Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the judge ruling on Jose Padillla's case have to undergo the same treatment to determine if torture?
Answer:
Sorry, deux, you're getting to be too much of a liberal. If the judge released Padilla by reason of "outrageous government conduct", he'd be giving hundreds of "terrorists" the keys to their jail cells.
Seriously, as a human being, this judge could have figured that Padilla was tortured. The old obscenity standard gives a good enough definition.
The judge in the Padilla case only ruled that claims of torture were not enough to force a dismissal of the case. The torture claims can be raised at trial. Her ruling is not nearly as significant as the media would have us believe.
The judge is merely using the letter of the law. The media exploits the rest.
Should the internet be used only for pro-government opinions?
There should be a law that using the internet to inform others about government sins and agendas is a felony.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
Should the Indian Court oversteps the limits of its authority ?
1)The courts are authorised to 'interpret the law'?(Not authorised for making any new legislation?
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
Should the government take our DNA and place it on file?
I wanted to see other peoples opinions on the subject.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Should the government crack down on smoking laws?
Just answer yes or no. It's for an opinion poll in my government class. Thanks all!
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Should the government burn down the pizza place where the Fort Dix attacker worked?
It was owned by his father,
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
Should the government be encouraged to humiliate criminals and bring back the stocks?
The idea of allowing the criminals victims and family, (who have been damaged and humilated), the chance to throw things at the criminal, who is housed in wooden stocks for a long time. The procedure can be requested at any time and as often as they want.
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Should the freedom of speech exclude the burning of the American Flag?
I personally believe that it should. I think that it should be a crime to burn the american flag. Its a crime to commit slander or to defame another's character but why is it ok to defame the country that we live in by burning the flag? If you don't like this country's govt., then move... that's what I say.
But before anyone who opposes me gets all fired up, this is just my personal belief. I'm always open to what other people have to say and I respect their views even if they are against my own. We don't have to be enemies because of what I choose to believe in.
So let me hear your opinion...
Answer:
No, it should not be excluded.
The freedom of expression in the First Amendment, ironically, protects those that would desecrate the very symbol of the country with the constitution that protects their right to desecrate that very symbol ad nauseum. And this is why democracy in general is messy.
It is full of seeming contradictions, oxymoronic legal, moral and ethical situations and it insists that we get each other angry and at the same time we all get along well enough to make things work.
I may or may not agree with you that people should NOT burn or desecrate the flag of any country. That is our right as citizens of the USA, to have and express those opinions. And in this country you have the right to be offended. We excercise this right regularly and often.
It is an easy and pat answer to tell people to leave the country they seem to hate enough to burn the flag of. In truth it isn't that easy. And it doesn't address the actual issue either. It is a tried and true way for centuries to burn things in effigy as a form of protest against what that thing symbolizes. Sometimes figures of people are burned in effigy. Sometimes it is flags.
Slander and defemation of character of an individual can not be succesfully compared to the burning of a flag. They aren't the same in any way. One is ruining a person's asset, their reputation. The other is saying your mad and want something changed.
People often do not take the time to understand the role of the govenment in their lives, especially in the USA. We fight paying more taxes and at the same time complain that the roads have potholes, the line in the DMV is too long, the mail service isn't fast enough, and the police are never around when you need them. All of which are paid for by your taxes that you don't want to pay so that you can have the problems fixed you are complaining about.
And so the protester often is mad about something the government is doing or not doing and wants it stopped or started all things depending. They really aren't saying the whole system, government and country sucks and should rot in hell, though that may be what they are verbally saying. The truth is often far less expansive than that. The issue is ussually finite if very important.
Should you move out of the house over one arguement with your spouse, roommate, cousin etc? Rarely. Should you burn them in effigy? Well, you're allowed to.
Whether or not you should is a choice only you can make but that everyone is allowed to comment on because of our first amendment rights. And so goes the discussion on flag burning as well.
It should be a crime. Liberals do not get to do whatever they want simply because they want to.
Are you burning the flag in your mouth ? I don't see the connection ... what's burning the flag got to do with the freedom of speech ?
I agree with you. In my opinion, if any American burns the flag in protest should be guilty of treason. Just my opinion too. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but any American should have pride in their Nation, no matter what. The only demonstration they should have the right to do is leave the country if they don't like it.
I hate it too, and my knee-jerk reaction yes it should be. Then I remember that whenever I see this I have no trouble indentifying the idiots of the world. Good to know your enemy.
Old Glory can take it.
To hell with them. Being PRESENT when it happens of course is another matter entirely. Trouble will ensue.
Burning the American Flag is completely unethical. If you are from another country and burn the American Flag, move back. If you are from the U.S. then get the **** out of here, we don't want you.
i agree with you. but how is buring the American flag part of freedom of speech? don't get it. i don't mean this in a wrong way. i dont really undersatnd what it has to do with speech.
I agree! Enough is enough! I think it should be an act of terrorism because I view the act as threatening as many others do! What if i picked up a cross and burned it(i wouldn't do that though)? It would be a hate crime! Enough with the double standards! who cares about being politically correct? Why can't those haters just get out if they hate this ocuntry so much? Many people came here to have a chance at a better life! Can't they understand that? It makes me so angry when i hear or see things about people (especially immigrants, legal or illegal) burning the flag. It is a slap in the face for all the soldiers who fought for independence and to defend our country.
I think not only it should be, but the person that did it should be put in prison for not less than 20 yrs. With all the illegals here flying their Mexican flag, those should be put in prison for not less than 50 yrs, as this is America, if we fly the American flag in Mexico that 50 yrs would look good compared to be shot on the spot, which is what would probably happen.
a flag is a bit of coloured cloth so what if it gets burnt.
flag burning pah! millions are sold all over the place if yours get burnt go to wal-mart and get another.
For something to be slander or libel, very specific false and damaging allegations need to be made. Burning a flag is not specific enough and besides, "The Country" cannot be slandered. It's just some vague entity. Flag burning is protected speech, just like other speech.
If I burn a flag underneath a sign that says, "This is what George W. Bush is doing to my country." How have I slandered the country?
Defamation or slander or libel are crimes because they are lies. Not commentary or a true statements, those are opinions or facts. So, burning an American flag is more or less commentary, an opinion, and not defamation. Defamation would be lying about the nation with intent to do it harm.
The American flag is more than a national identifier, it's a symbol of freedom. But if freedom of political expression, even anti-government expression, is restricted by placing a protected status upon it, it would taint the flag and its meaning more than a thousand flag burnings would. That's the irony of it all, that certain representatives and senators are willing to erode the flag's meaning to protect its physical form.
I think it should be allowed if the person wraps them self up in it and then sets it on fire.
this is a huge question and this debate has been going on for a long time. I will try to sum up my own personal beliefs although it could be long and drawn out. the first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of every citizen of this country to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. not only it is our right, but i believe our responsibility to hold our government accountable for their actions. burning a flag in protest is the ultimate exercise of that right. normally you will not see this act in your average demonstration. only when the government has acted so horendously in the eyes of certain citizens does this usually take place. it is a symbol of our freedom and right to hold government accountable for their actions.
I personally feel the same. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth. It should be a crime to burn it. Not a pet-ti crime either, something with serious repercussions. You got some states with law fining people who have frayed flags flying. I come from a line of military service members. To burn our flag is beyond disrespect. To do so as a form of speech is like having someone disrespect the USA in the worst way.
Hell no!
I served this country honorably for over 21 years. The key component of the oath I took was "To protect and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."
The Constitution, and the freedoms that it gives us, is the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever envisioned by human-kind. It guarantees Nazis the right to speak their mind and spread their hate. It guarantees YOU to speak your position on this issue. And it guarantees ME the right to publicly disagree with you. It guarantees you the right to worship as you please and me the right to not worship if I choose not to.
One does not have to agree with the position another takes on any issue, but we all have a DUTY to defend their right to their opinion and the manner that they express it as long as it does not directly harm another person -- the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim Freedom of Speech as a defense. While you may not agree with the desecration of the flag, it does NOT do you any direct harm.
While I personally would never desecrate the flag or treat it with disrespect, I would defend TO THE DEATH the right of another to do so if he or she felt that that is how they had to express their opinion.
Keep in mind that the guy flying down the road with 2 tattered flags attached to his rear windows IS also mistreating the flag, yet few folks will call him on it. (BTW, I do!) It's improperly displayed (the Flag Code says it must be attached to the vehicle frame or fender) and it is worn beyond serviceability.
Now, were someone to desecrate The Constitution (the original, not a copy) I'd have to intervene.
I have never understood the idolatry on behalf of the American flag. The flag of a country is only a symbol, it is not the nation itself. When someone burns an American flag it demonstrates not that they necessarily hate the United States but only that they are angry with an action taken in the name of the United States.
I have never personally burned a US flag but I understand the urge to do so. I was born in this country as were 90% of my relatives. I am a member of the tiny number of people who actually vote in every national election, I pay taxes, I go to school to improve myself, and I work. It's my nation, my government, and my flag also. I have the Constitutionally protected right to express my grievances with the government I voted for and pay for through taxes , and if they don't listen, I should have the right to express my frustration with them through burning a symbol of that government.
And by-the-way, the US flag code states that a flag that is too soiled or torn to function as a flag should be burned in a special ceremony. I witnessed one of these ceremonies a long time ago as a Cub Scout. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw -- it was like a funeral for a fallen soldier but for a flag. Something very pagan and almost primal about a flag burning ceremony.
I can only echo what was said by Bostonian, the sergeant retired after 21 years of honorable service to his country in uniform. Burning the flag is a stupid act meant to engender hatred and controversy. But the flag itself--the 3 x 5 piece of cloth, most likely made in China--is a symbol, and how one handles it is a symbolic act that is appropriately covered by the First Amendment.
Moreover, our toleration of the handful of knuckleheads who burn the flag (at least within the US) should stand in proud contrast to, say, the Muslim over-reaction to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We're a strong, mature society, and we can take the occasional indignity.
I disagree with you for the following reasons..
1)Burning the flag is a symbolic action, therefore it physically does not hurt anybody. Also since this flag represents or at least ought to represent the values of America, one of them being freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers found absolutely necessary for the society's and individuals' well being, it would be at best ironic to ban the action of burning it, i.e. expressing an opinion. Burning the flag might be an action which causes severely negative feelings to some, but that's why people do it, to demonstrate a dissapointment of what it now represents and by extrapolation their wish that it represented something better.
2) By banning this, you welcome more of it. If it becomes illegal, people will seek to be doing it more often, since it will then be causing even more controversy and will be getting even more attention from the media etc.. As said above, the main motive of a person burning the flag is the attention and the reactions.
Finally, not liking a country's government does not mean you don't like the country and vice versa. If say one U.S administration is catastrophic for the country, but the ones which gain from this disaster support the government, does it mean they like the country? Burning the flag, as strange as it may sound, might stem from bigger concerns and deeper involvement than waving the flag like a robot, just because you feel good doing it. Questioning things is good, especially in a country born by high ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Your analogies for why it oughtn't be allowed are not very convincing. If you are just citing examples of speech that is restricted, that doesn't justify why this specifically should be restricted speech. If you are saying they are analogous situations, I don't see how. It isn't illegal to say bad things about other peoples' characters, it is illegal to say bad AND UNTRUE ('undeserved') things about other peoples' characters. So unless you can explain how someone burning the flag does 'undeserved' material damage to the image/reputation of the country, these analogies don't hold water.
I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I default to saying it should be allowed just because I am a civil libertarian generally. I can't think of any other way to express the same sentiment anywhere near as rapidly as by burning a flag. And as long as we're analogizing to character defamation, isn't the characterization accurate many of the times people are burning the flag? When Democrats pass gun control laws and the Supreme Court upholds them, I think that is pretty clearly "burning" the 2nd amendment. When Republicans say that people captured in the United States but labeled enemy combatants aren't entitled to habeas corpus, I think that is "burning" the habeas clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 5th Amendment.
But before anyone who opposes me gets all fired up, this is just my personal belief. I'm always open to what other people have to say and I respect their views even if they are against my own. We don't have to be enemies because of what I choose to believe in.
So let me hear your opinion...
Answer:
No, it should not be excluded.
The freedom of expression in the First Amendment, ironically, protects those that would desecrate the very symbol of the country with the constitution that protects their right to desecrate that very symbol ad nauseum. And this is why democracy in general is messy.
It is full of seeming contradictions, oxymoronic legal, moral and ethical situations and it insists that we get each other angry and at the same time we all get along well enough to make things work.
I may or may not agree with you that people should NOT burn or desecrate the flag of any country. That is our right as citizens of the USA, to have and express those opinions. And in this country you have the right to be offended. We excercise this right regularly and often.
It is an easy and pat answer to tell people to leave the country they seem to hate enough to burn the flag of. In truth it isn't that easy. And it doesn't address the actual issue either. It is a tried and true way for centuries to burn things in effigy as a form of protest against what that thing symbolizes. Sometimes figures of people are burned in effigy. Sometimes it is flags.
Slander and defemation of character of an individual can not be succesfully compared to the burning of a flag. They aren't the same in any way. One is ruining a person's asset, their reputation. The other is saying your mad and want something changed.
People often do not take the time to understand the role of the govenment in their lives, especially in the USA. We fight paying more taxes and at the same time complain that the roads have potholes, the line in the DMV is too long, the mail service isn't fast enough, and the police are never around when you need them. All of which are paid for by your taxes that you don't want to pay so that you can have the problems fixed you are complaining about.
And so the protester often is mad about something the government is doing or not doing and wants it stopped or started all things depending. They really aren't saying the whole system, government and country sucks and should rot in hell, though that may be what they are verbally saying. The truth is often far less expansive than that. The issue is ussually finite if very important.
Should you move out of the house over one arguement with your spouse, roommate, cousin etc? Rarely. Should you burn them in effigy? Well, you're allowed to.
Whether or not you should is a choice only you can make but that everyone is allowed to comment on because of our first amendment rights. And so goes the discussion on flag burning as well.
It should be a crime. Liberals do not get to do whatever they want simply because they want to.
Are you burning the flag in your mouth ? I don't see the connection ... what's burning the flag got to do with the freedom of speech ?
I agree with you. In my opinion, if any American burns the flag in protest should be guilty of treason. Just my opinion too. It's not a matter of freedom of expression, but any American should have pride in their Nation, no matter what. The only demonstration they should have the right to do is leave the country if they don't like it.
I hate it too, and my knee-jerk reaction yes it should be. Then I remember that whenever I see this I have no trouble indentifying the idiots of the world. Good to know your enemy.
Old Glory can take it.
To hell with them. Being PRESENT when it happens of course is another matter entirely. Trouble will ensue.
Burning the American Flag is completely unethical. If you are from another country and burn the American Flag, move back. If you are from the U.S. then get the **** out of here, we don't want you.
i agree with you. but how is buring the American flag part of freedom of speech? don't get it. i don't mean this in a wrong way. i dont really undersatnd what it has to do with speech.
I agree! Enough is enough! I think it should be an act of terrorism because I view the act as threatening as many others do! What if i picked up a cross and burned it(i wouldn't do that though)? It would be a hate crime! Enough with the double standards! who cares about being politically correct? Why can't those haters just get out if they hate this ocuntry so much? Many people came here to have a chance at a better life! Can't they understand that? It makes me so angry when i hear or see things about people (especially immigrants, legal or illegal) burning the flag. It is a slap in the face for all the soldiers who fought for independence and to defend our country.
I think not only it should be, but the person that did it should be put in prison for not less than 20 yrs. With all the illegals here flying their Mexican flag, those should be put in prison for not less than 50 yrs, as this is America, if we fly the American flag in Mexico that 50 yrs would look good compared to be shot on the spot, which is what would probably happen.
a flag is a bit of coloured cloth so what if it gets burnt.
flag burning pah! millions are sold all over the place if yours get burnt go to wal-mart and get another.
For something to be slander or libel, very specific false and damaging allegations need to be made. Burning a flag is not specific enough and besides, "The Country" cannot be slandered. It's just some vague entity. Flag burning is protected speech, just like other speech.
If I burn a flag underneath a sign that says, "This is what George W. Bush is doing to my country." How have I slandered the country?
Defamation or slander or libel are crimes because they are lies. Not commentary or a true statements, those are opinions or facts. So, burning an American flag is more or less commentary, an opinion, and not defamation. Defamation would be lying about the nation with intent to do it harm.
The American flag is more than a national identifier, it's a symbol of freedom. But if freedom of political expression, even anti-government expression, is restricted by placing a protected status upon it, it would taint the flag and its meaning more than a thousand flag burnings would. That's the irony of it all, that certain representatives and senators are willing to erode the flag's meaning to protect its physical form.
I think it should be allowed if the person wraps them self up in it and then sets it on fire.
this is a huge question and this debate has been going on for a long time. I will try to sum up my own personal beliefs although it could be long and drawn out. the first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of every citizen of this country to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. not only it is our right, but i believe our responsibility to hold our government accountable for their actions. burning a flag in protest is the ultimate exercise of that right. normally you will not see this act in your average demonstration. only when the government has acted so horendously in the eyes of certain citizens does this usually take place. it is a symbol of our freedom and right to hold government accountable for their actions.
I personally feel the same. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth. It should be a crime to burn it. Not a pet-ti crime either, something with serious repercussions. You got some states with law fining people who have frayed flags flying. I come from a line of military service members. To burn our flag is beyond disrespect. To do so as a form of speech is like having someone disrespect the USA in the worst way.
Hell no!
I served this country honorably for over 21 years. The key component of the oath I took was "To protect and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."
The Constitution, and the freedoms that it gives us, is the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever envisioned by human-kind. It guarantees Nazis the right to speak their mind and spread their hate. It guarantees YOU to speak your position on this issue. And it guarantees ME the right to publicly disagree with you. It guarantees you the right to worship as you please and me the right to not worship if I choose not to.
One does not have to agree with the position another takes on any issue, but we all have a DUTY to defend their right to their opinion and the manner that they express it as long as it does not directly harm another person -- the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim Freedom of Speech as a defense. While you may not agree with the desecration of the flag, it does NOT do you any direct harm.
While I personally would never desecrate the flag or treat it with disrespect, I would defend TO THE DEATH the right of another to do so if he or she felt that that is how they had to express their opinion.
Keep in mind that the guy flying down the road with 2 tattered flags attached to his rear windows IS also mistreating the flag, yet few folks will call him on it. (BTW, I do!) It's improperly displayed (the Flag Code says it must be attached to the vehicle frame or fender) and it is worn beyond serviceability.
Now, were someone to desecrate The Constitution (the original, not a copy) I'd have to intervene.
I have never understood the idolatry on behalf of the American flag. The flag of a country is only a symbol, it is not the nation itself. When someone burns an American flag it demonstrates not that they necessarily hate the United States but only that they are angry with an action taken in the name of the United States.
I have never personally burned a US flag but I understand the urge to do so. I was born in this country as were 90% of my relatives. I am a member of the tiny number of people who actually vote in every national election, I pay taxes, I go to school to improve myself, and I work. It's my nation, my government, and my flag also. I have the Constitutionally protected right to express my grievances with the government I voted for and pay for through taxes , and if they don't listen, I should have the right to express my frustration with them through burning a symbol of that government.
And by-the-way, the US flag code states that a flag that is too soiled or torn to function as a flag should be burned in a special ceremony. I witnessed one of these ceremonies a long time ago as a Cub Scout. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw -- it was like a funeral for a fallen soldier but for a flag. Something very pagan and almost primal about a flag burning ceremony.
I can only echo what was said by Bostonian, the sergeant retired after 21 years of honorable service to his country in uniform. Burning the flag is a stupid act meant to engender hatred and controversy. But the flag itself--the 3 x 5 piece of cloth, most likely made in China--is a symbol, and how one handles it is a symbolic act that is appropriately covered by the First Amendment.
Moreover, our toleration of the handful of knuckleheads who burn the flag (at least within the US) should stand in proud contrast to, say, the Muslim over-reaction to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We're a strong, mature society, and we can take the occasional indignity.
I disagree with you for the following reasons..
1)Burning the flag is a symbolic action, therefore it physically does not hurt anybody. Also since this flag represents or at least ought to represent the values of America, one of them being freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers found absolutely necessary for the society's and individuals' well being, it would be at best ironic to ban the action of burning it, i.e. expressing an opinion. Burning the flag might be an action which causes severely negative feelings to some, but that's why people do it, to demonstrate a dissapointment of what it now represents and by extrapolation their wish that it represented something better.
2) By banning this, you welcome more of it. If it becomes illegal, people will seek to be doing it more often, since it will then be causing even more controversy and will be getting even more attention from the media etc.. As said above, the main motive of a person burning the flag is the attention and the reactions.
Finally, not liking a country's government does not mean you don't like the country and vice versa. If say one U.S administration is catastrophic for the country, but the ones which gain from this disaster support the government, does it mean they like the country? Burning the flag, as strange as it may sound, might stem from bigger concerns and deeper involvement than waving the flag like a robot, just because you feel good doing it. Questioning things is good, especially in a country born by high ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Your analogies for why it oughtn't be allowed are not very convincing. If you are just citing examples of speech that is restricted, that doesn't justify why this specifically should be restricted speech. If you are saying they are analogous situations, I don't see how. It isn't illegal to say bad things about other peoples' characters, it is illegal to say bad AND UNTRUE ('undeserved') things about other peoples' characters. So unless you can explain how someone burning the flag does 'undeserved' material damage to the image/reputation of the country, these analogies don't hold water.
I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I default to saying it should be allowed just because I am a civil libertarian generally. I can't think of any other way to express the same sentiment anywhere near as rapidly as by burning a flag. And as long as we're analogizing to character defamation, isn't the characterization accurate many of the times people are burning the flag? When Democrats pass gun control laws and the Supreme Court upholds them, I think that is pretty clearly "burning" the 2nd amendment. When Republicans say that people captured in the United States but labeled enemy combatants aren't entitled to habeas corpus, I think that is "burning" the habeas clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 5th Amendment.
Should the Florida Clemency board make it ok for Convicts to vote at all?
Florida Governor Crist sits on the Clemency board and is trying to make it eligible for ex-convicts that served their time to vote in elections. Should they have any rights after breaking laws made by the people they are voting for?
Answer:
That is why they went to jail and served their time. This is a no brainer in other states, just not in FL, where they would have to apply for reinstatement of rights which takes up taxpayers money
yes, they have paid their debt to society by suffering through years in prison and upon doing so should be restored to their full rights
If they have paid there debts (served their time, passed parole if needed, and repaid all restitution and legal fees) ABSOLUTELY
Did the crime, served their time, how else can they be contributing members of society without voting. Heck, they won't even vote like the other 65% that don't. what is the concern?
Answer:
That is why they went to jail and served their time. This is a no brainer in other states, just not in FL, where they would have to apply for reinstatement of rights which takes up taxpayers money
yes, they have paid their debt to society by suffering through years in prison and upon doing so should be restored to their full rights
If they have paid there debts (served their time, passed parole if needed, and repaid all restitution and legal fees) ABSOLUTELY
Did the crime, served their time, how else can they be contributing members of society without voting. Heck, they won't even vote like the other 65% that don't. what is the concern?
Should the firm use this information in the hiring process?be thorough and convincing!?
you are a human resources analyst for a firm with a large workforce.you look at the database that shows the relationship between insurance benefits used,gender,age and type of job held.you find that higher level executives that do not use much insurance are likely to have significant health problems over time-perhaps due to lack of routine exams and care that the low levels of insurance reimbursement indicate.you suggest to your boss that during the hiring process for upper level executives,the firm should routinely gather information on the amount of insurance benefits used by the executives in previous jobs.Your analysis shows that since individuals using low levels of insurance benefits are more likely to experience significant health problems than other executives,your firm would save money on insurance by using this information to eliminate prospective employees from hiring consideration
Answer:
There is no hard and fast rule which can be applied here, the idea you are proposing can be a good factor but should not be the Only factor. Because this may not reflect the true picture. Health is such an issue which differ from person to person and cannot be universally applied.
That is ridiculous...and I think you know that. This is the type of crap we don't need
in America. You are trying to promote discrimination behind closed doors. Companies can/would get sued for the method you are presenting here. This is America, we have rights and we fight for them in courts as well. Take your screwed up proposal to another country so they too can laugh you out of there as well.
Answer:
There is no hard and fast rule which can be applied here, the idea you are proposing can be a good factor but should not be the Only factor. Because this may not reflect the true picture. Health is such an issue which differ from person to person and cannot be universally applied.
That is ridiculous...and I think you know that. This is the type of crap we don't need
in America. You are trying to promote discrimination behind closed doors. Companies can/would get sued for the method you are presenting here. This is America, we have rights and we fight for them in courts as well. Take your screwed up proposal to another country so they too can laugh you out of there as well.
Should the female that falsely accused the Lacrosse players of rape be criminally charged?
Answer:
I don't think so.....I believe that she doesn't even deserve any more attetion on this matter. Everyone knows she is a liar that was just looking for $$$$. It sucks though that she has made a bad name for women and people will question women more when they claim rape. I think we should all chip in on a one way ticket to Iran.........She puts those guy's through a living hell.
No she should make love to them all to make up for it.
Absolutely YES !
She should get, if convicted, just as much time in the slammer as her victims would had they been falsely convicted.
Yes. When girls do that, it makes other victims less believable and maybe not even come forward, for fear they just won't be believed. She needs to know it's not OK.
YES YES YES YES..look at what she did to those guys, all the time and money wasted in the courts for what? hell yeah she should be TARRED AND FEATHERED, then jailed
yes, she should
Yes. In fact they can sue her for false info
From what I understand she is mentally ill. She or her legal guardians should be held liable though to keep anything similar from happening in the future.
its defamation of character. but they'd have to prove that, in addition to not doing the crime, their reputation had been affected.
Yes i believe she should get charged. It's because of her and women like her that the women who truly gets violated have such a hard time getting the ones that actually did it charged and/or convicted.
Yeah. The fact is she false reported an incident and ruined the lives of these young men. Maybe that'll teach college boys to stay away from strippers.
Send her to jail for as long as the accused would have been in prison. Make the false witness server ALL their terms consecutively.
Lets wait and see what happens to the D.A. Not just now.
yes,there should be a criminal penalty for falsely accusing someone of such a serious crime.
yes..if they prove she falsely accused them...that has not been shown....less than 33% of rapists are convicted....just because charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent...it just means there was not enough evidence...do you know how many rapists use condoms now or days?
I believe Nifong knew this woman suffered from mental problems and used it to his advantage. Her mental state would need to be examined to determine if she knew this action she was doing was wrong, it appeared to me she did because of the civil lawyer that was waiting in the wings to pounce on the Duke guys, that ain't going to happen. This is an injustice to the accuser and the three men. Nifong should get the fullest weight of the law against him and it already started with the NC bar telling him that all charges are STILL pending against him, we will need to wait until June to see what happens to him as for her that will be looked at carefully as well. The AG stated that NO criminal charges against the accuser due to medical history, as for civil action the same history would be used and she most likely would not pay anything, but we will see.
From what I understand of what was said by the new prosecutor that dismissed the charges, he things that she actually believed her statements. If so, it would be difficult to justify a criminal prosecution against her and nearly impossible to convict.
The Lacrosse players might have a claim against her and the original prosecutor for malicious prosecution/abuse of process.
Should the FCC fine Imus for his insensitive remarks? How Much?
Singapore jails bloggers for racist remarks
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
A Singapore court has sentenced two ethnic Chinese to prison for posting racist remarks about ethnic Malays on the internet, in what is considered a landmark case underscoring the government's attempts to crack down on racial intolerance and regulate online expression.
Animal shelter worker Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, was jailed for one month while Nicholas Lim Yew, an unemployed 25-year-old, was sentenced to a nominal prison term of one day and fined the maximum $5000 for racist comments against the minority Malay community.
"Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself," said Senior District Judge Richard Magnus in passing sentence on Friday.
"Young Singaporeans ... must realise that callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects have the potential to cause social disorder, in whatever medium or forum they are expressed," he said.
Lim and Koh stood in the docks with their heads bowed as they pleaded guilty to c
Answer:
...............Anyway, I don't agree with what he said, but even under FCC regulations Imus didn't break any rules. If you take this route, MTV, BET, VH1 would never be able to play any of the music videos they play and most of their shows as well. We are in the United States and enjoy the liberty and freedom of freedom of speech. That is why people from the above countries fight so hard to move to the US.
It is a freaking free country...If you don't like it don't freaking listen.
We are becoming a nation that is afraid to speak its mind. If you don't like someone why shouldn't I be able to say it.
Free speach...... I don't see you knocking down Bill O'Riley's door to get him fined..... there is something called turn off the tv or radio... that's how you stop hearing what you don't like.... but then again you're the only one not paying attention to what is going on in your country... if you want to stick your head in the sand do it alone.
Should the elderly have to take an eye test every year to drive.?
One day I actually saw an old man walk into Braums Restraunt and ask if it was the eye clinic (which was across the street). This man was driving all by himself.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
I think the elderly should be required to take an eye test to check their vision every year to be able to drive legaly.
Answer:
I feel that by age 65 they should have a annual eye exam, for many reasons not just driving, there are many diseases of the eye that could change their vision. If medicair will pay for it...I am not sure but I believe they do then there shouldn't be a problem, not to mention frames and lenses are somewhat covered, probably not completely but they may not have the most stylish glasses and still stay in their alloted amount.
I have seen many older individuals who should not be driving, but then I've also seen younger people, so I think that some of it is due to driving behaviors.
i do to. but what age to you say is the age to start and how do you justify it without violating any rights? I think it should be after 65 you get a yearly eye exam.. heck why not let the tax payers pay for it i would... i had a similar experience.. i was sitting in the pharmacy waiting on a prescription when this lady next to me started a convo and said she had been declared legally blind in both eyes.. and that her 13 year old nephew was waiting in the car... well 13 year olds cant drive so she was drivng UGH!! she even had to ask me what her ticket number said!!!!
Everyone should volunteer to maintain their ability to drive. If it means a psych exam, eye exam, ear exam, whatever.
When you drive, you're inside a 3000 pound weapon. You need to take that seriously.
I've lived in numerous states when I was a young man and even middle aged. I've never been to a motor vehicles office that didn't require everyone to take a vision test no matter what your age is. What information do you have that makes you think that any state doesn't require a vision test. Sounds like you may be trying to bash older people. Even little kids can have very bad eyesight thus the reason that all motor vehicle departments test eyesight of any aged person.
Every year is a bit harsh. How about if they take a test every time they have to renew? How about splitting the difference and saying every three years, past age 65. Yes, they can be a hazard, sometimes, but think about how you're going to feel about the deal, yourself, in a few, very short decades.
We can find something that works, that isn't too inconvenient.
While we are at it-let's have a required drug test every month, if you are between the ages of 16- 55. Of course, all drivers should be required to take an oral and written exam every year for license renewal. Cell phones, TVs, radios, mp3 players are to be forbidden in the vehicle at ALL TIMES because they could distract the driver and cause an accident. ANY driver should have the RIGHT to report every other driver for driving too SLOW or too FAST by calling a specific telephone and telling the car tag number. Three call ins on YOUR vehicle warrants a month's license suspension. I hope you get the drift of what I am saying. If not, then they should put you in the coo coo's nest.
Should the Duke lacrosse players counter sue ?
Answer:
Heck yeah they should. Why some beotches have to lie about being raped I will have no idea.
THe stripper? FOr what - her millions???
I would, especially those butthead 88 professors that slandered them so bad, Nifong, and the "victim"
A B S O L U T E L Y !
The School and the hoe they should but i don't know if they can sue nifong or what ever the prosecutor name is i'm not sure if prosecutor's are protected like judges i think the judges are bonded.
either that or buy an assault rifle.
One recalls the old quot, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
I hope that the profs at Duke have a few troubled nights sleeping for their courageous stand for their students.
The stripper is pretty much judgment proof. She has nothing of value. That leaves the prosecutor/state.
Counter sue who? You would have to prove alot of things that would be unlikely to prove...remember just because the charges were dropped does not mean they were innocent.
They can't counter sue because they were never sued.
Should the driving age be kept at 16?
I'm writing an essay on the driving age being kept at 16. THIS ESSAY IS DUE THIS WEEK SO I NEED ANSWERS QUICK!! Can you help me think of 16 REAL FACTS on why the driving age should be kept at 16?
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Answer:
parents compaian about having to "taxi" their children around
kids need the independce
we have to learn the seriousness of freedom
with great power comes great responsibility (that should be the title)
we hae to get to work somehow
parents have something to control, at taht age its hard to find things to take away!!
learn the value of the dollar
thats all i can think of!!
you only need 3 strong ones for an essay,
1.Discrimination- Assuming all young drivers are reckless
2.the real facts- old drivers are more hazardous than young drivers(provide statistics)
3.Reasons why 16yr olds need to drive (to work or school)
Bonus:
propose a maximum age to drive
improves economy by more people having to buy cars in a market were american made cars are not successful
remember its an essay so BS it
I think it should be changed to 18.
Should the death sentence be introduced for paedophiles?
i have been reading in my local paper about a portuguese child snatcher who flew over 50 children out of Faro airport in 8 months.children as young as 5 were
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
abducted and sold into prostitution and slavery. some of these children may be in the uk, sold onto wealthy abusers. pedro miguel da costa damba was jailed for 6 years in 2002 for the string of abductions, but was released early for good behavior. this dangerous, vile thing is now obviously out theresomewhere and i doubt very much he has been rehabilitated. he was only caught when an immigration officer noticedhe was flying his second "family" to Egland in a week. surely in cases like this there is no other option but to put these things down. life imprisonment is an option, but as a tax payer i am not happy paying for these individuals to live a life of luxury.
Answer:
Possibly, castration also springs to mind! (And i mean the full meat and veg)
A shark tank would be a good start(make sure those sharks are HUNGRY!!!)
YES!!!! We have to protect our children!
i think the death sentence should be used for them but then theres always the chance someone could be wrongly convicted and if they've already been killed theres no going back
yes
we live in a democracy and Parliament syas no. If you want to change the laws vote for a different government.
.
No, it is unacceptable to use the death penality.Taking a life is a crime, also there is always the case of miscarriages of justice.I think life imprisonment should mean life for these people, and it certainly wouldnt be a life of luxury!
naa, should just get some big fat ugly man to poke them and abuse them for the rest of there life. deths to good for them, rather torture them.
Yes Juicy dont think anyone on here would argue against that...
yes as long as it is proved without a doubt .also i think a lump hammer and an anvil should come into play first whack
Who are you to decide the life of another? That makes you no better than them. A hard life prison term should do the trick.
I vote for death! Sick people like that don't change.
Unquestionably Yes
I agree.
or use them for medical testing for the remainder of thier life...with NO painkillers. we can at least get a couple cures out of them.
DEFINITLY
where there is unquestionable guilt...then yes they bloody well should. hope they all rot in hell. disgusting evil scum! but watch how many down thumbs i get by all the do gooders who think its ok for them to clutter up the prisons living it up with colour tvs like ian huntley. or even worse some morons think they can be reabilitated and move them into a hostel next door to a kiddies playground!
That sort of story certainly makes you want them to suffer the ultimate price!
Where do you draw the line though? This evil man actually trades in children and causes them to be abused and mudered. Should the paedophile who only downloads images get the same?
Don't misunderstand me, I know how that trade brings misery to thousands of children...but where do we draw the line?
Yes, that or Castrate them !!
i say no. not for any crime. if we have the death penalty we have to have people within our society that carry it out. are you prepared to do it ?
no you wouldn't.
would you be friends with a person that puts people to death for a living ? i think that once a society has moved on like we have you can't go back to it. usa will eventually see sense too.
I agree with you. Many of the pedophiles seem to do it over and over again. I have no pity for them.
We should take them out in a field tie their hands, let the parents beat them to death, and if they live through it, I volunteer to finish them off, as long as I can do it however I wish.
I truly think the death penalty (especially the way it's set up now), is too easy for them. They are killers (of childhood and innocence) and should be treated as the scum they are. I would love to be like a third world country and torture the hell out of them. Almost to the brink of death, then let them recover, and do it all over again. I can think of a lot of things that would be a worthy torture for those monsters. But, unfortunately, there are too many bleeding heart liberals who think they should have rights.
yes,, if anything happened to my little girl i would gladly take it upon myself to do the job! no problem.
Why Paedophiles and why not Murderers?
At times I am all for it, but then there are always miscariages of justice that make me think twice. If a member of my family or friends was sentenced to death only for years later to be found innocent how and what can be done to compensate the person who was tried and their innocent life taken away from them? Nothing!
Also, lets remember that althought he majority of Paedophiles are men, there are some women out there the same, so please don't come up with the usual "Castrate them" comments.
I hate paedophiles with a vengeance however I am 100% against hanging.I would lock them up %26 throw away the key.
or you could put them into womens prisons and just sit back and watch the women rip them to pieces
I would have the thought the answer is obvious......castration.
Edit. Frosty you are right..I had forgotten that these women often are far more evil than the male...Rosemary West, Myra Hindely......may others.
So the answer has to be Life....... Paedophiles both men and women often become murderers as well.
Yes and not just pedes but serial killers etc
Yes! But be generous and give child molesters ONE chance to rehabilitate. On the first offense, don't just jail them for a fixed term; jail them indefinitely and give them intensive therapy. Don't release them until/unless a PANEL of psychologists agrees that recidivism is highly unlikely. I'm willing to pay my share of the taxes for this humane treatment.
Fry all convicted second-offense child molesters!
Paedophiles who only look at pictures do not deserve such harsh treatment.
In cases like that one, absolutely! It's time we told these sub-humans that if they touch our children they DIE!
Should the death penalty be gone?
yes or no
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Answer:
no we should kill dumb people
Yes.
no.
Yes
no if it can be proven beyond a doubt , then so be it
no
If anything it needs to be accelerated. Execution should come in a matter of weeks, not years. Execute the garbage and clean the trash out of society.
No
in most cases, but when you're dealing with psychos like the Columbine murderers, 9-11 terrorists, and Virginia Tech murderer, they should get it. The last thing we need is one of those psychos escaping from jail.
Yes...the state has no business killing it's citizens. The reason is that every time we execute a person that's innocent it makes a murderer out of every tax payer and I do not want murder carried out in my name.
No. It shouldnt be, but then I think that the laws of the Old west should be brought back.
If punishment was actually handed out rather than a slap on the hand, then crime would go down.
Seriously dont you think that if the next criminal had to face his victim who carried and gun, used it and could harm him, dont you think he would think twice about commiting crime?
I'm not sayin that the old west was without its fair share of crime, criminals and the like. It wasnt by any means.
But if the same laws then applied now, our crime rate would go down. Its amazing that in the country were there is the most laws, we have the greatest of injustices.
NO! In fact, we should put in an "Express lane" for people convicted of murder where there is no doubt of guilt!
No reason to suspect that the shooting was justified.
No reason to doubt the "chain of evidence", as in under police surveillance from committing the crime to arrest, or positive DNA evidence linking the killer to the crime.
Upon being found guilty under these circumstances, the killer should have 2 years, and only 2 years to disprove the prosecution's case.
Can't do it? FRY, baby, FRY!!!!
Should the courts have the power to create crimes?
Answer:
I'm a little confused by your question. Courts don't create crimes, criminals create crimes. If you mean should laws be passed criminializing acts that were once not considered illegal, then yes, there need to be specific laws to address areas that were overlooked or not foreseen when the original law was written. Btw, it is the legislative body of the government that passes laws, not the judicial system.
No.
Why?
Because that would shift the balance of power. Courts are used simply to interpret the laws, and to find out if in accordance to the letter of the law, if someone broke the law. Giving them the right to create law would give judges a lot of power in a court room. It would then become if they like the way the law is written or not, or if they created the law how it is enforced.
Absolutely. If we vested this power in the judiciary, we could do away with the legislature and save buckets of cash. In addition, we could streamline the executive branch as well by making them answerable to courts instead of to the President or Governors.
Man, I'm excited by the idea. I'm glad I have a law degree, let's get this into effect so I can become a judge.
I will assume that your question refers to the power to declare an action illegal. If that is the case the answer is no, Courts do not have the power to create new crimes as they do not legislate.
No. That is properly the job of the legislature. (I assume that by "create" you mean "define".)
Should the Brits and Other Countries Stay Out of Americas Internal Affairs RE: Gun Control?
My opinion for the Brits and others. STAY OUT OF AMERICAN AFFAIRS. We have always sorted out our own problems and still can.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
If your afraid to come here, stay in the UK. Yes where there are special armed police task force to deal with your rising gun crime. "Oh! but that isn't suppose to happen in your Utopia".
Do you remember in the early days of WW2, when England had its back to the wall. When you cried for help and ARMED AMERICANS sent you thousands of their own personal arms for your defense? Then never asked for payment or for their return. errrrrrr...Thank you!
Stay in your little cubical of a house, that your not even permitted to defend. Yea! You try to defend your home, family and property you can end up in jail and the criminal is made the victim.
Your King George tried to enforce arms control in the Americas on 19 April 1775, look what that got him.
This is my Opinion! 12 years US Army, 14 years Civilian Police. LEAA, NRA %26 American Legion
Answer:
LOL...I love it
The subjects of Britain gave up their self defense rights as well as the Canadians. Their violent crime rate in England alone has risen 17% and have you been to Toronto lately, jeez.
If they want in our affairs, they should at least repay the loan.
There is always going to be someone out there that knows better. As the Brits and everyone else can play the lost little sheep watching out for the big bad wolf if they want hoping that us Americans will come in and play Shepherd for them for me they will have to pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers.
Well maybe people will stay out of your affairs when you stay out of thiers iraq, vietnam the list goes on. Oh and by the way 19 April 1775 the only people capable of defeating the british was in fact the british themselves, more of a cival war i think. And yes you did get paid for the weapons in WW2, the only country to make a profit from the war, well done.
Should the borders of the US be militarized?
How else can we stop the flow?
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Many countries have a shoot to kill policy, should we do the same?
How else can we be taken seriously?
Is there a 'nice' way to do it?
Answer:
yes yes yes.
2 words:
Land Mines
Yes, and ok, what is a nice way to do it. There is no nice way, we just round every illegal up ,and make them walk home.
I don't know where you live, but in Texas, border guards have dogs and guns.
yes
Extend our border...invade Mexico.
No! it should be fun by adding slides, swings, human-sling shots, horses so could be fun to cross the borders.
I agree.
I think you should militarize all the borders to keep Americans from escaping and menacing the rest of the world as they are doing now.
What a relief that somebody sees it our way.
I think it would do America more good to protect our own borders rather than protecting Iraq's.
A Guard in place is sufficient. But it must have authority to act or it is useless. A warning issued "Trespassers will be shot" means that.Do not BREAK INTO OUR COUNTRY! Or expect the consequences, this is OUR HOME.
YES! every other country has militarized borders...we should do the same to protect our country. i find it funny that if we do it we are racists and when other countries do it ...it's fine.
ok you red necks !!! why is the answer for you guys is to KILL ! KILL ! KILL ! Would it REALLY be better if everybody you didn't like was murdered? By who..YOU? What if everybody had the same "right"you feel you have to kill anybody you want. That, my fellow[?] AMERICAN ,is called anarchy%26chaos ! The policies of the RepubliCONS have always been on the side of BIG BUSINESS and our immigration problem would be managable if large employers paid a decent wage to lower wage AMERICANS and NOT hire illegal workers at slave wages. You try to live on min. wage !!
Should the Bill of Rights be amended to include the following?
NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildre... hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
Answer:
will watch for his running....thanks
No. By the way, The Bill of Rights is not the actual Constitution itself. It is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. I suggest you do some more research.....
Technically the United States has no official or state sponsored language.....
What is wrong with the current bill of rights????
if the Govt would just follow the COTUS we would have no problems.
Um, the "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" crap was added to American currency and to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War because the Soviet Union was officially atheist. Take your rightwing Jesus freak Republican agenda and shove it.
This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildre... hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."
Answer:
will watch for his running....thanks
No. By the way, The Bill of Rights is not the actual Constitution itself. It is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. I suggest you do some more research.....
Technically the United States has no official or state sponsored language.....
What is wrong with the current bill of rights????
if the Govt would just follow the COTUS we would have no problems.
Um, the "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" crap was added to American currency and to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s during the Cold War because the Soviet Union was officially atheist. Take your rightwing Jesus freak Republican agenda and shove it.
Should the Avon Park FL police department face child abuse charges for arresting a 6-year old school girl?
In late March a 6 year old school girl was arrested, handcuffed (at her bicepts), fingerprinted, mug shot, charged with a felony %26 sat in the County jail until her mother picked her up. It seems that she was having a temper tantrum %26 the school called the police. Your opinion??
Answer:
I think that the 'no tolerance' policy of many schools is taken to the extreme. It seems to me, that it would be difficult to charge this child with a felony simply for a temper tantrum unless she caused someone intentional physical harm. Need more info to say one way or the other but, I do think it is taken to the extreme in a lot of cases.
I think her parents need to be charged with neglect for allowing a 6 year old to be such a brat. No doubt this kid has been trouble. I seriously doubt if she was a perfect little angel until that moment any of this would have happened. More likely, it was the last straw.
She's lucky they didn't taser her, shove a broom up her azz, or empty several clips into her unarmed body..
If she f@$%ed up, send her to the spot!! Who cares what freakin' age she is. She obviously is a tormented individual, and her parents are just as much to blame if that is the way she is being allowed to act.
this is a very sad day for teachers
The teachers are so afraid of legal implications that they do not dare to discipline a small child - a 6 years old
If I am a teacher I will discipline this kid, instead of calling the police and make his/her future life traumatic
The police were just doing their job, and as always they get hated for it. It is mainly the fault of the parents who undoubtedly cared nothing for rearing their child correctly, and a bit to the teachers and administration for failing to put their foot down. Keep it up Fl PD
What defines a temper tantrum...was she crying...or was she screaming and thrashing about???
I honestly would have to say that if it were my child who misbehaved, much less at the age of 6, and the school called the police..instead or before they called me, I would be pissed.
I guess some children can be very hard to manage when they throw fits....so I would have to say that if that was the only thing to do to manage the child......it's better than beating her.
The question I would like to see an answer to is...has this helped the little girls behavior or made it worse?
However--booking, handcuffing and fingerprinting the little girl...seem a little extreme to me. But hey, I wasn't there!
This is not surprising nowadays. Everything is overreacted to now. On top of that, most parents are terrified to discipline their kids lest CPS charge them with abuse and drag the kid off. The school personnel are terrified to do anything with a kid. they can't even deal with a tantrum anymore--more and more kids have to pay the price by receiving criminal records at earlier and earlier ages.
Answer:
I think that the 'no tolerance' policy of many schools is taken to the extreme. It seems to me, that it would be difficult to charge this child with a felony simply for a temper tantrum unless she caused someone intentional physical harm. Need more info to say one way or the other but, I do think it is taken to the extreme in a lot of cases.
I think her parents need to be charged with neglect for allowing a 6 year old to be such a brat. No doubt this kid has been trouble. I seriously doubt if she was a perfect little angel until that moment any of this would have happened. More likely, it was the last straw.
She's lucky they didn't taser her, shove a broom up her azz, or empty several clips into her unarmed body..
If she f@$%ed up, send her to the spot!! Who cares what freakin' age she is. She obviously is a tormented individual, and her parents are just as much to blame if that is the way she is being allowed to act.
this is a very sad day for teachers
The teachers are so afraid of legal implications that they do not dare to discipline a small child - a 6 years old
If I am a teacher I will discipline this kid, instead of calling the police and make his/her future life traumatic
The police were just doing their job, and as always they get hated for it. It is mainly the fault of the parents who undoubtedly cared nothing for rearing their child correctly, and a bit to the teachers and administration for failing to put their foot down. Keep it up Fl PD
What defines a temper tantrum...was she crying...or was she screaming and thrashing about???
I honestly would have to say that if it were my child who misbehaved, much less at the age of 6, and the school called the police..instead or before they called me, I would be pissed.
I guess some children can be very hard to manage when they throw fits....so I would have to say that if that was the only thing to do to manage the child......it's better than beating her.
The question I would like to see an answer to is...has this helped the little girls behavior or made it worse?
However--booking, handcuffing and fingerprinting the little girl...seem a little extreme to me. But hey, I wasn't there!
This is not surprising nowadays. Everything is overreacted to now. On top of that, most parents are terrified to discipline their kids lest CPS charge them with abuse and drag the kid off. The school personnel are terrified to do anything with a kid. they can't even deal with a tantrum anymore--more and more kids have to pay the price by receiving criminal records at earlier and earlier ages.
Should the attorney general be fired for his poor job performance?
or should george bush, ONE MORE TIME, GET HIS WAY?
Answer:
Have you noticed that W reaffirms his faith in his appointees just before he asks them to resign? (Rummy, Brownie, Ari, Snowy, etc.) I've been expecting the AG to turn in his letter of resignation any time now.
Be specific, why should he be fired???
What did he do that was wrong???
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, and only he can decide.
I think ANY elected official should be fired whenever they do NOT do whay they promised to do when we elected him/her!!!
He should be excuted for treason against the Constitution.
Answer:
Have you noticed that W reaffirms his faith in his appointees just before he asks them to resign? (Rummy, Brownie, Ari, Snowy, etc.) I've been expecting the AG to turn in his letter of resignation any time now.
Be specific, why should he be fired???
What did he do that was wrong???
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, and only he can decide.
I think ANY elected official should be fired whenever they do NOT do whay they promised to do when we elected him/her!!!
He should be excuted for treason against the Constitution.
Should the ACLU be financially boycotted for getting food stamps & SSI to "illegal immigrants" ?
Answer:
The American Civil Liberties Union was intended to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties of Americans but it has taken a 360 degree turn, boycott them is not enough, they should be dissolved for using taxpayer money for illegal activities..鈽?
Yes!
Yeah, you be sure to stop sending them the check you usually send them. That'll show 'em.
They deserve a lot more than just a boycott.... scumbags....
Yes they should be. They should be heavily fines and prosecuted for aiding and abetting breaking of laws of this land. No exceptions!
You don't want them to even eat?
They should be charged with treason.
What are you talking about? This is FreeLawAnswer.com , not Yahoo soapbox, but if you are trying to persuade us, you could at least state your argument in a semi-coherent fashion. Please offer some documentation to back up your assertion. This site is full of people who make laughably false claims against the ACLU, as if it's the bogeyman who's going to attack you in the middle of the night.
Should the 61 year old grandmother in Florida be required to care for her 9 year old grandson?
who recently killed two of her dogs and threatened to stab her. The court is returning him to her custody after his being institutionalized for the past several weeks. While in custody he was kept isolated from other children due to his violent behavior.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/10/tampab...
Answer:
Pure total insanity.
Grandma is now the parent (legally), thus they are kind of accurate in saying that she has responsibility.,
What is being completely overlooked here is that the State also has the legal responsibility to TAKE ACTION in the reality that this child is mentally ill, and absolutely a danger to her (and himself). Thus, if the state refuses to find placement, and the grandmother is harmed by being forced to take him home... they would be liable. It won't bring her back, if she is killed.
This is not completely isolated. I was forced/ threatened by a doctor to take home my daughter, when she had been diagnosed as bipolar, and was violent and psychotic. The very real danger to my life pushed me into a break down, and she went into foster care. I was fortunate that the case worker herself KNEW what bipolar was, and insured that my daughter got the right treatment, and was stabilized before being returned to me.
On the day my daughter came home, the case worker suggested that I file a complaint against the doctor involved, with the state medical board, and that she personally would back me in that complaint.
Pray that someone in Florida gets their head out of their posterior, before this woman dies. Sad that they are more concerned about the safety of the animals, than the safety of the grandmother.
If the boy didn't get any psychiatric help, he needs to. Grandmother should take him to couseling and get his psyche evaluated.
Hmm why cant they just euthanize him? Sounds like a future killer waiting to happen.
sad story, but the grandmother is the child's legal guardian since she adopted him when he was 4 yrs old.
There are institutions that will keep him there arent' there? she need to get herself a good case worker to help her find the proper care for the child.
AnotherD...: that is just so evil to say that the boy should be euthanized!!!! how can anyone in their right mind say this??? you ahev no heart, or a brain for that matter...
well she adopted the grandson as well as he did not kill her dogs but other pets...............
THAT said this boy is a nutter and who on earth thinks its ok for him to go back home should have him for a week or two in their home......this is care in the community gone to the extreme IMO..............and if this is him at 9 years old god help us all when he gets into his teens...............
two sides to every story, too many dogs isnt good for anyone... maybe it is he who is getting a raw deal and not her
While the story is very sad and unfortunate, she did agree to take on the burden of being his mother. The story says that she has raised him since he was about 6 months old.
no way she should be required she isnt his mother she didnt create him and he is insane and a threat to her. he should be put in juvy
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/10/tampab...
Answer:
Pure total insanity.
Grandma is now the parent (legally), thus they are kind of accurate in saying that she has responsibility.,
What is being completely overlooked here is that the State also has the legal responsibility to TAKE ACTION in the reality that this child is mentally ill, and absolutely a danger to her (and himself). Thus, if the state refuses to find placement, and the grandmother is harmed by being forced to take him home... they would be liable. It won't bring her back, if she is killed.
This is not completely isolated. I was forced/ threatened by a doctor to take home my daughter, when she had been diagnosed as bipolar, and was violent and psychotic. The very real danger to my life pushed me into a break down, and she went into foster care. I was fortunate that the case worker herself KNEW what bipolar was, and insured that my daughter got the right treatment, and was stabilized before being returned to me.
On the day my daughter came home, the case worker suggested that I file a complaint against the doctor involved, with the state medical board, and that she personally would back me in that complaint.
Pray that someone in Florida gets their head out of their posterior, before this woman dies. Sad that they are more concerned about the safety of the animals, than the safety of the grandmother.
If the boy didn't get any psychiatric help, he needs to. Grandmother should take him to couseling and get his psyche evaluated.
Hmm why cant they just euthanize him? Sounds like a future killer waiting to happen.
sad story, but the grandmother is the child's legal guardian since she adopted him when he was 4 yrs old.
There are institutions that will keep him there arent' there? she need to get herself a good case worker to help her find the proper care for the child.
AnotherD...: that is just so evil to say that the boy should be euthanized!!!! how can anyone in their right mind say this??? you ahev no heart, or a brain for that matter...
well she adopted the grandson as well as he did not kill her dogs but other pets...............
THAT said this boy is a nutter and who on earth thinks its ok for him to go back home should have him for a week or two in their home......this is care in the community gone to the extreme IMO..............and if this is him at 9 years old god help us all when he gets into his teens...............
two sides to every story, too many dogs isnt good for anyone... maybe it is he who is getting a raw deal and not her
While the story is very sad and unfortunate, she did agree to take on the burden of being his mother. The story says that she has raised him since he was about 6 months old.
no way she should be required she isnt his mother she didnt create him and he is insane and a threat to her. he should be put in juvy
Should the 2nd Amendment have limitations?
This question is aimed at staunch conservatives. While I wholeheartedly believe in the constitution and one's right to bear arms, shouldn't that right only go as far as peaceful arming extends? Is gun control so horribly LIBERAL because we simply wish that guns in the household are not within reach of children, that they are not within reach of those who are legally prohibited to carry one and that they be properly licensed and locked? I am a rare Democrat who believes that if you want a gun, buy a gun, but I do believe that at all costs, we have an OBLIGATION to put safety over preference... So my question remains: should the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms) have limitations?
Answer:
It does have limitations, just not direct ones: the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms (personal property), but the whole rest of the document pounds on and on about the grievous consequences should one choose to take another's right to life. You can own a gun and do whatever you want with it -- so long as "whatever" doesn't involve violating another's rights.
I'm a fairly staunch conservative, (although I lean more libertarian than republican) but I would agree that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be seen as some sort of unalterable "law of nature." The founding fathers were wise men, but they couldn't see the future. Limitations on the 2nd amendment are not at all out of line.
I think it's pretty clear that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bazookas, flame throwers or grenade launchers.
Only if you put limitations on the first. And I belive if i want a m1a1 abrams tank I should be able to have one why not??
The second amendment should only have the limits inherently in it. It stands fine just like it is.
Leave our Constitution Alone!
The second amendment already has limitations.
One of them is the Brady Bill.
I strongly support the right to bear arms.
A man has to be able to defend his wife and children.
The second amendment makes specific reference to a well-regulated militia. I think this authorizes certain limitations provided they don't fundamentally undermine the right to bear arms.
No, considering the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd in the bill of rights for a reason. so we could protect our selfs from not only dangers but the Govt also.
With gun ownership also comes reponisbilites. like teaching your children about guns, how they can be dangerous, how they are not toys, and should not be handled without supervison.
I own quite a few Guns, I shoot all of them, I teach my two daughters how to properly handle guns safely. Neither one of my kids ages 16 and 8 have ever messed with any of my firearms with out me being there. Why you may ask? Because guns are not a mystrey to them, they are educated about them. My oldest daughter loves to shoot with me, and the youngest is looking forward to being able to shoot and not just watch.
I dont think we need anymore gun laws, heck if we would just enforce what laws are already on the books we would be fine.
The thing to remember is a firearm is a tool, Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Answer:
It does have limitations, just not direct ones: the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms (personal property), but the whole rest of the document pounds on and on about the grievous consequences should one choose to take another's right to life. You can own a gun and do whatever you want with it -- so long as "whatever" doesn't involve violating another's rights.
I'm a fairly staunch conservative, (although I lean more libertarian than republican) but I would agree that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be seen as some sort of unalterable "law of nature." The founding fathers were wise men, but they couldn't see the future. Limitations on the 2nd amendment are not at all out of line.
I think it's pretty clear that ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bazookas, flame throwers or grenade launchers.
Only if you put limitations on the first. And I belive if i want a m1a1 abrams tank I should be able to have one why not??
The second amendment should only have the limits inherently in it. It stands fine just like it is.
Leave our Constitution Alone!
The second amendment already has limitations.
One of them is the Brady Bill.
I strongly support the right to bear arms.
A man has to be able to defend his wife and children.
The second amendment makes specific reference to a well-regulated militia. I think this authorizes certain limitations provided they don't fundamentally undermine the right to bear arms.
No, considering the reason the founding fathers put the 2nd in the bill of rights for a reason. so we could protect our selfs from not only dangers but the Govt also.
With gun ownership also comes reponisbilites. like teaching your children about guns, how they can be dangerous, how they are not toys, and should not be handled without supervison.
I own quite a few Guns, I shoot all of them, I teach my two daughters how to properly handle guns safely. Neither one of my kids ages 16 and 8 have ever messed with any of my firearms with out me being there. Why you may ask? Because guns are not a mystrey to them, they are educated about them. My oldest daughter loves to shoot with me, and the youngest is looking forward to being able to shoot and not just watch.
I dont think we need anymore gun laws, heck if we would just enforce what laws are already on the books we would be fine.
The thing to remember is a firearm is a tool, Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Should the "right to bear arms" be modified or abolished in order to prevent more tragedies like yesterdays
killings at Virginia Tech??
has america had enough to learn a lesson that such a right shouldn麓t be granted so freely and also,that it is rather unnecesary
to have that right in the constitution?
Answer:
I like it when people paraphrase very important statements or ideas. Does anyone know what goes before "right to bear arms"? Anyone?? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Look at this statement. The right to bear arms was stated so that people as apart of a militia could protect our state. This does not mean one should have 2,000 rocket launchers to intentionally cause harm to one's neighbors in his state or country. This means one could keep arms with being apart of a regulated militia.
We should look at our gun laws and reexamine what these laws state. We have laws that state one can not have a firearm with a certain type of grip, or size of magazine, or rate of fire. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. And our representatives should put together crime/gun/law enforcement bills that make sense and have real impact on crime. These are not rights but entitlements we are given with responsibility to use them for good.
Remember columbine high school, what was the number one reason why those two boys killed and wounded their classmates? Their parents not paying attention to their children for they are responsible. NO. The school system for allowing cruelty and bullying on those who seem not like the norm and cause an atmosphere of hate. NO. The answer: Marilyn Manson. Ok, we blame a crappy entertainer, who puts out music not many people listen to, for causing 2 kids to open fire in a high school. Us as americans, human beings, do not like to look in the mirror for the cause or the real answers for any tragedy.
I am sorry to say this wait a couple of years you might see an example of carnage at a university or school that will make the Virginia Tech tragedy look like a picnic.
We need that Right to keep the Gov't in check.
Absolutely not.
Its not so much that Americans have so many guns (although 300 million guns for one country is an awful lot), there are plenty of other countries out there that have the similar amounts of guns per capita. It's simply America's gun culture. What is it that makes Americans so trigger-happy? It almost seems normal for people to carry guns around with them. Even some policemen and not to mention the army are perfectly happy to go guns blazing.
No because then the guns will only be in the hands of the police force and criminals....common folks will have no recourse except to die.
Here in small town East Texas, in the deep pine forest and hardwood river bottoms that I call home, we have always owned guns. Between my dad, my two brothers and me, we counted 37 guns between us. none of us has ever killed a soul (unless you think animals have souls). Crime is low in East Texas. I cannot remember the last time we had a murder with a gun. Guns are great deterrents to would be maniacs, and even if you don't deter em, you can always kill em...... peace...... Always remember guns do not kill, people do... and the Texas Motto.. FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS
If some of those students were allowed to conceal carry, perhaps that tragedy could have been averted.
What for? If someone wants a gun in this society, he or she can get one. The collection of guns in some areas is a big fat joke. Even some rogue policemen put them right back on the street.
Or you could look at it another way. If those students had been armed, the kid would have probably been taken out before he killed as many as he did. By this I am not suggesting that we arm all college students, but I am just playing the part of devil's advocate to show that there is more than one side to any argument.
Nope, it should be highlighted and encouraged to prevent the creation of "victim rich zones".
People who had that belief ended up following Hitler. Look it up - one of the first things he did while in power was to make guns illegal so that no one could get rid of him.
Look at it this way - most people who commit crimes with guns obtain those guns illegally. Think of all the gangs in Los Angeles (those felons aren't supposed to own guns, but they still get them).
How exactly does abolishing the right to bear arms deal with the facts of loonies and a US culture that tolerates gun violence?
Other countries have similar per capita ownership rates %26 they don't have the problems the US has: the problem doesn't lie with the laws or the gun. It lies with the culture itself. You'll never stop loonies and criminals getting guns so that line of reasoning is spurious.
Hi. Banning guns won't prevent tragedy. Sorry.
Guns are banned in Japan, yet mayor of Nagasaki was shot today.
Lib Lesson: Banning guns doesn't prevent gun violence.
Thanks. Bye.
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep a very small army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but not in Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map...
Now, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept... The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli...
I think it's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to TOLERANCE and RESPECT for others. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos. Sane, responsible, educated FREE people do not have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being ...
I don't believe we should abolish the right to bear arms. There are many law abiding citizens that own weapons and do not abuse them in a manner that was sadly reported about VA Tech.
Should we take everyone's cars away from them because there are so many drunk driving related accidents in the country? Answer is simple...No.
You cannot or rather should not punish everyone because of a selected few's crimes.
criminals will get guns anyway , if they want them , the only thing more laws will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizens to bear arms (I agree that a strong psychological evaluations should be in place before one can obtain a gun license). So some sort of reform would help!!!! .......but you can't take them away completely!!! its in the Constitution
NO... the only thing that should be modified or abolished are the idiots and morons who want to give up their guns and their rights for some "security" because, once the guns are gone then the security will be gone too.
...sigh...so much ignorance, so little time.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Have you ever read a history book? Did you miss the 10,000 years of people murdering each other before the gun was ever invented?
Guns are just tools, like cars, hammers, computers, pencils, or anything else. All of those things can be used to kill people. No tool is evil, only the people that choose to use them for evil. You can not get rid of evil people by banning the tools they use. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Making drugs illegal got them off the streets didn't it?
Please, I beg you. For the good of yourself, your country, and your world, grow up and get an education.
I think that a very conservative reading of the 4th Amendment would be to take it completely at its world--The right to bear arms IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A WELL-ORDERED MILITIA shall not be abridged." There are still hunters out there who use guns to put food on the table, but not too many who do it with a handgun. We already limit the types of weapons we allow--automatic machine guns are not allowed, for example. Maybe if we just excluded handguns, unless that person has a valid reason for carrying one, like a police officer, we would be in a lot better shape.
Absolutely not. Some problems can't be legislated away, and the human propensity for violence is one of them. The right to bear arms is our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Should the worst happen, and the rest of our rights be revoked, an armed citizenry able to form a militia is the only thing that stands between America and dictatorship. That's why the framers wrote it in, and that's why it's important to keep. With our current President's mishandling and negligence toward constitutional matters, I'd think Democrats would value that second amendment now more than ever. I understand the emotional backlash against guns today- I just feel it's misplaced.
I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, but if handguns were unavailable, there are messier weapons he could have employed. Someone with a desire to cause harm will find a way. No governing body can protect you as well as you can protect yourself. Safety is illusory- complacency is more dangerous to the individual than any nutjob with a pistol.
No! My history teacher just discussed this with us this morning. The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government... Seriously if they tried changing this law... the innocent people the ones who wouldn't use them unless they needed to protect themselves would suffer. THe people WHO WANT TO KILL people are gonna figure out one way or the other to get the guns or whatever weapon they so chose... So we need the "right to bear arms" to protect us from those wackos... and if someone else carried a gun in there then they could have shot him down and the number would have never been so high!
You are entitled to your opinion although that is opinion is misguided and spoken under emotions is a wake of a bad event.
No, because it wouldn't have prevented it. What other rights are you willing to give up to feel good, without accomplishing anything? If gun control worked, there would not have been any killings at Virginia Tech, due to the total gun ban on campus.
Do you really think that if it were illegal to own guns that the criminals would comply???! There would still be plenty of guns for the criminals and people like the guy from yesterday!! The saying where there is a will there is a way - is 100% true. Taking a defense measure away as well as a deterrent for criminals away from law abiding citizens is UN-American as well as a very very dangerous for the innocent. The gun didn't go up to the person and say I want to go on a rampage just as baseball bats, metal pipes, fireplace pokers, kitchen knives and many everyday items did not do and are used in killings daily. Are we going to make them illegal????????
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So people will just buy guns on the street instead of at Galyans. Great Idea!
The right to bear arms was placed in the Constitution specifically to allow us to protect ourselves from tyrannical government and foreign invasion. Are you trying to imply that our government does not tax us excessively, infringe on our rights in any way, or ignore even the slightest detail of the law that gives it its' authority? And never will? That would be an incredibly naive position to take.
I think we should have the right to bear arms, but modify it so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. I don't understand why these people don't want to change this law. America hasn't learned lessons from Columbine or the attack in Texas. "This is such a tragedy to be learned from" is the most popular quote from every single massacre that you'll hear, but this "tragedy" that keeps happening over and over again. In Europe and Canada common folk Have the right to carry hand guns and semi-automatics but under very strict gun laws. Thats why you don't hear some spree killing in those places.
Yesterday would have happened regardless of gun controls, someone that motivated would have found a way to get a weapon.
These sort of questions always bring out the extremists and you will no dounbt be called a Nazi and get the guns dont kill people etc spurious arguments.
The fact is that whilst your country seems to want to embroil itself in stupid unwinnable wars at monumental tax payer cost it doesnt have the funding to provide cheap or free mental health access so that people can get help and early intervention when they seemingly have no way out of crisis.
The American culture certainly contributes in that it portrays the use of a firearm as an acceptable resolution to issues, and has done so since the early cowboy flms.
Americans really need to ask themselves why they require so many weapons in the public arena. Why does the average Joe need to have access to a 50mm automatic weapon and why is it so available?
So your constituion gives you the right to "bear arms', perhaps your founding fathers were refering to the wearing of a sleeveless waistcoat.
Abolishing Guns will not solve the problem entirely. The problem (of violence) stems from a variety of societal ills. Mental health, absence of fathers in the home (this is esp. true, but not limited to the African American community), a narcissistic culture, and the absence of purpose in peoples lives.
It is true that countries who have strict gun control laws, have fewer incidents of gun violence. Of course in these countries fear of the government plays a powerful role in deterring all kinds of crimes. And besides all that, they are not free. America has always owned guns, it is only in the past 35 years that we have seen such a rise in gun violence, this tells us that the problem is not guns, the problem is in our soul.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what happen yesterday, even though some will jump on the bandwagon and claim laws should be abolished. Why change the law, only one person is guilty of that tragedy at VT, not every citizen in the US. Criminals and killers will get guns, regardless. So, why should we be forced to change "our right to bear arms", just what the criminals , murders and some politicians want, this way, we can not protect our self in our homes and other places. If that killer at VT had broke into my house or tried to shoot me, he would have been stopped forever immediately. Armed citizens do help prevent a lot more crime than ever covered by the Media. I think if a person is born in the US, has all identification, fingerprinted and can be a hundred percent verified that the person is who they say they are, then they have the right to bear arms, (not anyone with a criminal record) .Any and all others should not. It is our right, not their right. Abolishing or modified regarding "right to bear arms" is exactly what criminals , some politicians and terrorist would love to see happen, so why play into their hands. I say, stand up for our "right to bear arms". A lot more protection for the citizens.
has america had enough to learn a lesson that such a right shouldn麓t be granted so freely and also,that it is rather unnecesary
to have that right in the constitution?
Answer:
I like it when people paraphrase very important statements or ideas. Does anyone know what goes before "right to bear arms"? Anyone?? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Look at this statement. The right to bear arms was stated so that people as apart of a militia could protect our state. This does not mean one should have 2,000 rocket launchers to intentionally cause harm to one's neighbors in his state or country. This means one could keep arms with being apart of a regulated militia.
We should look at our gun laws and reexamine what these laws state. We have laws that state one can not have a firearm with a certain type of grip, or size of magazine, or rate of fire. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. And our representatives should put together crime/gun/law enforcement bills that make sense and have real impact on crime. These are not rights but entitlements we are given with responsibility to use them for good.
Remember columbine high school, what was the number one reason why those two boys killed and wounded their classmates? Their parents not paying attention to their children for they are responsible. NO. The school system for allowing cruelty and bullying on those who seem not like the norm and cause an atmosphere of hate. NO. The answer: Marilyn Manson. Ok, we blame a crappy entertainer, who puts out music not many people listen to, for causing 2 kids to open fire in a high school. Us as americans, human beings, do not like to look in the mirror for the cause or the real answers for any tragedy.
I am sorry to say this wait a couple of years you might see an example of carnage at a university or school that will make the Virginia Tech tragedy look like a picnic.
We need that Right to keep the Gov't in check.
Absolutely not.
Its not so much that Americans have so many guns (although 300 million guns for one country is an awful lot), there are plenty of other countries out there that have the similar amounts of guns per capita. It's simply America's gun culture. What is it that makes Americans so trigger-happy? It almost seems normal for people to carry guns around with them. Even some policemen and not to mention the army are perfectly happy to go guns blazing.
No because then the guns will only be in the hands of the police force and criminals....common folks will have no recourse except to die.
Here in small town East Texas, in the deep pine forest and hardwood river bottoms that I call home, we have always owned guns. Between my dad, my two brothers and me, we counted 37 guns between us. none of us has ever killed a soul (unless you think animals have souls). Crime is low in East Texas. I cannot remember the last time we had a murder with a gun. Guns are great deterrents to would be maniacs, and even if you don't deter em, you can always kill em...... peace...... Always remember guns do not kill, people do... and the Texas Motto.. FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS
If some of those students were allowed to conceal carry, perhaps that tragedy could have been averted.
What for? If someone wants a gun in this society, he or she can get one. The collection of guns in some areas is a big fat joke. Even some rogue policemen put them right back on the street.
Or you could look at it another way. If those students had been armed, the kid would have probably been taken out before he killed as many as he did. By this I am not suggesting that we arm all college students, but I am just playing the part of devil's advocate to show that there is more than one side to any argument.
Nope, it should be highlighted and encouraged to prevent the creation of "victim rich zones".
People who had that belief ended up following Hitler. Look it up - one of the first things he did while in power was to make guns illegal so that no one could get rid of him.
Look at it this way - most people who commit crimes with guns obtain those guns illegally. Think of all the gangs in Los Angeles (those felons aren't supposed to own guns, but they still get them).
How exactly does abolishing the right to bear arms deal with the facts of loonies and a US culture that tolerates gun violence?
Other countries have similar per capita ownership rates %26 they don't have the problems the US has: the problem doesn't lie with the laws or the gun. It lies with the culture itself. You'll never stop loonies and criminals getting guns so that line of reasoning is spurious.
Hi. Banning guns won't prevent tragedy. Sorry.
Guns are banned in Japan, yet mayor of Nagasaki was shot today.
Lib Lesson: Banning guns doesn't prevent gun violence.
Thanks. Bye.
Do you know that every Swiss citizen is legally required to have his military equipment at home, including guns (M57 automatic assault rifles) and ammo ? They keep a very small army, but can mobilize the whole country in 2-3 hours !!! That's one of the reasons Switzerland was never invaded, and during WW2, Nazis were at war with the whole world, including US, UK, and Russia, they went 2000 miles east up to the gates of Moscow, but not in Switzerland, and please check where Switzerland is on the map...
Now, how many times have you heard about shootings in Switzerland ??? The gun crime rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and in fact it's so low that statistics are not even kept... The same for Israel, they all have guns, assault rifles, even machine guns at home, but you'll never see a Swiss killing another Swiss or an Israeli killing another Israeli...
I think it's a matter of EDUCATION and CULTURE, which lead to TOLERANCE and RESPECT for others. Forcing people to obey stupid laws and gun control is NOT the answer, that can only lead to rebellion and more chaos. Sane, responsible, educated FREE people do not have any reason to take a gun and shoot another human being ...
I don't believe we should abolish the right to bear arms. There are many law abiding citizens that own weapons and do not abuse them in a manner that was sadly reported about VA Tech.
Should we take everyone's cars away from them because there are so many drunk driving related accidents in the country? Answer is simple...No.
You cannot or rather should not punish everyone because of a selected few's crimes.
criminals will get guns anyway , if they want them , the only thing more laws will do is make it harder for the law abiding citizens to bear arms (I agree that a strong psychological evaluations should be in place before one can obtain a gun license). So some sort of reform would help!!!! .......but you can't take them away completely!!! its in the Constitution
NO... the only thing that should be modified or abolished are the idiots and morons who want to give up their guns and their rights for some "security" because, once the guns are gone then the security will be gone too.
...sigh...so much ignorance, so little time.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Have you ever read a history book? Did you miss the 10,000 years of people murdering each other before the gun was ever invented?
Guns are just tools, like cars, hammers, computers, pencils, or anything else. All of those things can be used to kill people. No tool is evil, only the people that choose to use them for evil. You can not get rid of evil people by banning the tools they use. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Making drugs illegal got them off the streets didn't it?
Please, I beg you. For the good of yourself, your country, and your world, grow up and get an education.
I think that a very conservative reading of the 4th Amendment would be to take it completely at its world--The right to bear arms IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A WELL-ORDERED MILITIA shall not be abridged." There are still hunters out there who use guns to put food on the table, but not too many who do it with a handgun. We already limit the types of weapons we allow--automatic machine guns are not allowed, for example. Maybe if we just excluded handguns, unless that person has a valid reason for carrying one, like a police officer, we would be in a lot better shape.
Absolutely not. Some problems can't be legislated away, and the human propensity for violence is one of them. The right to bear arms is our last line of defense against a government run amok.
Should the worst happen, and the rest of our rights be revoked, an armed citizenry able to form a militia is the only thing that stands between America and dictatorship. That's why the framers wrote it in, and that's why it's important to keep. With our current President's mishandling and negligence toward constitutional matters, I'd think Democrats would value that second amendment now more than ever. I understand the emotional backlash against guns today- I just feel it's misplaced.
I apologize for the bluntness of this next statement, but if handguns were unavailable, there are messier weapons he could have employed. Someone with a desire to cause harm will find a way. No governing body can protect you as well as you can protect yourself. Safety is illusory- complacency is more dangerous to the individual than any nutjob with a pistol.
No! My history teacher just discussed this with us this morning. The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to protect us from our government... Seriously if they tried changing this law... the innocent people the ones who wouldn't use them unless they needed to protect themselves would suffer. THe people WHO WANT TO KILL people are gonna figure out one way or the other to get the guns or whatever weapon they so chose... So we need the "right to bear arms" to protect us from those wackos... and if someone else carried a gun in there then they could have shot him down and the number would have never been so high!
You are entitled to your opinion although that is opinion is misguided and spoken under emotions is a wake of a bad event.
No, because it wouldn't have prevented it. What other rights are you willing to give up to feel good, without accomplishing anything? If gun control worked, there would not have been any killings at Virginia Tech, due to the total gun ban on campus.
Do you really think that if it were illegal to own guns that the criminals would comply???! There would still be plenty of guns for the criminals and people like the guy from yesterday!! The saying where there is a will there is a way - is 100% true. Taking a defense measure away as well as a deterrent for criminals away from law abiding citizens is UN-American as well as a very very dangerous for the innocent. The gun didn't go up to the person and say I want to go on a rampage just as baseball bats, metal pipes, fireplace pokers, kitchen knives and many everyday items did not do and are used in killings daily. Are we going to make them illegal????????
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So people will just buy guns on the street instead of at Galyans. Great Idea!
The right to bear arms was placed in the Constitution specifically to allow us to protect ourselves from tyrannical government and foreign invasion. Are you trying to imply that our government does not tax us excessively, infringe on our rights in any way, or ignore even the slightest detail of the law that gives it its' authority? And never will? That would be an incredibly naive position to take.
I think we should have the right to bear arms, but modify it so that it doesn't get into the wrong hands. I don't understand why these people don't want to change this law. America hasn't learned lessons from Columbine or the attack in Texas. "This is such a tragedy to be learned from" is the most popular quote from every single massacre that you'll hear, but this "tragedy" that keeps happening over and over again. In Europe and Canada common folk Have the right to carry hand guns and semi-automatics but under very strict gun laws. Thats why you don't hear some spree killing in those places.
Yesterday would have happened regardless of gun controls, someone that motivated would have found a way to get a weapon.
These sort of questions always bring out the extremists and you will no dounbt be called a Nazi and get the guns dont kill people etc spurious arguments.
The fact is that whilst your country seems to want to embroil itself in stupid unwinnable wars at monumental tax payer cost it doesnt have the funding to provide cheap or free mental health access so that people can get help and early intervention when they seemingly have no way out of crisis.
The American culture certainly contributes in that it portrays the use of a firearm as an acceptable resolution to issues, and has done so since the early cowboy flms.
Americans really need to ask themselves why they require so many weapons in the public arena. Why does the average Joe need to have access to a 50mm automatic weapon and why is it so available?
So your constituion gives you the right to "bear arms', perhaps your founding fathers were refering to the wearing of a sleeveless waistcoat.
Abolishing Guns will not solve the problem entirely. The problem (of violence) stems from a variety of societal ills. Mental health, absence of fathers in the home (this is esp. true, but not limited to the African American community), a narcissistic culture, and the absence of purpose in peoples lives.
It is true that countries who have strict gun control laws, have fewer incidents of gun violence. Of course in these countries fear of the government plays a powerful role in deterring all kinds of crimes. And besides all that, they are not free. America has always owned guns, it is only in the past 35 years that we have seen such a rise in gun violence, this tells us that the problem is not guns, the problem is in our soul.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with what happen yesterday, even though some will jump on the bandwagon and claim laws should be abolished. Why change the law, only one person is guilty of that tragedy at VT, not every citizen in the US. Criminals and killers will get guns, regardless. So, why should we be forced to change "our right to bear arms", just what the criminals , murders and some politicians want, this way, we can not protect our self in our homes and other places. If that killer at VT had broke into my house or tried to shoot me, he would have been stopped forever immediately. Armed citizens do help prevent a lot more crime than ever covered by the Media. I think if a person is born in the US, has all identification, fingerprinted and can be a hundred percent verified that the person is who they say they are, then they have the right to bear arms, (not anyone with a criminal record) .Any and all others should not. It is our right, not their right. Abolishing or modified regarding "right to bear arms" is exactly what criminals , some politicians and terrorist would love to see happen, so why play into their hands. I say, stand up for our "right to bear arms". A lot more protection for the citizens.
Should Texas Repeal/Review its Death Penalty because of the new wave of people freed due to DNA?
Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.
Answer:
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
Answer:
The death penalty is there for a reason and I support it. I do think that with new evidence-DNA-you should have a right to appeal your sentence. And I do believe that a lot of poor people don't get the same treatment as those with $ for a good lawyer. On the other hand I have known people that are so evil they do not deserve to live among other humans and when they commit "that" crime they need to know that if they are caught and proven guilty, they are going to die. You don't do a simple murder and get the death sentence, you have to do something heinous. Look at it from the victim's viewpoint instead of the criminals. . .it will give you a whole new viewpoint about who really has the rights and who doesn't.
Death penalty should stay, but only when DNA or several witnesses (like a shooting in public) has been used to prove them guilty. If DNA isn't available, then they should get life. Before an execution, old evidence should be looked at, this should be mandatory.
The guy freed yesterday on DNA results after 20 years in prison is appalling. They should have done these tests to exonerate him many many years ago?
20 years to wait and be cleared by DNA?
I hope he sues for about a half billion dollars..
Texas now has life without parole on the books. It means what it says and spending the rest of ones life behind bars is no picnic.
There are 2 cases - both recent- in which it is highly likely that Texas executed an innocent person. In the case of Cameron Willingham the fire investigation techniques used to convict him of arson/murder are out of date and newer forensics have shown the fire was not arson, but was an accident. Willingham was killed by the state of Texas for a crime that never happened. The other case, that of Carlos de Luna, also in Texas, involved mistaken identification. (2006, Chicago Tribune)
DNA evidence is available in less than 10% of all homicides and it is not a guarantee that another innocent person will not be sent to his death.
Texas plans to execute Scott Panetti who is seriously mentally ill. Texas plans to execute James Lee Clark today. His IQ is 68, that is, he suffers from borderline mental retardation. Now that Texas has life without parole on the books I hope they will rethink whether they want to continue as a death penalty factory.
The justice system is set up to protect the innocent by killing those who in all probability have committed heinous crimes. The recidivism rate for murderers is about 6%. We have to balance the risk of executing an innocent with that of a convicted killer killing someone in the prison system of eventually getting paroled in 25 years and then killing again.
Plus other less relevant but still important factors of sending a message about what society thinks of murder, and hoping to deter others.
Should teens be tried as adults in court?
doing a research paper and it's due tomorow so i needs some good opinions on this subject if u know a website that can help me out a bit do tell.
Should kids the ages of 10-17 be tried as adults in our courts if they commit a murder
Answer:
I do believe that minors who commit major violent crimes, like murder, should indeed be tried in adult court, because the juvenile court system is unable to give out sentences equal to the punishment of the crime. However, I do not feel that a juvenile should be incarcerated among adults until the age of 18. I think that they should be incarcerated at a juvenile facility until the age of 18 and transferred to serve the remaining term in an adult facility. I do not believe in children being sentenced to the death penalty, for any crime. I do think that a minors age should be taken into consideration during sentencing, but the juvenile court system tends to be too lenient towards violent crime, mostly because of sentencing limitations for minors. Until the juvenile court system is reworked to give judges in these cases the ability to set a just punishment, I think it is best to be handed over to the adult courts. For children 12 and under, I think it is better handled through a juvenile court, but depending on the extent of the crime, it may be better handled if the child is charged as an adult. Honestly, the best result is for the allowance of harsher punishments for minors, and then they would not have to be charged as adults. Until that happens, these crimes have to be dealt with now, and that is often only justly done when they are charged as adults.
adult crime=adult time
If they are old enough to make babies then they are about as adult as you can get, and should be held fully responsible for their actions.
would you like to see a 10 years old getting the death sentence ? and his execution ?
If the person is 14 or older, definitely tried as an adult. If you can kill someone at 14, you will probably do it at 24.
I'm not sure what to do about a ten year old. That's awfully young for a life sentence or the death sentence. Yet, I do not have faith in the government to provide the services the child would need.
Should kids the ages of 10-17 be tried as adults in our courts if they commit a murder
Answer:
I do believe that minors who commit major violent crimes, like murder, should indeed be tried in adult court, because the juvenile court system is unable to give out sentences equal to the punishment of the crime. However, I do not feel that a juvenile should be incarcerated among adults until the age of 18. I think that they should be incarcerated at a juvenile facility until the age of 18 and transferred to serve the remaining term in an adult facility. I do not believe in children being sentenced to the death penalty, for any crime. I do think that a minors age should be taken into consideration during sentencing, but the juvenile court system tends to be too lenient towards violent crime, mostly because of sentencing limitations for minors. Until the juvenile court system is reworked to give judges in these cases the ability to set a just punishment, I think it is best to be handed over to the adult courts. For children 12 and under, I think it is better handled through a juvenile court, but depending on the extent of the crime, it may be better handled if the child is charged as an adult. Honestly, the best result is for the allowance of harsher punishments for minors, and then they would not have to be charged as adults. Until that happens, these crimes have to be dealt with now, and that is often only justly done when they are charged as adults.
adult crime=adult time
If they are old enough to make babies then they are about as adult as you can get, and should be held fully responsible for their actions.
would you like to see a 10 years old getting the death sentence ? and his execution ?
If the person is 14 or older, definitely tried as an adult. If you can kill someone at 14, you will probably do it at 24.
I'm not sure what to do about a ten year old. That's awfully young for a life sentence or the death sentence. Yet, I do not have faith in the government to provide the services the child would need.
Should teenagers be tried as adults in murder cases?
Why are 16 and 17 year olds getting out of prison when they turn 18 after brutally murdering people?
Answer:
ANYONE at ANY AGE who brutally murders another person should be tried as an adult.
You might say that they don't know right from wrong and I say that does NOT matter. If they are capable of brutally murdering at any age, they should NOT be permitted to exist in our society.
I might agree that they should not be subjected to the death penalty, but they should NEVER be allowed back into society. Period.
Sure,
I had enough sense not to murder anyone when i was a teen.
id say 16- adult
yes, they should...killing someone is killing someone, unless it's justified it shouldn't matter how old you are.
you wanna be treated like an adult when you first get pubes so yeH
there are different circumstances in each individual case
I do not think that 16-17 year olds should be tried as adults.
Don't get me wrong I am in no way condoning what they did!
They should be punished without a doubt.I think that they should have to go to an extensive treatment center and a special facility just for teens that commit these types of atrocities with a maximum sentence of 10-15years at the facility I think with the right treatment some of these teens can become responsible(reformed) adults and be able to be returned to the general public.The teen mind is not the same as a mature adults.
If there were more legal intervention with these types of children then perhaps it would not get to this point .I do not know how I would feel if the crime was committed on someone I know,however I do believe that sending teens to prison is not going to help us get the answers to solve this problem that seems to be escalating.
I think alot of this crime that we are seeing is a result of the growing economical problems.
And the fact that we as a society are not satisfied.
Well these are just my opinions.
I am sure that a more educated person than myself would be able to elaborate more on this subject as to the reasoning for letting the teens out of prison, I do however think that some of them they will not be able to reform and they should definatley not let them out ever.
Teenagers should be tried as adults when dealing with a murder charge. I cannot find one teenager that says they want to be treated as a child. So, if they want to be treated like an adult, then committing an adult crime should result in them being tried as one.
Never.
You are either a child or you're an adult.
We should change the laws for children, or create new laws for teens 13-17.
The answer should NEVER be to try a child as an adult.
That's intellectually dishonest.
Answer:
ANYONE at ANY AGE who brutally murders another person should be tried as an adult.
You might say that they don't know right from wrong and I say that does NOT matter. If they are capable of brutally murdering at any age, they should NOT be permitted to exist in our society.
I might agree that they should not be subjected to the death penalty, but they should NEVER be allowed back into society. Period.
Sure,
I had enough sense not to murder anyone when i was a teen.
id say 16- adult
yes, they should...killing someone is killing someone, unless it's justified it shouldn't matter how old you are.
you wanna be treated like an adult when you first get pubes so yeH
there are different circumstances in each individual case
I do not think that 16-17 year olds should be tried as adults.
Don't get me wrong I am in no way condoning what they did!
They should be punished without a doubt.I think that they should have to go to an extensive treatment center and a special facility just for teens that commit these types of atrocities with a maximum sentence of 10-15years at the facility I think with the right treatment some of these teens can become responsible(reformed) adults and be able to be returned to the general public.The teen mind is not the same as a mature adults.
If there were more legal intervention with these types of children then perhaps it would not get to this point .I do not know how I would feel if the crime was committed on someone I know,however I do believe that sending teens to prison is not going to help us get the answers to solve this problem that seems to be escalating.
I think alot of this crime that we are seeing is a result of the growing economical problems.
And the fact that we as a society are not satisfied.
Well these are just my opinions.
I am sure that a more educated person than myself would be able to elaborate more on this subject as to the reasoning for letting the teens out of prison, I do however think that some of them they will not be able to reform and they should definatley not let them out ever.
Teenagers should be tried as adults when dealing with a murder charge. I cannot find one teenager that says they want to be treated as a child. So, if they want to be treated like an adult, then committing an adult crime should result in them being tried as one.
Never.
You are either a child or you're an adult.
We should change the laws for children, or create new laws for teens 13-17.
The answer should NEVER be to try a child as an adult.
That's intellectually dishonest.
Should teenagers be charged or placed in a juvenile center on their first offense?
Can someone help me? I have to research this question.
Answer:
This has to do with theories of justice and punishment and there are several.
There is just desert, people should be punished for what they deserve.
retributivist theories, people should be punished for the sake of punishment, regardless of what they deserve
specific deterrence, a person should be punished so that they will not do the crime again
general deterrence, a person should be punished as an example to the greater community so as to disuade others from punishing again.
rehabilitation, a person should be punished in such a way that they are rehabilitated
etc.
If your paper includes these theories of justice and punishment, it will be good.
Follow the link below to an online encyclopedia britannica article that will give you an outline on the theories of punishment. You can use this as a springboard to other things, but your essay should us theories of punishment at its core. Next, it should tackle the issue of the effect and controversy of juvenile offenders. You could critique each theory of punishment and see if it succeeds in its traditional goals according to statistics.
goodluck!
It depends on the offense. If you are talking shoplifting, then maybe a diversion program and community service would be appropriate.
If you are talking a violent crime, (murder, robbery, rape, etc) then yes, they should be locked up even if it is their first time. If they are old enough to commit a crime, they are old enough to pay the price for it.
Well, you'd think that if the crime is severe enough, yes, but sometimes I question that. I think there are a lot of factors in making a decision like this.
One thing to keep in mind is that since our society has become so against rehabilitation often, the people who come out of juvenile centers, youth authorities, and prisons come out better criminals, not better human beings.
Some teenaged first offenders are better off being punished outside of the justice system (like with community service, house arrest, etc.).
I believe you'll find evidence to support this on the Internet. I have a family member who works in the juvenile justice system and at present, a kid may be better off NOT being sent into the system according to him.
Answer:
This has to do with theories of justice and punishment and there are several.
There is just desert, people should be punished for what they deserve.
retributivist theories, people should be punished for the sake of punishment, regardless of what they deserve
specific deterrence, a person should be punished so that they will not do the crime again
general deterrence, a person should be punished as an example to the greater community so as to disuade others from punishing again.
rehabilitation, a person should be punished in such a way that they are rehabilitated
etc.
If your paper includes these theories of justice and punishment, it will be good.
Follow the link below to an online encyclopedia britannica article that will give you an outline on the theories of punishment. You can use this as a springboard to other things, but your essay should us theories of punishment at its core. Next, it should tackle the issue of the effect and controversy of juvenile offenders. You could critique each theory of punishment and see if it succeeds in its traditional goals according to statistics.
goodluck!
It depends on the offense. If you are talking shoplifting, then maybe a diversion program and community service would be appropriate.
If you are talking a violent crime, (murder, robbery, rape, etc) then yes, they should be locked up even if it is their first time. If they are old enough to commit a crime, they are old enough to pay the price for it.
Well, you'd think that if the crime is severe enough, yes, but sometimes I question that. I think there are a lot of factors in making a decision like this.
One thing to keep in mind is that since our society has become so against rehabilitation often, the people who come out of juvenile centers, youth authorities, and prisons come out better criminals, not better human beings.
Some teenaged first offenders are better off being punished outside of the justice system (like with community service, house arrest, etc.).
I believe you'll find evidence to support this on the Internet. I have a family member who works in the juvenile justice system and at present, a kid may be better off NOT being sent into the system according to him.
Should teenagers be charged as adults when they commit heinous crimes?
Recently in my city they have been doing hold-ups, killing for fun, burglarizing elderly people, damaging property and holding up immigrant businesses and killing the owners. Any opinions?
Answer:
This is just my opinion
I feel that teens that make adult crimes should be charged and treated as adults, these teens do know its wrong, but they do it any way, also with all the media out there, kids are learning more at younger ages, the one thing they don't learn anymore is that are consequences for their actions, I also feel that the system that no longer allows parents to discipline their children, needs to be changed. When the "child abuse" laws became more and more strict that is when children started becoming more and more violent, and all around bad.
I hope you find this help full.
They should be tried as adults.
Absolutely! They must be held accountable and punishment should be meted out to fit the crime, regardless of age.
Based on past history and crime comitted yes.
ABSOLUTELY. AGE IS NO FACTOR IN KNOWING RIGHT FROM WRONG. YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND WHAT AWAITS YOU IS PRISON.
They should absolutely be held as adults for any crime that results in bodily harm.
yes they should be tried as adults
I have problems with this.
There are situations where I can see that this might be necessary. But kids are not adults. They don't reason like adults, they often don't understand consequences. There is good evidence that if they get appropriate care they can be rehabilitated.
Our justice system needs to look for alternatives to locking eveybody up.
YES
Yes. They're old enough to know right from wrong, even if they might not be mature enough to exercise the proper choices. The real problem is that our entertainment and broadcast industries have infiltrated the teen-agers' world with tens of thousands of murders, rapes, and other violence acts - teens certainly have trouble distinguishing 'entertainment' from reality. But that doesn't mean they should be exempted from those heinous crimes they do commit. -RKO- 04/24/07
If they want to commit grown up crimes, give them grown up sentences. If Justice is truly blind and unbiased, then each criminal should be equally sentenced. Murder is murder is murder. Violence is the same.
I think Texas in the 1800's had it right when they hung a 10 yr old for stealing ahorse. Maybe hanging for car theft would show these young punks that society is sick of them and their garbage.
yes they are doing adult crimes they should be tried as an adult
Answer:
This is just my opinion
I feel that teens that make adult crimes should be charged and treated as adults, these teens do know its wrong, but they do it any way, also with all the media out there, kids are learning more at younger ages, the one thing they don't learn anymore is that are consequences for their actions, I also feel that the system that no longer allows parents to discipline their children, needs to be changed. When the "child abuse" laws became more and more strict that is when children started becoming more and more violent, and all around bad.
I hope you find this help full.
They should be tried as adults.
Absolutely! They must be held accountable and punishment should be meted out to fit the crime, regardless of age.
Based on past history and crime comitted yes.
ABSOLUTELY. AGE IS NO FACTOR IN KNOWING RIGHT FROM WRONG. YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND WHAT AWAITS YOU IS PRISON.
They should absolutely be held as adults for any crime that results in bodily harm.
yes they should be tried as adults
I have problems with this.
There are situations where I can see that this might be necessary. But kids are not adults. They don't reason like adults, they often don't understand consequences. There is good evidence that if they get appropriate care they can be rehabilitated.
Our justice system needs to look for alternatives to locking eveybody up.
YES
Yes. They're old enough to know right from wrong, even if they might not be mature enough to exercise the proper choices. The real problem is that our entertainment and broadcast industries have infiltrated the teen-agers' world with tens of thousands of murders, rapes, and other violence acts - teens certainly have trouble distinguishing 'entertainment' from reality. But that doesn't mean they should be exempted from those heinous crimes they do commit. -RKO- 04/24/07
If they want to commit grown up crimes, give them grown up sentences. If Justice is truly blind and unbiased, then each criminal should be equally sentenced. Murder is murder is murder. Violence is the same.
I think Texas in the 1800's had it right when they hung a 10 yr old for stealing ahorse. Maybe hanging for car theft would show these young punks that society is sick of them and their garbage.
yes they are doing adult crimes they should be tried as an adult
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)