I could not agree with you more. Whether a same sex couple is given the title or not really does not affect me. What bothers me is the many laws out there to advance/protect them but, they go after marriage because they want to be just like everyone else. Which is it going to be? This is where most people would write "they want to have their cake and eat it too." but, I personally think that if you have cake, you should be allowed to eat it! Anyway, I hope you are understanding me. I know I am not doing the greatest job of articulating my point.SoundMaster said:
President Bush overturns Habeas Corpus?
- Thread starter Horus
- Start date
It is true that the FBI keeps records on things of that nature. Its legality, I am not real certain on. I am certain that it has been going on for decades. How much different is a list of protestors from a list of people compiled by Harris Interactive?Silver Incubus said:
Black uni's without a badge is a common practive for any SWAT team. Badges are shiny and make nice targets. In regards to them not wearing them during crowd control, it is standard. They could be torn from their uniforms and stolen. Some badges are sharp too. In this age of lawsuit abuse, it is plausible to believe that someone would sue over being cut by a badge.
Do I think the police get out of line from time to time? You bet I do. Do I believe that the gov't has overstepped their boundaries at times? I would be in denial if I didn't. I just don't think that the Patriot Act and laws like it are the beginning of the end. I don't care who is in office at the time of the bill's passing. I am going to have to read up on Elizabeth Ritter. My recollection of her is hazy.
fah-q said:
Fair point - you're making perfect sense. And I agree. If you want equality, than that's all you should get. No more, no less.
Anvil
Brain Bubbled
- Jun 2, 2004
- 8,381
- 37
- 48
although off of the original topic, homosexuality and marriage is just the new women's rights debate.fah-q said:
Women wanted equality, yet they cannot be treated the same as a man, due to rules protecting them against either it being abuse, work, etc.
People always seem to need something to bitch about.
Secondly, don't you think that your duties as a citizen of your country include keeping a close eye on the government that gives you rules, laws, and protects you? Shouldn't that be your #1 concern?
My primary concern is my daughter and wife. The gov't is not a big concern of mine. I vote to elect people that I have expectations of. If they fail to meet those expectations, I vote for others. I vote so that I don't have to waste time keeping a close eye on whomever is in office. Whether it be locally or nationally.AnvilSnake said:
In reality, isn't our obsession with keeping an eye on the gov't rather hypocritical? We are keeping a close eye on them, to make sure that they aren't keeping too close an eye on us. There are more important things to worry about.
fah-q said:
It is also worth noting that many folks don't get nearly so excited when certain rights are curtailed via Orwellian "Hate-Crime" laws for instance, that essentially criminalize thought or opinion, or Second Ammendment infringement that makes it all but impossible for some to obtain completely legal firearms etc. I am personally far more concerned about why I must be fingerprinted, transaction-tracked and treated like a potential(or actual?) criminal just to hold a Pistol Permit(depending where in NY you are Fah-q, I know you are familiar with this), than whether or not someone had to throw out their water-bottle to board an airplane. But we all have our priorities...
You are absolutely correct. I live outside of NYC so, I am (and do) have a license to carry a concealed firearm. I submitted fingerprints, underwent an FBI background check and every single one of my references were not just called but, grilled. Again, knowing that I am not going to be committing any crimes in the future, I was not concerned about submitting fingerprints. However, the more I think about it, specifically in the context of this thread. The more it troubles me.OldScratch said:
Recently, I sent away for and received my permit to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Pennsylvania. It was as easy as summitting a form, giving my drivers license # and cutting a check for $25.00. If Soros and his protoge have their way, the US will wind up like Australia and England, TOTAL BAN.
fah-q said:
If you don't mind me asking, why do you carry a concealed firearm? Just curious. I assume it's not work-related (law enforement)?
derek
Grey Eminence
The problem is not with guns but with the American mindset.
To illustrate, look at Switzerland. They're all armed to the teeth, but you don't read of gun crime daily in Swiss newspapers, do you?
Also, the U.K does not have a total ban policy. Firearms are available to adults, provided background and references check out. Although the only person I imagine having one would be a farmer.
Guns themselves never were the problem, and latching onto the eradiction of firearms as a way to solve the growing social problems is senseless. The solution lies in altering how people think.
I'd like to think aluminium bats provide a more satisfying way of protecting ones family, anyway.
To illustrate, look at Switzerland. They're all armed to the teeth, but you don't read of gun crime daily in Swiss newspapers, do you?
Also, the U.K does not have a total ban policy. Firearms are available to adults, provided background and references check out. Although the only person I imagine having one would be a farmer.
Guns themselves never were the problem, and latching onto the eradiction of firearms as a way to solve the growing social problems is senseless. The solution lies in altering how people think.
I'd like to think aluminium bats provide a more satisfying way of protecting ones family, anyway.
derek said:The problem is not with guns but with the American mindset.
To illustrate, look at Switzerland. They're all armed to the teeth, but you don't read of gun crime daily in Swiss newspapers, do you?
Also, the U.K does not have a total ban policy. Firearms are available to adults, provided background and references check out. Although the only person I imagine having one would be a farmer.
Guns themselves never were the problem, and latching onto the eradiction of firearms as a way to solve the growing social problems is senseless. The solution lies in altering how people think.
I'd like to think aluminium bats provide a more satisfying way of protecting ones family, anyway.
I agree. Its culture, economics...
There's nothing like the hollow thump of a wood bat though. Its far more satisfying than the ping of aluminum.
Don't mind at all. The occaisions that I am actually carrying are far outnumbered by the occaisions I do not. I am carrying when I am transporting them to and from places that I shoot. If I take my motorcycle on a road-trip I carry. When I take my ATV out on my land, or go hiking I carry. It is not uncommon for me to come across poachers or people hunting my posted land without my permission. I view my guns more as tools than as a method of self defense. As effective as they are for self-defense. I hope to never use one in that manner.SoundMaster said:
The Devil's Steed
Member
Ptah Khnemu said:
No big deal. I stated it in a manner that I thought may come across as a bit curt or perhaps agressive anyway to help illustrate my point to him that one has to be careful not to get off onto a very slippery slope by making such broad statements. It could have ended up being really, really ugly if we just stuck with the "people" concept.
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
You are absolutely incorrect. There was a total ban on handguns in England as of 1997. Since then, handgun related crime has increased.Ptah Khnemu said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
