Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???

[P.V.]

I have to say, it does concern me that as a police officer you condone people taking the law into their own hands, rather than waiting for the police to arrive.

Most police don't condone self defense, or self protection. They can't be everywhere nor can they respond quick enough in every case.

This was posted back at #225, the lady didn't have a chance while waiting for the police to arrive.

He wasn't there to bring her cookies!

 

[Cleveland]

edit: @ Nifty:

Decided to pull this post out for you. I had edited into another post but it didn't really fit there.

I actually like your idea about making it illegal to be in a gang. Some cities (baytown being one) tried that but it didn't work out so well. Other problem is that becomes a major civil rights violation when you arrest someone on the sole fact that they are a member of an organization even if that organization is said to be violent. You have no proof that the person has engaged in anything illegal or violent which is why it's not easy to build a Rico case (which is pretty much what you are referring to) ---->

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Cleveland]

This is a honest question that I don't know the answer to so please answer if you can without turning hostile:

Have their been armed security or officers on duty at places where mass shootings have occurred? I know the Columbine incident law enforcement (some of their normal patrol) arrived but waited outside (bad training - but they did what they were taught so no blame there) while they setup a perimeter and then waited for swat. Which is why active shooter training took a major turn.

The rules are under debate now but in general the down and dirty (at least out here) is if gun fire is being heard to move in and engage the threat or try to put yourself between them and the victims. Some say at least wait for a second officer but most seem to agree don't wait for an entire team if it's an active shooter. The opposite however being if the shooting has stopped and you arrived, you are required to wait as it's no longer an "active" shooter thus should be treated like an "armed barricaded subject."

So I'm curious to know how many incidents already had police on scene. I can't think of any.

 

[ksech]

Hi Ksech.

Actually the opposite is true, given the UK situation where the police are mostly unarmed (no guns), and as a result, the criminals are rarely using firearms either...certainly not anywhere near the extent that US criminals do.

Let's face it....criminals are always going to be able to get guns. In the vast majority of cases involving break-in killings, it is personal and not just some junkie wanting to steal some rings i.e. someone has deliberately gone to the house to kill specific people, and if someone storms in your front door with a semi-automatic wanting to kill you, you've pretty much had it, unless you sit watching television with a rifle in your lap. The only other reason someone breaks into your house is to steal something, and as someone else pointed out, it is nearly always done when nobody is home. If it happens that someone IS home and the burglar didn't know (some are that stupid), then a baseball bat or a plank of wood would be sufficient to drive them off, or disable them until police arrive......IF there were no guns in homes. You see where I'm going with this? Many burglars DO carry guns because if they ARE confronted by the homeowner, it is most likely going to be with a firearm.

I have no doubt that this latest tragedy would not have happened, or may have involved far less deaths, if the shooter did not have such easy access to firearms. I still cannot grasp why any regular citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle....I never could, and never will.

Exactly! And the majority of us posting here agree with this statement. We aren't talking about owning an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons. We don't hunt with semi-automatic weapons, we hunt with single or double load shotguns. And the homeowners I, on a personal level, know who own a gun for protection own a handgun (pistol). So, if these guns are stolen, you are required by law to report they are stolen since they are registered to YOU.

I wouldn't go so far as saying most or some or even any break-ins are personal...It has to do with the "You have something I want and don't have attitude"...As I stated before, there are two scenerios, one non-violent and non-confrontational and the other IS intentionally meant to be confrontational intending for some sort of bodily harm to be done. And if you go back in history and look at some of the mass murderers, their victims weren't preselected...it was random. The criminal doesn't necessarily need to know their victim to do bodily harm, some are just THAT deranged and sadistic or what-have-you to inflict damage to anyone.

Also, we aren't saying "we shoot first and ask questions later", we're saying in most cases, just a "show" of the weapon is enough to PREVENT a serious crime from being committed. But it also gives the homeowner a sense of security to know they can defend and/or protect what is theirs until law enforcement can get there IF there needs be. This doesn't mean we are "trigger happy" or "gun happy" or have a desire to return to the "Wild West"...This means we want to have the RIGHT to be able to choose how we can defend and protect our loved ones against those who deem it their right to illegally enter OUR homes with the intent to do bodily harm.

Now, I really wouldn't make up something like the Wal-Mart thing. I have no reason to. It's in their holiday shopping ad. Just thought it was an odd thing for Wal-Mart to be advertising at holiday time considering the circumstances. As an aside, the gun was listed for $489.99 plus tax.

@Cleveland, kauphy, just play and everyone else...I give up, sorry! You can only re-iterate the same thing from so many ways/angles. They don't WANT to see from our viewpoints, Theirs is the "true" way, ours will always be wrong. They haven't lived in a situation which MAY require you to purchase a handgun to feel safe and secure. They haven't been scared to walk down a street at night because of the types of people who reside there (This is NOT saying to carry a gun on you, so PLEASE do NOT infer this is the meaning of this statement!). They've never been attacked inside their home or have known anyone who has. They've never been in a restaraunt filled with drug crazed punks who wear baggy clothing which hides their knives and guns (I HAVE been in this situation before! so please spare me when I beg to differ with you. And these were NOT local youths, but gang members passing through town from Miami, Florida. They weren't hiding the fact they were carrying guns. I had several other patrons in the restaurant I felt responsible for. Luckily, their intent, at that moment in time was to eat.I was able to get the other patrons out and call the police. Come to find out, 3 of the 7 had arrest warrants out on them for assault and battery and two had outstanding warrants for weapons charges.)

So, until they can say they know what it feels like to NOT have the right to be able to feel safe and secure in a potentially dangerous situation...we will always be considered trigger happy, gun toting, wild west fanatics. And because 1 or a few have the "I refuse to give up my gun" mentality as LaHutti has stated, we are ALL bunched together as having the same mentality by his definition. So be it...I'm done here...

 

[P.V.]

The Connecticut Petit Murders (Horrific and Sad )

The rules are under debate now but in general the down and dirty (at least out here) is if gun fire is being heard to move in and engage the threat or try to put yourself between them and the victims. Some say at least wait for a second officer but most seem to agree don't wait for an entire team if it's an active shooter.

No gun fire but clearly a home invasion, the police were aware of a problem but waited outside. This story makes me sick! Too bad this family didn't have protection..

 

[ksech]

I fibbed! I'm f*cking fuming!!!!! What the f*ck is the matter with people??? Seriously??? I was just reading on my local news website...

There are 7 school districts in my area. Now Count 1 school for high school, 1 school for middle school and an average 3 schools for elementary for each district. Instead of closing the schools tomorrow, they are placing several off-duty police officers in EVERY school in EVERY district because of all the gun and bomb threats they have received. WTF??? I'm going to be ill...Now I'm done...

 

[The Dude]

Okay guys, I'm getting complaints about the thread getting too personal. Please don't force my hand and have me close the thread since there are some interesting observances here, and I'd hate to cut it off to save the peace.

still cannot grasp why any regular citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle....I never could, and never will.

Perhaps you are confusing this with a fully automatic weapon as opposed to a semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are illegal - only the crooks and dodgy ex-members of the military have them. Just a side note: when I was in Iraq, I spent several months on clearing missions cleaning out the abandoned and bombed out Iraqi bunkers of any munitions and weapons. We were allowed to ship to the States (for free) anything we wanted (war souvenirs) in 12''x12"x24'' boxes - and these boxes weren't being checked. This went on for a week or so before the commanders were finding out that some guys were breaking down AK47s and shipping them home. These are fully automatic weapons btw.

When we finally deployed back home (I was stationed in Germany), our vehicles and gear were heavily searched, but there were still guys trying to stash weapons and such. They even found a severed leg in someone's tool box. I guess he was planing to hang this over his fireplace at home along with his stuffed trout.

That was a short war - nothing compared to the years of warfare the US has engaged in Afghanistan and again in Iraq. You can bet a lot of weapons have been smuggled over the past decade. Makes you wonder where they are now.

Sorry for the digression - I mentioned earlier why one would want a semi automatic. Me for one. I worked in Alaska for a number of years, and I would not want to face a Kodiak brown bear with a bolt action rifle - no matter the caliber. If I miss once while it's charging, I might as well play dead and then act the part for real. With a semi-automatic, I'd have a fighting chance.

But when I was in San Diego, I still had my rifles. And like Cleveland has been pointing out, some places in the States really suck - there are armed gangs, as I mentioned earlier, at night in SD you could sometimes hear gun fire, and that's one of the reasons I left - that is no place in my opinion to raise a child.

But armed gangs in Connecticut (or Kodiak brown bears)? American gun culture is an extremely complex issue. We don't know if Americans are more prone to violence (as it may appear to be), or if this is human nature we are talking about. Humans are extremely violent and I don't think there are any easy answers that address any of this.

 

[Cleveland]

They even found a severed leg in someone's tool box.

lol what the hell

 

[rockycatt]

lol what the hell

that dude needs some serious debriefing

 

[Nifty29]

lol what the hell

Yes, I believe it belonged to a Japanese woman who now goes by the name Irene (substitute the r for an l )

 

[dionysus]

Hmm, no, I think it was this bloke named Skip

 

[skiny]

This is starting to seem like a "bash on USA" thread. We suck because we own guns, we have a "wild west" attitude, we like to kill, we are violent, etc...

When you (general poster in this thread) have over 300 million people in your country get back to me.

To be honest I have been trying not to pay too much attention to who's American and who isn't in this thread. Some Americans seem to share my views and some don't. I have more than a few American friends I certainly am not anti-American. With a population of over 300 million I doubt everyone is trigger happy or have this wild west attitude but I think it is something that the US is going to have to remain vigilant about keeping in check. I think the more dangerous the country becomes and the higher the crime rates get the more prominent this attitude will become.

Lets try to explain it this way:

I'm only using this as an example.

People in this thread (including myself) are trying to fight the symptoms of bigger problems. There are countless reasons why America has a high crime rate. The gangs in America didn't start because we loved our guns. And keep in mind the gangs are only one issue........ Our problems aren't simply because of guns. Guns are only a symptom of bigger issues.

@Nifty: I wish it was but its not as easy as saying get a security system and a lock.

It's true that guns are only one symptom but it's the one symptom we happen to be discussing right now. I think all the symptoms need to be addressed including the ridiculously high amount of guns floating around the US and the types of guns people are allowed to own.

It's true that a security system wouldn't help in all circumstances but there are some where it would probably be more beneficial than owning a gun. If a criminal breaks into a home for any reason and a screaming alarm goes off quite often he won't hang around long regardless of his intent. These situations would be avoided before gun fire became necessary.

Actually I think y'all are. How many times have you or someone else called Americans "trigger happy." And I have yet to hear any solutions to fight what problems I have stated other than "get rid of your guns and get a security system." Which by the way a lot of people do have alarm systems.

Your statements as well as others towards America have been pretty degrading. To say its not like that is like me slapping someone and saying no no I like you.

Most in America don't want to kill anyone. Do I need to start linking to all the videos of officers being killed because a guy had a gun and the officers didn't want to shoot them. I recall one video where the guy was actually loading his gun and the officer kept yelling "put it down." Most of us don't want to kill anyone.

Well, that's just bad training. Police officers DO have the right to use lethal force and should be well trained to know when it's necessary. If a criminal is loading a gun and refusing to acknowledge an officer's orders to cease then the officer is well within his right and duty to shoot. In that situation, intent was pretty damn obvious.

As with things like the economy and other politics its not that easy. If anyone in this thread can lower the crime rate in any country to whatever is an acceptable level while making citizens feel safe I'm sure there is a job for you at the top level of government. Great minds have and are working on these issues.

I think top levels of government aren't really doing as much as we'd like to think about crime. I don't think that's any different in the US than it is in Canada. I think most crime is fought at a municipal level and maybe that's something that needs to change. Gang violence in Texas is a Texas problem and gang violence in Toronto is a Toronto problem. Maybe higher levels of government should be more active in finding solutions.

What I see is people stating that the USA has a gun crime problem, which it does, and that every man and his dog owing a gun is contributing to that, which it is. I do see some US members being very defensive that anyone would dare to criticize their nation in any way...

Patriotism is bred into Americans. There's nothing wrong with that in itself. Americans have every right be proud of their country but they do have to be careful that it doesn't stand in the way of progress. You can love your country and still want to change it for the better.

P.S. I HAVE suggested a solution....or the start of one anyway.....a gun amnesty. Revoke all gun licences which are not for legitimate sport or security industries, and ban auto and semi-auto weapons. Nobody has tried that yet....I wonder why? So, I don't think it's fair to say we are all criticizing and not offering alternatives. After all, the current system ain't workin'.

Revoke all gun licenses? Are you trying to start a revolution? lol

I didn't say guns weren't apart of the problem, I said they aren't the root.

I still have yet to hear how you protect someone in these situations: Ex-husband / boyfriend breaks in. Rapist breaks in. Stalker breaks in. Violent Home Invasion (by definition - Breaking in to steal something and harming those inside just because they are inside - not because they are armed).

Please stop ignoring this:

Gangs - Harris County alone as of 2010 (county which includes Houston, TX) - Has a documented known either other words at least: 225 gangs. 10,000 members that are confirmed. That's one area in Texas.

So lets ban all guns right now. Ok done. Now please tell me how you deal with the above problems. As I said you are fighting a symptom by saying it's the guns. I'm not arguing that guns play a roll but still isn't the root cause.

I think guns and gangs are different parts of the same problem. I don't think dealing with one will eliminate the other. You could have an entire new thread on the problem of gang violence and gang related crime. There are endless lists of problems that promote higher crime rates and all need to be dealt with. One of them happens to be gun control and that's what this thread happens to be about.

It's the gangs that are the problem with gangs....not the guns. Gangs find a way to be violent regardless.

IMO there is a better way to handle gangs, much the same as we are going here with bikie gangs. Ban them. Make it an offence to part of or associated with a gang. Mandatory long sentences and other harsh punishments might start to convince budding gangsters that it isn't worth it.

I have to say, it does concern me that as a police officer you condone people taking the law into their own hands, rather than waiting for the police to arrive. I can understand implementing extra security and/or escaping the situation etc, but inferring that people should grab for their firearm at the first sign of trouble is.....well, part of the problem in your country IMO (not you...I mean grabbing for the firearm).

I also don't understand why you aren't supporting some of the suggestions made here to alleviate the gun problem. You say guns aren't the sole cause, just part of the problem, so what's wrong with dealing with that part of the problem first? Most problems rarely have one solution

I agree 100%. The laws need to change so that being an active member of any gang that commits crimes should be illegal.

edit: @ Nifty:

Decided to pull this post out for you. I had edited into another post but it didn't really fit there.

I actually like your idea about making it illegal to be in a gang. Some cities (baytown being one) tried that but it didn't work out so well. Other problem is that becomes a major civil rights violation when you arrest someone on the sole fact that they are a member of an organization even if that organization is said to be violent. You have no proof that the person has engaged in anything illegal or violent which is why it's not easy to build a Rico case (which is pretty much what you are referring to) ---->

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Well, the entire human rights issue has come up a few times when we talk about people's right to protect themselves and how people committing crimes lose their basic rights. I think the law should assume that when a person knowingly joins an organization actively engaged in criminal activity, the person is willing to take responsibility for all actions taken by that group. If you join a criminal organization, you become a criminal by default and joining a criminal organization in itself should be illegal.

This is a honest question that I don't know the answer to so please answer if you can without turning hostile:

Have their been armed security or officers on duty at places where mass shootings have occurred? I know the Columbine incident law enforcement (some of their normal patrol) arrived but waited outside (bad training - but they did what they were taught so no blame there) while they setup a perimeter and then waited for swat. Which is why active shooter training took a major turn.

The rules are under debate now but in general the down and dirty (at least out here) is if gun fire is being heard to move in and engage the threat or try to put yourself between them and the victims. Some say at least wait for a second officer but most seem to agree don't wait for an entire team if it's an active shooter. The opposite however being if the shooting has stopped and you arrived, you are required to wait as it's no longer an "active" shooter thus should be treated like an "armed barricaded subject."

So I'm curious to know how many incidents already had police on scene. I can't think of any.

There are far more qualified people than me to make up the rules of engagement. In my opinion, people who join law enforcement agencies should do so knowing they will have to put themselves in harm's way. At the same time, there are many times when waiting for back up would be the more prudent choice. Entering a dangerous situation alone could well result in back up arriving with an officer already down making a bad situation much worse. The problem I have is when civilians without police training start acting like police officers because they happen to own guns. I think more often than not, that situation can only get worse.

Okay guys, I'm getting complaints about the thread getting too personal. Please don't force my hand and have me close the thread since there are some interesting observances here, and I'd hate to cut it off to save the peace.


Sorry for the digression - I mentioned earlier why one would want a semi automatic. Me for one. I worked in Alaska for a number of years, and I would not want to face a Kodiak brown bear with a bolt action rifle - no matter the caliber. If I miss once while it's charging, I might as well play dead and then act the part for real. With a semi-automatic, I'd have a fighting chance.

But when I was in San Diego, I still had my rifles. And like Cleveland has been pointing out, some places in the States really suck - there are armed gangs, as I mentioned earlier, at night in SD you could sometimes hear gun fire, and that's one of the reasons I left - that is no place in my opinion to raise a child.

But armed gangs in Connecticut (or Kodiak brown bears)? American gun culture is an extremely complex issue. We don't know if Americans are more prone to violence (as it may appear to be), or if this is human nature we are talking about. Humans are extremely violent and I don't think there are any easy answers that address any of this.

I think anyone who lives in fear is at least more prone to violence. If the general public is scared for any reason, I just don't think handing them all weapons is the best solution.

As for being armed against bears in Alaska, I think different situations require different rules. I would much rather see people well armed against animal attacks than against other people. The problem is if you make certain types of weapons legal in one place, it's too easy to transport them to another place. Moving guns into the country must be a lot more difficult than moving them from state to state. That's why I don't believe there are really any "gun free zones" as long as guns can be easily moved in and out of these places.

 

[rockycatt]

there's not much more can be said on this deadlock subject

literally this has become a mental masturbation competition = sad

 

[The Dude]

literally this has become a mental masturbation competition = sad

And this is sad because??....

 

[Pinababy69]

I don't want to repeat over and over again (ie. beat a dead horse), things that others have said, but did want to comment on one thing. Population has been brought up, and while it is an extremely valid point, I do believe the problem goes deeper than that. While we here in Canada have a population of roughly 35 million, the US has over 300 million residents.

Skiny mentioned earlier that he used to live in Toronto, and never felt threatened. I also live in Toronto, and have my whole life pretty much. I've lived in some nice neighbourhoods, and some not so nice ones. I grew up as a kid in a neighbourhood called Parkdale...which if anyone is familiar with this city, knows that it is a "less than desirable" place to live. Gangs, hookers, crackheads, drug dealers...not a place you wanna walk around at night, but I did...and honestly, never felt unsafe. Even after I grew up, I would go back to visit my grandmother there, and never had a problem using public transit or walking at night, or to the store, etc.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that, IMO, I think that JustPlay and Bryan have somewhat hit the nail on the head when they say that it depends on where and how (as in what culture) you were brought up. Bryan's opinion was that, as a whole, the US is more prone to violence, I take him at his word. Even JustPlay, who from what I know of her, is probably one of the least violent people ever (that's a compliment btw, not a slight JP)...believes that a citizen should have the right to own a firearm and protect themselves/their property. I wouldn't in a million years, dream of owning or keeping a gun in my home...and trust me, I probably have as many violent tendencies as anyone on here. That doesn't really sound right, but what I mean is that I would have no qualms about killing someone who directly threatened myself or my family, with whatever means possible...but having a gun in my home, is just not something I would ever even consider.

But back to the population thing...I wanted to compare a Canadian city, to a US city, in terms of homicides and more specificially, shootings.

NY City Population 2011- 8.2 million
Homicides for the Year - 515 (source: nyc.gov website - pdf download)
Firearm Related Homicides - 314

GTA (Greater Toronto Area) Population 2011 - 5.5 million
Homicides for the Year - 45
Firearm Related Homicides - 24

I realize that we are still talking about a population difference of 2.5 million people, but this is the largest city in Canada, with the largest diversity of religions, ethnicity and cultures. While we average about 1.5 homicides per month, NYCity averages 18 per month. I truly believe that this proves the point that both Bryan and JP have made. While decreasing the number of guns "readily" available is a start (IMO only), the problem(s) facing the US run much deeper than just guns. It's violence in general, and how different cultures and societies, deal with violent confrontation. All JMO of course.

I sincerely hope that this post hasn't offended anyone. Merry Christmas to all. And to all the parents of little ones on here (myself included), count your blessings that you have them safe and sound at home. And maybe try and take some time to think of how we can all make this world a better place, and what we can pass on to our kids. Let's not forget this thread was started because 20 small children lost their lives, due to a totally senseless and evil act. I think the best way to honour them, is to try and find a way to all work together to fix whatever problems, we ALL face on a daily basis, regardless of where we live.

 

[just play]

Thank you Pina and Skiny for wording your posts the way you do.

 

[LaHutti]

Ofcourse it goes deeper, and I think we all know a lot of the problems.

I wrote a post last night, and it became VERY long, and VERY political, and when I was done writing it, and read through it, I decided not to post it.
I know for a fact, that eventhough I did not say anything in my post, to offend anyone, some of what needs to be said would offend some Americans, and I would be seen as "bashing usa". I also know that a lot of Americans, and especially Americans who made the move to, and know, other parts of the world, would agree with me. I personally know quite a few Americans who moved to Europe, and was absolutely stunned at how some things are different. I made the move to Canada, and have been in the states as well, and eventhough I knew I would have to adapt, I was floored by how different, especially the work market works on this side of the pond.

We have talked a lot about the difference in culture...one of the biggest differences between Europe and USA, and Canada for that matter, is the way workers have been standing up for themselves in Europe through the last 100 years. They have fought their asses of, to make a society, where people are treated fairly, and somewhat equally, regardless of background, and the way they make a living. It has been a fight, and most europeans are very proud of what their grandparents and great grandparents have been willing to sacrifice, and of what has been accomplished...THIS is European, and especially northern european history, and one that a lot of European workers should be, and are proud of.
When we mention how things work in Europe, and try to tell Americans how things could be different from the way it is in America, we're often met with hostility and sarcasm, and are (with some sarcasm) told "oh how lucky you are to live in a perfect place ...utopia" and that "you don't really want to hear us bragging, and telling you how to do things".

Every time this happens I think to myself ... do you remember how this discussion started ? It wasn't about MY problems. And I for one, do not want to appear to be superior, and tell people the "right way" to do things, but I DO want to exchange experiences, and the only way to do that, is to tell you about my life, and my history, how things actually work, and the obvious differences.

I wish you would try to listen, and I most certainly will listen to you, with an open mind. There are things in America that, to me, are obviously stupid, because of MY history, MY life, and the way I was brought up, and if we're going to have the discussion, I'm going to have to tell you about those things...I'll not just tell you it's stupid, but I'll try to tell you WHY it's, in my opinion, stupid, if you'll just listen, and not get offended.
There are things in Europe that are obviously stupid as well...well tell me about it! Maybe I just don't see it, but I certainly won't get offended, if you point it out. I'm not here to tell you stories, to make MY life, and MY background look like roses and layercake, and yours look like poop. I love Americans .. they're fun and lovely people, and I have many, very good American friends, but if I dare say anything about their great nation, I'll see another side of them. Loosen up a bit....I might slap you in the face with some truth that you don't like to hear, but I love you just the same, and I welcome you to slap me back, if you agree to hug me, when we're done

I guess this is to be considered an apology to any American, who felt that I was here to "Bash America", and it made me ramble on for quite a bit.

 

[Nifty29]

literally this has become a mental masturbation competition = sad

Great contribution.

So, either don't read it and/or don't participate. The choice is yours.

All the contributions I've read so far have been on topic and informative.....except the one above.

Sounds to me like you don't want to hear some stuff, which goes exactly to what lahutti was just saying.....and I agree with him (people are gonna start talking soon if that keeps happening lol)

How about adding something worthwhile and legible, instead of ragging on those who are making this a great discussion?

 

[skiny]

Great contribution.

So, either don't read it and/or don't participate. The choice is yours.

All the contributions I've read so far have been on topic and informative.....except the one above.

Sounds to me like you don't want to hear some stuff, which goes exactly to what lahutti was just saying.....and I agree with him (people are gonna start talking soon if that keeps happening lol)

How about adding something worthwhile and legible, instead of ragging on those who are making this a great discussion?

Personally, I'm all for mental masturbation. I'd stroke my brain all day long if I could. Who knows? Maybe if I stroke it long enough a good idea will squirt out.

 

[Nifty29]

Personally, I'm all for mental masturbation. I'd stroke my brain all day long if I could. Who knows? Maybe if I stroke it long enough a good idea will squirt out.

I wonder if sticking a viagra in ones ear would help?

Last time I took it, the damn thing got stuck in my throat and i had a stiff neck for days.

 

[Nifty29]

Another 4 people shot dead.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The NRA wants more guns. Right. Nice one.

 

[rockycatt]

I wonder if sticking a viagra in ones ear would help?

Last time I took it, the damn thing got stuck in my throat and i had a stiff neck for days.

now there's some content not even emotionally driven more like a mental masturbater

 

[Sovietsky]

I remember having this type of discussions with some americans some time ago.

The freedom to own guns, abortion, God, homos not being able to get married. That summed the debate I had with them.
As a non- american I will never understand but for them it is what democracy is about.

Also don't get offended by my post this is just my personal view.

 

[skiny]

Skiny mentioned earlier that he used to live in Toronto, and never felt threatened. I also live in Toronto, and have my whole life pretty much. I've lived in some nice neighbourhoods, and some not so nice ones. I grew up as a kid in a neighbourhood called Parkdale...which if anyone is familiar with this city, knows that it is a "less than desirable" place to live. Gangs, hookers, crackheads, drug dealers...not a place you wanna walk around at night, but I did...and honestly, never felt unsafe. Even after I grew up, I would go back to visit my grandmother there, and never had a problem using public transit or walking at night, or to the store, etc.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that, IMO, I think that JustPlay and Bryan have somewhat hit the nail on the head when they say that it depends on where and how (as in what culture) you were brought up. Bryan's opinion was that, as a whole, the US is more prone to violence, I take him at his word. Even JustPlay, who from what I know of her, is probably one of the least violent people ever (that's a compliment btw, not a slight JP)...believes that a citizen should have the right to own a firearm and protect themselves/their property. I wouldn't in a million years, dream of owning or keeping a gun in my home...and trust me, I probably have as many violent tendencies as anyone on here. That doesn't really sound right, but what I mean is that I would have no qualms about killing someone who directly threatened myself or my family, with whatever means possible...but having a gun in my home, is just not something I would ever even consider.

I grew up on Driftwood near Jane and Finch. We moved in around 1970 and I was too young to really remember moving there but I do remember a time when that area didn't seem very dangerous. We lived there for about 10 years and by the time we moved it was already not a very good area to live in. It really went downhill fast. (And no, it wasn't my fault.)

I have been back to that area many times in recent years. I don't know anyone who lives there but there is a couple of malls at Jane and Finch that I've been to for various reasons and even though that is now one of the worst areas in Toronto I didn't really feel unsafe there during the day, minding my business. Once in a while when I'm in Toronto I'll cruise down Driftwood and through Grandravine. It's sad to see the state that area is in now because I do have some good childhood memories there. That's life in the big city, I guess.

I guess it's true that I've never really felt threatened but there are times when I've been in places in Toronto where I wouldn't say I felt "safe." I have to be realistic and not pretend that bad things can't happen when you're in a bad neighbourhood but there is no circumstance where I would bring a firearm of any kind to protect myself. I know myself and I know that even if I had one, the chance of me actually shooting another person is probably pretty much zero. I'm sure there are many people who might think that running away is cowardly but in most cases I would rather be a coward than a killer. I say most cases because I would be more likely to shoot to protect someone else's life than I would to protect my own.

Believe it or not I haven't even been in a physical confrontation since I was in high school. Being as sarcastic and outspoken as I am, I'm surprised someone doesn't try to punch me at least once a day (And apparently Pina would be first in line)

I probably have as many violent tendencies as anyone on here.

but I just don't live a violent lifestyle and I'm really not very fond of violent solutions. Because of my lifestyle and my experiences, in my opinion, arming yourself is at the very least - the early stages of a violent solution.

Another 4 people shot dead.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The NRA wants more guns. Right. Nice one.

Actually they want armed guards in all schools. From what I've read in this thread, Americans in general already seem to have this perpetual feeling that they need to be protected. The same sentiment seems to keep coming back "We have a right to protect ourselves. We need to protect ourselves." It's almost like many Americans have this constant feeling of impending danger. This is just what I'm seeing and it's off the top of my head. I'm no psychologist and I've seen no studies so this is just off the top of my head. And I really don't mean to offend anyone by it but many Americans seem to be in defensive mode by nature. Now that's not to say that there aren't times when people in the US are in danger. Obviously with the amount of crime and murder in the densely populated areas there would be danger all around but if you watch the news and listen to groups like the NRA there seems to be this constant idea that people should be scared. It's like certain groups and many media outlets want Americans to believe that there is always a threat that someone or something is out to get them. Now I'm sure many Americans can see though the rhetoric and many Americans don't constantly feel threatened but when I listened to this spokesman for the NRA suggest that every school should have armed guards present this is what came to mind. Children growing up surrounded by armed guards living in homes where parents arm themselves for protection and even teach their children to shoot for the same reasons. It just seems to me that this only produces another generation of people living with this sense of danger and the constant need to be protected.

 

[dionysus]

I grew up on Driftwood near Jane and Finch. We moved in around 1970 and I was too young to really remember moving there but I do remember a time when that area didn't seem very dangerous. We lived there for about 10 years and by the time we moved it was already not a very good area to live in. It really went downhill fast. (And no, it wasn't my fault.)

I have been back to that area many times in recent years. I don't know anyone who lives there but there is a couple of malls at Jane and Finch that I've been to for various reasons and even though that is now one of the worst areas in Toronto I didn't really feel unsafe there during the day, minding my business. Once in a while when I'm in Toronto I'll cruise down Driftwood and through Grandravine. It's sad to see the state that area is in now because I do have some good childhood memories there. That's life in the big city, I guess.

I guess it's true that I've never really felt threatened but there are times when I've been in places in Toronto where I wouldn't say I felt "safe." I have to be realistic and not pretend that bad things can't happen when you're in a bad neighbourhood but there is no circumstance where I would bring a firearm of any kind to protect myself. I know myself and I know that even if I had one, the chance of me actually shooting another person is probably pretty much zero. I'm sure there are many people who might think that running away is cowardly but in most cases I would rather be a coward than a killer. I say most cases because I would be more likely to shoot to protect someone else's life than I would to protect my own.

Believe it or not I haven't even been in a physical confrontation since I was in high school. Being as sarcastic and outspoken as I am, I'm surprised someone doesn't try to punch me at least once a day (And apparently Pina would be first in line) but I just don't live a violent lifestyle and I'm really not very fond of violent solutions. Because of my lifestyle and my experiences, in my opinion, arming yourself is at the very least - the early stages of a violent solution.




Actually they want armed guards in all schools. From what I've read in this thread, Americans in general already seem to have this perpetual feeling that they need to be protected. The same sentiment seems to keep coming back "We have a right to protect ourselves. We need to protect ourselves." It's almost like many Americans have this constant feeling of impending danger. This is just what I'm seeing and it's off the top of my head. I'm no psychologist and I've seen no studies so this is just off the top of my head. And I really don't mean to offend anyone by it but many Americans seem to be in defensive mode by nature. Now that's not to say that there aren't times when people in the US are in danger. Obviously with the amount of crime and murder in the densely populated areas there would be danger all around but if you watch the news and listen to groups like the NRA there seems to be this constant idea that people should be scared. It's like certain groups and many media outlets want Americans to believe that there is always a threat that someone or something is out to get them. Now I'm sure many Americans can see though the rhetoric and many Americans don't constantly feel threatened but when I listened to this spokesman for the NRA suggest that every school should have armed guards present this is what came to mind. Children growing up surrounded by armed guards living in homes where parents arm themselves for protection and even teach their children to shoot for the same reasons. It just seems to me that this only produces another generation of people living with this sense of danger and the constant need to be protected.

If I dropped my kid off at school and there was an armed guard at the door, I'd be turning back to the car and finding a new school

 

[Nifty29]

I rest my case:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[LaHutti]

Best suggestion I've seen for a while.

 

[GrandMaster]

Another 4 people shot dead.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The NRA wants more guns. Right. Nice one.

Two volunteer firefighters shot dead in New York state:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. The gunman already had a murder conviction ...

 

[secret2]

Maybe if we can't change the 'gun' law, since this is such debatable subject, maybe change the 'bullet' law.

I know the velocity of a bullet is , well fast....how about rethinking the bullet?

 

[skiny]

Two volunteer firefighters shot dead in New York state:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. The gunman already had a murder conviction ...

Was the point of the fire to attract the firefighters so he could shoot them or was he shooting them so they couldn't put out the fire?

There was another story that I didn't bother saving the link to about a guy who got shot delivering pizzas. Apparently the pizza was too small or something.

Is this getting worse by the day or are we just seeing more reports of it?

 

[Cleveland]

Was the point of the fire to attract the firefighters so he could shoot them or was he shooting them so they couldn't put out the fire?

Is this getting worse by the day or are we just seeing more reports of it?

He started the fire so he could attract them and kill them but he also stated (not sure if it was recorded or written) that he wanted the fire to kill as many as possible. He said he liked killing.

There system seems to be as broken as ours. A man recently got released out here while being tried for murder of all things.....wtf.....so anyway he was released on bail and while out killed someone else.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Apparently, Facebook is banning pro-gun accounts, according to this article, even if merely quoting Gandhi on what he considered the worst act by British rule in India.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dionysus]

Actually i dont see where where you got that. Where does facebook say the account closure was gun related at all

 

[Westland Bowl]

Actually i dont see where where you got that. Where does facebook say the account closure was gun related at all

I got it from the article I posted.

 

[dionysus]

Right. One persons speculation as to the motive for the account warning.

 

[slotplayer]

love america but in many ways its ridiculous.
the country goes to great lengths to protect money but hang kids out to dry.

if any american wild west movies are based on any factual events, there were places like dodge city for example that would not permit guns, the guns were collected on entry and kept in the sherrifs office. Why as that?

personally, I would not keep any guns in the house for the same reason I would not let a small child play by the pool unattended.

if it were up to me, I'd make the gun lovers jump through hoops.

 

[Westland Bowl]

Right. One persons speculation as to the motive for the account warning.

If you post something THEN got suspended by FB after years of being on FB, wouldn't you suspect it has something to do with the recent post? I don't know what exactly FB said or sent to him so I personally wouldn't know. But he does provide a link to another article talking about other accounts being suspended or completely wiped out by FB due to politically incorrect gun-control stances.

Is Gandhi's quote offensive? "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

 

[dionysus]

One, it was his final warning, not his first. Second, theres nothing in the warning saying its in any way related to guns. Third if you read the posts, one theory is that bots merely picked up on content words not the content itself. And fourth the link he provides lists a bunch of supposedly suspended accounts supposedly based on gun related posts but we arent provided with any statements or facts to back this up but for one guys say so and since we arent provided any insight into those accounts all we have is a claim noone can back up

 

[Westland Bowl]

One, it was his final warning, not his first. Second, theres nothing in the warning saying its in any way related to guns. Third if you read the posts, one theory is that bots merely picked up on content words not the content itself. And fourth the link he provides lists a bunch of supposedly suspended accounts supposedly based on gun related posts but we arent provided with any statements or facts to back this up but for one guys say so and since we arent provided any insight into those accounts all we have is a claim noone can back up

I think you make a good lawyer, Dionysus!

 

[dionysus]

Lol, probably not. My point is though that i could post my casino account was closed because the casinos hate blondes and george is blonde and his account was closed. George told me thirty names of people who had their accounts closed. I dont know if theyre blonde and george didnt give me any details but it must be because theyre blonde too. Until the casino or the parties share how, when or why their accounts were closed, george speculating or stating its all blonde related doesnt make it so any more than we know these accounts were closed due to gun posts; and the post in question here doesnt even really resemble a gun issue

 

[Seventh777]

I just googled - is facebook banning gun related accounts, the result was interesting to say the least, facebook like youtube were bought out for a reason, i'm putting that reason down to censorship and control, I noticed the most recent incident clearly depicted a semi automatic gun being involved and used the 2nd best sort of victims to incite public outrage - First Responders. Seems TPTB didn't make as many fuck-ups regarding this event as they did with Sandy Hook - Early news reports clearly stating there were 4 hand guns found by Lanza and no long weapon, Carver the Autopsy guy stating all were killed by the long weapon, even though at this time he had only done 7 autopsies, he couldn't answer how many were boys / girls, or what they were wearing, the gun found in the trunk of the car was clearly a shotgun ( look at the shell ejected, it's way to big to be a .223 round ), early indications also point towards at least two other shooters (video, eye witnesses, and audio evidence of this), so what happened to both these other shooters that at some time were apprehended and handcuffed by the police?.

If I were American right now my main point of concern would not be against my fellow Americans, be they pro / anti guns, but why TPTB don't want an armed America out there, i'll give you a huge clue here...FEMA, research those, and join the dots.

 

[dionysus]

Googling myself ive not found any substantive evidence that fb is banning pro gun accounts, rather just linking back to the 2 sources posted here earlier and regurgitating their theory verbatim or stating its so, but contributing nothing to back it up. Another cpuple sites were self professed conspiracy theorists, again, stating a theory with no foundation.
Another plausible answer i came across is that a lot of these pages may merely have been tagged offensive by general users and as such the auto function flagged them as offensive due to the number of complaints without any actual moderator reviewing them.

 

[Seventh777]

Googling myself ive not found any substantive evidence that fb is banning pro gun accounts, rather just linking back to the 2 sources posted here earlier and regugitating their theory verbatum or stating its so, but comtributing nothing to back it up. Another cpuple sites were self professed coniracy theorists, again, stating a theory with no foundation.
Another plausible answer i came across is that a lot of these pages may merely have been tagged offensive by general isers and as such the auto function flagged them as offensive due to the number of complaints without any actual moderator reviewing them.

On and off i've been using fb for years, along these years and in it's original owners status I have witnessed some outrageous posts that were never removed, censured, owner accounts banned, these included making a hero out of a serial killer whose victims included policemen / women, support for a notorious pedophile, changing rape laws to such an extent that any woman deserves to be raped, poking fun at disabled children, and a whole heap more.

 

[dionysus]

Ok. But again, what proof is there ANY of these accounts were banned due to pro gun posts? Because Infowars says so?

 

[Seventh777]

Ok. But again, what proof is there ANY of these accounts were banned due to pro gun posts? Because Infowars says so?

Like Alex Jones or loathe him, he must have got his information from somewhere, although I disprove of his way of portraying certain events (added bits entirely based on his opinion), his original source has very rarely been found to be unreliable, I personally detest him, but he is privy to some damn good sources.

 

[dionysus]

A counter theory:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

We’re seeing plenty of posts and receiving lots of questions about claims and rumours that Facebook are banning content related to supporting gun rights in the US.

So are Facebook banning pro-gun content? The answer is probably not, but what we’re likely seeing is an inherent glitch to a reporting system that heavily relies on user feedback with little oversight from Facebook themselves.
The problem arises when a particular controversial debate arises with two clear sides. In this case after the shooting at Sandy Hook the debate over gun control has exploded, with pro-gun support pointing to the second amendment and the right to bear arms for protection, and the anti-gun protestors pointing to stricter control and even bans.
And because the subject is so controversial and emotive people who post content vehemently supporting one side or the other are more than likely going to have their content reported as abusive by many of those who strongly disagree with it. This then leads to suspensions or even removal of the accounts and/or content, which then duly leads to the false belief that it was Facebook removing the content for political reasons. We’ve seen it before, especially regarding US politics, as both pro and anti-Obama supporters have – over the years – both claimed that Facebook were censoring their content.
This explains why the majority of users who have had their accounts suspended on Facebook are users with a large audience at their disposal, and thus are more likely to have more Facebook users report their content as abusive. PrisonPlanet.com compiled a list of high profile users who have had their accounts removed.
One only needs to do a quick Facebook search to see the vast amount of pro-gun content, groups, profiles and pages on Facebook that have not been removed, and this coupled with the fact that we have received reports of anti-gun content also being removed as well, it is clear to see that this is most likely down to Facebook’s user-reliant reporting system gone awry, again.
No, Facebook are not intentionally removing content because it supports pro-gun rights – that move would be remarkably stupid considering the massive amount of pro-gun content on the site and large numbers of pro-gun supporters. What we are seeing is yet another example of Facebook’s shaky report system flagging due to an apparent lack of oversight from the social networking site themselves.
In fact spreading rumours that Facebook are banning such content is counter-productive since it likely leads to more people getting involved and reporting content that they disagree with.
So what do you think? The result of Facebook’s Report feature, or do you actually think Facebook are banning content because they disagree with it?

 

[skiny]

Finding accurate information on the internet is getting increasingly difficult. Gun control is only one of many topics that are driven by emotion and personal opinion. The same issues have arisen when we talk about information from sites based on religion, history and extraterrestrial topics. Sometimes people mishear or misunderstand information and include it on a website. Sometimes information which is entirely opinion is stated as fact and sometimes websites include blatant lies.

The problem comes when information is transfered or referred to by other sites. This creates a web or ring of reproductions of the same false statements or links back to misleading articles. Quantity of sources is not an indication of truth as most of the same information is just transferred from site to site. One good example of this was in our ancient alien debate where the story of a well known Egyptian professor made claims that there was alien technology inside the pyramids of Egypt. I found this same story on literally hundreds of web pages and it took almost an hour to dig out the original source which was one sole Facebook page mentioning a different person with a similar name giving the lecture who wasn't even a professor. This name was either misread or intentionally misrepresented on one web page reporting the lecture and that misinformation made it's way from there to hundreds of other ancient alien web pages. When the same information is on so many different websites it becomes accepted as fact and that is what we deal with when we look for information online.

No matter how much you agree with something or how much you want to believe it you have to treat everything you read with skepticism. Even reputable sites can get lazy or be fooled by information that seems to be correct. If people are going to relay information obtained from websites the original sources should be thoroughly checked but that usually takes a lot more effort that most people are willing to make.

 

[Seventh777]

I hear what everyone is saying regarding reliable sources of information etc, and yet, many of those people believe every single thing they watch on the 2500+ media outlets owned by 1 of 3 people, it's getting damn hard trying to find the truth, but every now and then one of the independent news channels is in the right place at the right time, then and only then can we begin to see the true picture emerge.

One of the aspects covered by the 2nd amendment but rarely gets a mention is the use of guns against a tyrannical government, if the need arises, you guys may want to remember this.

@skiny and sorry for the slight derail - did you ever watch that UFO related documentary narrated by Roger Moore?.

 

[skiny]

I hear what everyone is saying regarding reliable sources of information etc, and yet, many of those people believe every single thing they watch on the 2500+ media outlets owned by 1 of 3 people, it's getting damn hard trying to find the truth, but every now and then one of the independent news channels is in the right place at the right time, then and only then can we begin to see the true picture emerge.

One of the aspects covered by the 2nd amendment but rarely gets a mention is the use of guns against a tyrannical government, if the need arises, you guys may want to remember this.

I haven't looked up the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment but I would be curious as to what constitutes a tyrannical government. With a population of over 300 million and democratically elected officials an awful lot of people would have to feel their rights and freedoms are being unduly infringed upon before any group could legally take up arms against the government. People protest every day but even if 100 thousand Americans gathered to dispute government actions that's still only 0.03% of the population. The freedom of speech is a far more powerful weapon than the right to bear arms when dealing with an unfair government.

The original Bill of Rights was adopted over 200 years ago. The ability for the general public to be armed against a tyrannical government might have been possible at the time but today people owning guns for that purpose against a government with an array of tanks, jet fighters, bombers, missiles, battleships and so on, is pointless. It serves as much purpose as it would have if the 2nd Amendment had given the people 200 years ago the right to own a sling shot.

Regardless of any amendments or ratifications, the right to bear arms is only useful for individuals to protect themselves against other individuals. If people have a problem with their democratically elected government there is a process to have them removed. Shooting at them is not part of that process. Anyone who feels it is within their right to take up arms against the US government is either going to find themselves dead or in prison, 2nd Amendment or not.

@skiny and sorry for the slight derail - did you ever watch that UFO related documentary narrated by Roger Moore?.

It's possible. I've watched more of them than I can remember. I rarely remember in any great detail things I don't believe anyway.

 

[Seventh777]

I found this rather interesting..........





Every American killed with a gun, nearly 90 are killed by alcohol related causes!
Does Congress want to ban alcohol?.

@skiny - The right to bear arms against a tyrannical government falls under this category, which basically states -

and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias

Supreme Court declared that "the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

It's my understanding that an completely separate militia from that of a government controlled one, is one consisting of the people, by the people, for the people, and with it the right to bear arms and restrict the powers of the national government. How else could this be construed bar the right to bear arms against the government if the need arises?.


Source -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

P.S.

Wasn't freedom of speech basically removed with the introduction of the Patriot Act?. You must remember it's arrival.........

The USA PATRIOT Act
Legislation Rushed Into Law in the Wake of 9/11/01

The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was signed into law on October 26, 2001.
The law was submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration on September 24th, just 13 days after the attack. Two of the Senators who attempted to slow passage of the bill, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, were targeted with letters containing weaponized anthrax delivered to their offices on October 9. Russ Feingold was the only member of the Senate to vote against it

Overview

The Campaign Committee of UNITE FOR PEACE provided the following brief rundown on the potential impact of the act on freedoms:

Freedom of Association: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
Freedom of Information: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.
Freedom of Speech: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to terror investigations.
Right to Legal Representation: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to US citizens accused of crimes.
Freedom from Unreasonable Searches: Government may search and seize papers and effects owned by citizens without probable cause to assist terror investigations.
Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: Government may jail anyone indefinitely without a trial, including US citizens.
Right to Liberty: Anyone may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

A More Detailed Look

The American Civil Liberties Union gives a more detailed description of the provisions of the act.

Secret Searches: The USA PATRIOT Act expands the ability of the government to use so called "sneak and peek" and "black bag" secret searches. These searches, depending on the target, require either no notification at all of the person being searched, or delay notification until after the search has occurred. This means that physical searches of our homes, cars, computers, workplaces and reading materials can be conducted without our knowledge. These provisions apply both in anti-terrorism investigations and routine criminal investigations. aclu.org
Government Surveillance: The USA PATRIOT Act minimizes the power of the courts to prevent law enforcement authorities from illegally abusing certain types of telephone and Internet surveillance in both anti-terrorism investigations and run-of-the-mill criminal investigations of American citizens. Law enforcement officials have the power to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without establishing probable cause if they designate that the investigation is for "intelligence purposes." The Director of Central Intelligence also has broad authority to identify individuals as targets for intelligence surveillance, placing the CIA firmly back in the business of spying on Americans.
Privacy: The USA PATRIOT Act granted the FBI -- and, under new information sharing provisions, many other law enforcement and intelligence agencies -- broad access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, library and student records with only the most minimal judicial oversight. The court must issue a subpoena whenever the FBI states that it is for an investigation to protect against international terrorism. The recipient of the subpoena is prohibited from telling anyone that the FBI has asked for the information. Now the FBI can get the entire database of a credit card company or the records of everyone who has used a certain public library. It can obtain information on everyone registered at a particular hotel, hospital, or university. It does not need to show probable cause that a crime is, has been, or will be committed.
Dissent/Free Speech: The USA PATRIOT Act has the very real potential to greatly chill constitutionally protected speech in its overbroad redefinition of "domestic terrorism." The new definition is so vague that it could allow the government to designate lawful advocacy groups, like Greenpeace and Operation Rescue, as terrorist groups and subject them to invasive surveillance, wiretapping, harassment and then criminally penalize them for protected political advocacy.
Bill of Rights for Non-Citizens: The USA PATRIOT Act permits the Attorney General to incarcerate or detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion and to deny re-admission to the US of non-citizens (including legal, long-term permanent residents) for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.

Imho, if you want to get your point across, forget trying to talk it over lol.