Should gang bangers be considered domestic terrorists?


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Digitalelf wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
To say "a long term solution just won't do" is not an option if one truly wants to solve the issue one faces.
Me thinks you did read my whole post...

Sorry, should have clarified that was not directed at you but to the mindset of "I want what I want, when I want it, and I want it NOW!" you indicated (which I do agree is a major issue in its own right).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with the principle of making a crime out of a motivation rather than an action. Which is why I disagree with the designation "terrorist" having any legal meaning (the same with term "hate crime"). Try a man for what he does, not what he believes. Otherwise, you run the risk of condemning beliefs, and that is antithetical to a liberal democratic system, even when those beliefs are antithetical to liberal democratic values.

Grand Lodge

zylphryx wrote:
Sorry, should have clarified that was not directed at you

Oh, well, in that case...

Nevermind... :-)

The Exchange

Azazyll wrote:
I disagree with the principle of making a crime out of a motivation rather than an action. Which is why I disagree with the designation "terrorist" having any legal meaning (the same with term "hate crime"). Try a man for what he does, not what he believes. Otherwise, you run the risk of condemning beliefs, and that is antithetical to a liberal democratic system, even when those beliefs are antithetical to liberal democratic values.

Not to mention the inherent crazy danger of "thought crimes". Especially when the enforcers get to decide what you were really thinking.....


Andrew R wrote:
Azazyll wrote:
I disagree with the principle of making a crime out of a motivation rather than an action. Which is why I disagree with the designation "terrorist" having any legal meaning (the same with term "hate crime"). Try a man for what he does, not what he believes. Otherwise, you run the risk of condemning beliefs, and that is antithetical to a liberal democratic system, even when those beliefs are antithetical to liberal democratic values.
Not to mention the inherent crazy danger of "thought crimes". Especially when the enforcers get to decide what you were really thinking.....

Of course thought crimes were deeply embedded in our criminal justice system long before hate crime legislation. The distinction between many types of crimes depends on intent. Murder as a crime of passion is treated differently than murder with malice aforethought. What is that but the jury deciding what you were thinking?

As for hate crime laws, I'm less in favor of them when they make the punishment for already serious crimes worse than when they raise what would otherwise be a misdemeanor to a serious crime: Painting a swastika on a Jew's house is an entirely different order of crime than spray painting your favorite band's name on something. Without intent, both would just be minor vandalism.


OK, partly test if this alias just gets removed on principal or because I have not used it to post anything worthwhile as yet and partly to address the "test" GM just proclaimed as a success:

All that was proven was that your post is just as effective at keeping away dragons. There have been no dragon sightings since the post was made and so therefore it must be the post keeping them away. ;)

It is not religion that is the issue. The issue comes about when people, even otherwise rational people, take hold of a belief, ANY belief, be it religious, political or just down right nutty and hold on to it as THE TRUTH ... you know, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. This leads to a loss in rational thought when it comes to THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL which in turn leads to VERY BAD THINGS.

Religion has nothing to do with it other than the fact it is a subject which is centered around belief ... much as politics ... or alien conspiracy theories ... or this map I have of a secret route to Atlantis ... WHICH IS REALLY R'LYEH!!!!!

Yeah, there is silliness in there, but it surrounds the TRUTH, so hopefully it has some merit.

OH, and before I forget.

Aretas, the questions I had originally posed were:

1. If, as you stated elsewhere, that civil liberties should be denied to gang members and they should be treated as terrorists, would you still hold to this position is you were accidentally identified as being a gang member or affiliated with a gang and subjected to the same treatment? What if it was not you but your parents or children?

2. Assuming your answer is yes (and I apologize if I am assuming incorrectly), at what point does the harm done to those who are innocent become too much of a cost?

Or to summarize with a film tie in (Brazil seems appropriate), how many Mr. Buttles are acceptable in the fight against gang violence?


Terrorism is when somebody uses terror to try to affect political, religious, societal, and/or regime change. Gang bangers are not trying to run the government or force the entire country to turn away from Capitalism and embrace any religion, credo or ethos. They just want money and b@#ches. And cars. And are ready to take them away from others at the point of a gun. You call people like that criminals.

Nobody needs to treat random criminals like terrorists. There is a very easy-to-understand reason for it, that does not require a long post or an endless thread.

It is simply that terrorists are considered combatants, and are not protected by the same rights as citizens. That means that if you were accused of breaking into somebody's house, the feds could hold you for years without the right to an attorney, torture you to find out where the other burglars are hiding, send you away to be held, etc. Even if you don't care about the civil rights of ordinary Americans, and you're willing to flush the Constitution down the toilet, just think of the cost of all of that to taxpayers.


You know what I realized yesterday?

I miss Darkwing Duck.


Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.

Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You know what I realized yesterday?

I miss Darkwing Duck.

*slap*


The Forgotten wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.

I know, that's why I noted that it was still controversial. The other interesing explaination is that it has to do with the fact that illegal drugs are way cheaper than several decades ago.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aretas wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.

It serves my interest to shame him into not saying racist things. The number one game in race politics is to make it unacceptable to say or do racist things and uncomfortable to be a racist. It seems to be working, too, since even Aretas has pointed out that if he says racist stuff, people will jump all over him. That is Working As Intended.

But you can feel persecuted if you want! Damn those liberals for making people feel bad for saying racist things.

HOLD on man! Making comments on race and crime and correlating race to crime does not make one a racist. Saying things that crime stats verify does not make one a racist.

Yes it does, when you make comparisons like that without context, and thus implying that the correlation is racial as opposed to economic. It's one thing to say that this group will commit more crimes than that group while ignoring the fact that the group in question lives in rank poverty compared to the second.


Saint Caleth wrote:
The Forgotten wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.
I know, that's why I noted that it was still controversial. The other interesing explaination is that it has to do with the fact that illegal drugs are way cheaper than several decades ago.

Or the population is aging. Less young males leads to less violent crime.

Or the changes in policing techniques have had an effect.

Or any number of other possibilities. More likely, some combination of many factors.


The Forgotten wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.

Our trend has been more extreme.

Canada has the lowest crime rate we've had in 30 years right now.

It's as safe in Canada today as it was in the 70s.

Our reasonable gun control probably helped.

Since no one can buy fully auto weapons here, they very rarely show up in our streets. That and we don't have clips capable of holding more than 5 bullets without modification.

And if you have a long gun that can naturally hold more than 5, you need to install a plug to make it less than five.

Our government considers hunting with more than 5 bullets in the gun as cheating.


Fleshgrinder wrote:
The Forgotten wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.

Our trend has been more extreme.

Canada has the lowest crime rate we've had in 30 years right now.

It's as safe in Canada today as it was in the 70s.

Our reasonable gun control probably helped.

Since no one can buy fully auto weapons here, they very rarely show up in our streets. That and we don't have clips capable of holding more than 5 bullets without modification.

And if you have a long gun that can naturally hold more than 5, you need to install a plug to make it less than five.

Our government considers hunting with more than 5 bullets in the gun as cheating.

Well, what if some poor hunter runs into, like, a whole lot of deer?! And good luck hitting the rest before they run off after the first shot if your rifle isn't fully automatic!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Aretas wrote:


You did not read what MAN IN BLACK wrote. You took my response and made it into a soundbyte to attract attention to it.
It was MAN IN BLACK who suggested if every black & hispanic moved to the moon there would be another group to take their place, something like that. The statement was made as part of a long dialogue that you are now perverting.
But it serves his interest to make you sound racist to shame you into silence and make others not listen to your actual words. The number one game in race politics.

I would strongly suggest you check out the Bradbury(I think it's Bradbury) short story regarding where this very same thing happened. It's fascinating.

Regarding sounding racist or not, I would remind all involved that there is no voice inflection here- we're reading words on a screen on a computer. On the other hand, this is one of the few venues where you well and truly own every word you speak, and you really cannot call them back once typed, even with editing.


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You know what I realized yesterday?

I miss Darkwing Duck.

*slap*

Be courteous, gentlemen. Please.


Aretas wrote:

Well I'm not in favor of targeting gang heirarchy with drone attacks! I believe someone suggested I am though. I am in favor of those displaying gang affiliations to be arrested on sight. Colors, signs, tats.

I want cops to be able to respond to on the spot information from C.I.'s a.s.a.p. No need to wait for a warrant on reputed gang members or gang operations being investigated.
Probable cause will be pretty open ended.
Stop and frisk enacted.
Most importantly, the community must recognize the importance of stomping out gang culture. Defining them as social organizations that attract youngsters and gives them purpose only promotes a romantic picture. Hamas is a social organization in that context.
Heck if the government can hire thousands of new IRS agents I'm sure they can fund task forces to crack down and destroy the gangs of Chicago.

You are giving police a level of power that is rivaled only by super villains in a comic book with these moves.


Hitdice wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:
The Forgotten wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Canada, which did not legal abortion until the 1980s and has generally shorter sentences than the United States (probably still true even with their current government) has seen the same trend in declining crime as the US.

Our trend has been more extreme.

Canada has the lowest crime rate we've had in 30 years right now.

It's as safe in Canada today as it was in the 70s.

Our reasonable gun control probably helped.

Since no one can buy fully auto weapons here, they very rarely show up in our streets. That and we don't have clips capable of holding more than 5 bullets without modification.

And if you have a long gun that can naturally hold more than 5, you need to install a plug to make it less than five.

Our government considers hunting with more than 5 bullets in the gun as cheating.

Well, what if some poor hunter runs into, like, a whole lot of deer?! And good luck hitting the rest before they run off after the first shot if your rifle isn't fully automatic!

They're killing machines, those deer.


Off topic to Fleshgrinder:

off-topic:
Having read previous posts of yours regarding 3-d printers, I must ask how the Canadian government proposes to limit people from using them to create weaponry that exceeds the ban.
Feel free to pm me or we could start a new thread if you like.


I don't think we need a whole topic, as I can answer that question with one post:

They can't.

We are living in the age of the end of nations because technology is going to move faster than nations can control it. Economies will collapse, people will simply stop listening to their leaders and authorities.

The inevitable result of a hyber-technologically literate society is anarchy... and not chaos, I mean the libertarian socialism variety of anarchy.


I agree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about the 3-D printer for drugs?

Also, I don't see what's so discourteous about missing Citizen Duck. He was awesome.


If I understand correctly, yes, you could use a 3-d printer to manufacture.

And damnit, I thought you missed the cartoon Darkwing Duck. Good Lord, I know I do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

If I understand correctly, yes, you could use a 3-d printer to manufacture.

.

I know you can; isn't it great!

Try and stop me now, feds!


3-D printers are really cool, but they're not magic.

You certainly can't print drugs. You probably can't print guns, though you could print some, maybe even most of the parts. You definitely can't print ammunition.

They don't make stuff out of thin air. They build parts out of the feedstock they've been given, which is essentially plastic. They can't transmute that into metal for firing pins or complex chemicals for drugs or gunpowder. They're never going to be able to turn one element into another and it's going to be a long time before they can do anything but the most basic molecular manipulation.


thejeff wrote:

You certainly can't print drugs.

Get out of here, troll!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

People trying to fire printed guns with real ammo might just be the thing that proves Darwin correct.


Azazyll wrote:
I disagree with the principle of making a crime out of a motivation rather than an action. Which is why I disagree with the designation "terrorist" having any legal meaning (the same with term "hate crime"). Try a man for what he does, not what he believes. Otherwise, you run the risk of condemning beliefs, and that is antithetical to a liberal democratic system, even when those beliefs are antithetical to liberal democratic values.

A hate crime isn't based on what you think, but rather actions. A hate crime is one where the WHY is also an important factor and made the crime worse than it might ordinarily be. To qualify for a hate crime, the prosecution has a heavy burden of proof, they can't just infer that some type of ism might be behind the crime, they have to prove it was an overt cause of the crime. It isn't punishing thoughts, it's punishing actions. You can have whatever thoughts you want. It only becomes a crime if you act on them (in a criminal fashion).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The crime should meet out the same punishment no matter what the motivation is, imho. A guy robbing the store becasue he's poor, vs a guy robbing a store becasue the owner is Arabic doesn't change the level of the law broken, or make the store any less robbed. Store was still robbed. Learning motive is always important in the pursuit of catching the criminal, but it shouldn't factor into sentancing, except in the case of capital cases, again imho.


Kryzbyn wrote:
People trying to fire printed guns with real ammo might just be the thing that proves Darwin correct.

Refutation

As far as drugs, why not? You can already use the 3-d printer to make food. Why not use that same already existing technology to make crystal meth, for instance. Manufacturing drugs is remarkably like cooking anyway. You put in the ingredients, do stuff to them, (heating, cooling, adding catalysts, etc.) and then youre done.

Edit-article synopsis- Gun making printers already exist. Drug making ones arent far off. True you cant make ammo, but we already have the tech to do that for like the last couple hundred of years.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's not a refutation. The parts that blow up weren't plastic.


I linked an article somewhere that I found after looking through Citizen Fleshgrinder's links about a 3-D printer making (or would soon be able to make--I didn't really read it) drugs. I think they were only talking about prescription meds, but I enjoy some of them, too.


And you dont think that a 3-d printer that could fabricate from aluminum (what m-16/ar-15 are made from) are possible?


the drugs are in the article i posted too, comrade.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd think it would be cost prohibitive atm. Aluminum AR-15's are made out of isn't the same aluminum beer cans are made out of.

I agree it will eventually happen, but you're still limited by the knowledge needed to craft a firearm to know how to machine the parts, or draft up the print template.


I disagree. only the upper receiver would need to be the aluminum. If it would be cost prohibitive, then no one could afford an ar-15. And technically it is the same aluminum as found in an aluminum can. Just purer and more of it.

Man, comrade Fleshgrinder, I'm beginning to see the light....The future is looking awesome. (except the part where Power never gives up easily- I predict things will get worse first, then ultimately better.)


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
People trying to fire printed guns with real ammo might just be the thing that proves Darwin correct.

Refutation

As far as drugs, why not? You can already use the 3-d printer to make food. Why not use that same already existing technology to make crystal meth, for instance. Manufacturing drugs is remarkably like cooking anyway. You put in the ingredients, do stuff to them, (heating, cooling, adding catalysts, etc.) and then youre done.

Kryzbyn dealt with the guns.

As for drugs, sure you can do some basic assembly, once you have the ingredients. You might be able print meth out of the same component parts they normally make it out of, but you're going to need a specialized machine for it. You have to apply the same processes to change and combine the chemicals.
And you can cook crystal meth on a stove. It's just dangerous.

You can't make a printer that turns plastic resin into heroin, you could make a machine that turns opium into heroin, but you'd need the opium to start with. Same with printing out pot or coke.

None of these will be generic 3D printers that anyone can buy in the store and use to make illegal drugs without anyone being able to tell.

It's not magic.

151 to 200 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Should gang bangers be considered domestic terrorists? All Messageboards