your definition of "police-state" does not fit America - maybe your opinion of it, but that's all. All governments exercise SOME measure of control over its people, but if you think America is as you described it, then I'm not sure what planet you are on.
I never said Japan was a police state. You can have a free-market society and NOT have gun rights.
Let's face another reality: most shootings happen in "gun-free" zones where the shooter KNOWS his victims will not be armed. And there ARE instances where they have been stopped by citizens. Those instances are VASTLY under-reported in the media.
"The moment a person decides"... it's called "criminal intent". Obviously, it is their murderous actions that are to be judged by a court of law. But those actions are illegal regardless of whether guns are illegal. Obviously, the law-abiding citizen keeps his arms to himself and hidden until they are needed for self-defense. When guns are illegal, he automatically loses that ability to defend himself and is at the mercy of the criminal as mentioned above.
Body count... if an armed citizen takes out a shooter before he has a chance to empty several clips into the general populous, obviously, the body count would be lowered because he did not have the chance to shoot all of his intended victims. Do you really need stats for this?
Obviously, we are deadlocked... I believe you are taking what has become a tete-a-tete a bit too seriously. I prefer to enjoy a friendly, lively debate and not to furrow our brows over it.
If I were president of the US, I would resign. 
Now, if I were omnipotent king of the US, that would be
another story.
in no particular order:
1) DUI penalties would be horrific (first offense = beheading.
Second offense =
revoke your driver's license for 6 months + community service)
2) Abolish the tax code and start over with a flat tax.
3) Phase out social security. It's useless. Use your 401K or a mattress.
4) Don't socialize medicine, but add cost caps on medical treatments, and
add oversight to insurance companies.
(ex. My nephew has a rare genetic disorder for which treatments cost
~$18,000 each--every other week for the rest of his life. Ridiculous)
5) Remove government subsidies from farming, gasoline production, etc. This
will not be a socialistic country and I'll restore free market and capitalism.
Removal of gasoline subsidies will raise gas prices, opening the eyes of
Americans to the true cost of gasoline.
6) Lobbying will be illegal.
7) Political contributions of any kind will be illegal.
8) Electoral college abolished. Voting to the people!
9) Life starts sooner than 9 months. Abortion laws need to be reined in,
as it is currently LEGAL to kill a baby for "health" reasons (including "emotional"
health) right up to birth.
10) English will be the national language. This means government forms, signs,
and public schools will use exclusively English. Private industries may do as
they will.
11) Kyoto convention will be ratified.
12) ...
Just to get started.
Now, if I were omnipotent king of the US, that would be
another story.
in no particular order:
1) DUI penalties would be horrific (first offense = beheading.
Second offense =
revoke your driver's license for 6 months + community service)
2) Abolish the tax code and start over with a flat tax.
3) Phase out social security. It's useless. Use your 401K or a mattress.
4) Don't socialize medicine, but add cost caps on medical treatments, and
add oversight to insurance companies.
(ex. My nephew has a rare genetic disorder for which treatments cost
~$18,000 each--every other week for the rest of his life. Ridiculous)
5) Remove government subsidies from farming, gasoline production, etc. This
will not be a socialistic country and I'll restore free market and capitalism.
Removal of gasoline subsidies will raise gas prices, opening the eyes of
Americans to the true cost of gasoline.
6) Lobbying will be illegal.
7) Political contributions of any kind will be illegal.
8) Electoral college abolished. Voting to the people!
9) Life starts sooner than 9 months. Abortion laws need to be reined in,
as it is currently LEGAL to kill a baby for "health" reasons (including "emotional"
health) right up to birth.
10) English will be the national language. This means government forms, signs,
and public schools will use exclusively English. Private industries may do as
they will.
11) Kyoto convention will be ratified.
12) ...
Just to get started.
>HappyBrian
I like your list...I don't agree with everything, but I think we definitely have some common ground.
I started working on a post like this for my blog, but I hadn't finished it. I guess I'll post my draft here.
I would support:
1. The implementation of the Fairtax along with the repeal of the 16th amendment (Item 3)
2. Changing the budgeting process to only spend taxes levied from citizens the following year. Any funds for “emergency spending (national security, national disaster, or civil engineering emergencies)” would be levied from the citizens only when the following properties are included:
a. A time limit not to exceed the duration of the emergency, and
b. A tax cap as to limit the amount of tax collected to not exceed the cost of the emergency,
3. The repeal of the 16th amendment,
4. The repeal of the 17th amendment allowing for appointment of Senators by state legislatures,
5. An amendment or legislation limiting the Commerce Clause only to issues regarding participation in interstate commerce; or preventing the legislation of commerce based on the premise that by not participating in interstate commerce, intestate commerce is affected,
6. An amendment limiting the 14th amendment to apply only to persons born of U.S. citizens,
7. An amendment or legislation clarifying the 1st amendment’s statements on religion to disallow any branch of government, either through legislation or opinion, to comment on the exercise of religion,
8. Legislation allowing Medicare & Social Security to be optional,
9. Legislation banning earmarks or other projects unrelated to national security and interstate commerce (Roads & other civil engineering spending) designated for individual states.
10. Deregulation of the energy production industry (particularly oil product production) as to reduce the cost of production,
11. Domestic oil acquisition,
12. Immigration reform by supporting the following (in order):
a. Building a double fence on all borders,
b. Legislation severely penalizing business hiring illegal aliens,
c. Temporary free passage for illegal aliens returning to their country of origin,
13. Legislation banning government schools & government involvement addressing topics for educational study,
14. School Choice and vouchers,
15. Returning the Dollar to a gold based monetary unit,
16. Term limits applying to service in either congressional houses,
17. Legislation banning legislation criminalizing thought as in “hate crimes,”
18. Legislation requiring the names of legislators proposing any spending to be attached to the specific proposals,
19. Legislation requiring the identification of voters,
20. Legislation criminalizing the act of the Judicial Branch interpreting the Constitution through the basis of any legislation or judicial opinion of a foreign country or government.
I like your list...I don't agree with everything, but I think we definitely have some common ground.
I started working on a post like this for my blog, but I hadn't finished it. I guess I'll post my draft here.
I would support:
1. The implementation of the Fairtax along with the repeal of the 16th amendment (Item 3)
2. Changing the budgeting process to only spend taxes levied from citizens the following year. Any funds for “emergency spending (national security, national disaster, or civil engineering emergencies)” would be levied from the citizens only when the following properties are included:
a. A time limit not to exceed the duration of the emergency, and
b. A tax cap as to limit the amount of tax collected to not exceed the cost of the emergency,
3. The repeal of the 16th amendment,
4. The repeal of the 17th amendment allowing for appointment of Senators by state legislatures,
5. An amendment or legislation limiting the Commerce Clause only to issues regarding participation in interstate commerce; or preventing the legislation of commerce based on the premise that by not participating in interstate commerce, intestate commerce is affected,
6. An amendment limiting the 14th amendment to apply only to persons born of U.S. citizens,
7. An amendment or legislation clarifying the 1st amendment’s statements on religion to disallow any branch of government, either through legislation or opinion, to comment on the exercise of religion,
8. Legislation allowing Medicare & Social Security to be optional,
9. Legislation banning earmarks or other projects unrelated to national security and interstate commerce (Roads & other civil engineering spending) designated for individual states.
10. Deregulation of the energy production industry (particularly oil product production) as to reduce the cost of production,
11. Domestic oil acquisition,
12. Immigration reform by supporting the following (in order):
a. Building a double fence on all borders,
b. Legislation severely penalizing business hiring illegal aliens,
c. Temporary free passage for illegal aliens returning to their country of origin,
13. Legislation banning government schools & government involvement addressing topics for educational study,
14. School Choice and vouchers,
15. Returning the Dollar to a gold based monetary unit,
16. Term limits applying to service in either congressional houses,
17. Legislation banning legislation criminalizing thought as in “hate crimes,”
18. Legislation requiring the names of legislators proposing any spending to be attached to the specific proposals,
19. Legislation requiring the identification of voters,
20. Legislation criminalizing the act of the Judicial Branch interpreting the Constitution through the basis of any legislation or judicial opinion of a foreign country or government.
> hapybrian
Thanks!
Well, I don't know that your ranting is incoherent. I think you should check out the Fairtax. There are 2 books out. The authors are John Linder and Neal Boortz. If you are on board with scrapping the tax code, you might find the Fairtax more attractive than a flat tax. ...and then you'll agree with me which just makes everyone a better person. haha Just kidding! Seriously though, you should go pick up a copy of the Fairtax Book...and then The Fairtax: Answering the Critics (if you haven't already done so).
>TokyoOG
Thanks!
Well, I would hate to overwhelm a candidate with too much sense.
...and my candidate of choice (who isn't the nominee) would agree with most of that anyway. But, it probably isn't a bad idea to send a couple of e-mails and make a couple phone calls to my congressional representation.
Thanks!
Well, I don't know that your ranting is incoherent. I think you should check out the Fairtax. There are 2 books out. The authors are John Linder and Neal Boortz. If you are on board with scrapping the tax code, you might find the Fairtax more attractive than a flat tax. ...and then you'll agree with me which just makes everyone a better person. haha Just kidding! Seriously though, you should go pick up a copy of the Fairtax Book...and then The Fairtax: Answering the Critics (if you haven't already done so).
>TokyoOG
Thanks!
Well, I would hate to overwhelm a candidate with too much sense.
...and my candidate of choice (who isn't the nominee) would agree with most of that anyway. But, it probably isn't a bad idea to send a couple of e-mails and make a couple phone calls to my congressional representation.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆のメンバーはこんなコミュニティにも参加しています
人気コミュニティランキング
- 1位
- 浜田麻里セッション＠バンプ
- 199人
- 2位
- 30代〜40代から友達作り【友活】
- 35853人
- 3位
- 写真を撮るのが好き
- 209889人