What does it take?

[Rand47]

Here's an interesting article "supposedly" from the New York Times (just to be safe about stuff found on the Internet! LOL)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver.html?_r=0

Rand

[Robert Roaldi]

Sure ain't a job I could have ever handled.

Nor I, come to that.

But I wonder which this police officer was most afraid of, the autistic guy with the toy truck or the guy laying on the ground with his hands held high. What was so urgent that it required shots to be fired into the guy's leg, I wonder?

Hunters are required to know what they are shooting at to avoid killing animals that are not currently in season. Seems to me that it's not too much to ask that police officers be capable of at least that much, that is, minimally assess the situation. Surely even tax-strapped towns and cities in the USA could manage that much training.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Seems to me that it's not too much to ask that police officers be capable of at least that much, that is, minimally assess the situation. Surely even tax-strapped towns and cities in the USA could manage that much training.

And yet, accidental discharge of a firearm will happen from time to time, no matter what.

[Robert Roaldi]

According to that report (has there been an update?), the guy was shot 3 times. Three accidental discharges?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

According to that report (has there been an update?), the guy was shot 3 times. Three accidental discharges?

I made a general statement. I have no idea what happened there and why. I just find it highly unlikely that the shooting was deliberate.

[Rob C]

I made a general statement. I have no idea what happened there and why. I just find it highly unlikely that the shooting was deliberate.

Slobodan, come on! Nobody could stretch credulity that far!

The guy was not fit to work; he was on something; he's just crazy; he's too afraid. Take your pick. He just fits the current stereotyping to the letter!

Rob

[jfirneno]

I don't know why I should answer your question since this thread is about US politics, not European politics but I give you something to bite on anyway: What I stand for, and what my country stands for is tolerance and freedom incl. no discrimination based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, background, race etc. etc. but a hard stand against crime and terrorism. 

Excellent.  Now we're getting some where.  You believe in freedom but not all freedom.  For instance, the EU has very particular restrictions on freedom of speech.  Many things that I could say in the US would get you arrested for hate speech in the EU.  And as far as owning guns, that's like cannibalism in your land.  So there are differences.  Now how do the freedoms you listed interact with each other.  If someone's religion requires that women cover their faces in public does his freedom of religion allow him to attack women without face coverings?  And if not then isn't this a terrible racist act of eurocentric privilege?  In general how do you balance all of these conflicting freedoms?  I remember reading about a descendant of Van Gough who took Muslims to task for their behavior and he was shot and stabbed to death in the street in the Netherlands.  Now that seems like a strange sort of tolerance.  However in a country without either freedom of speech or the right to bear arms it's hard to see how you can be all that free when the definition of what's acceptable and what's not is no longer so black and white.

[pegelli]

Excellent.  Now we're getting some where.  You believe in freedom but not all freedom.  For instance, the EU has very particular restrictions on freedom of speech.  Many things that I could say in the US would get you arrested for hate speech in the EU.  And as far as owning guns, that's like cannibalism in your land.  So there are differences.  Now how do the freedoms you listed interact with each other.  If someone's religion requires that women cover their faces in public does his freedom of religion allow him to attack women without face coverings?  And if not then isn't this a terrible racist act of eurocentric privilege?  In general how do you balance all of these conflicting freedoms?  I remember reading about a descendant of Van Gough who took Muslims to task for their behavior and he was shot and stabbed to death in the street in the Netherlands.  Now that seems like a strange sort of tolerance.  However in a country without either freedom of speech or the right to bear arms it's hard to see how you can be all that free when the definition of what's acceptable and what's not is no longer so black and white.

As they say there's more roads that lead to Rome. What we stand for is very close or the same, only how we get there is different. And regards freedom: my right to wave my right arm stops where your nose starts. Same with freedom of speech, that stops where you are speaking to commit crimes or call on others to commit crimes. I have no problem with that. 
For the rest you accuse me of stereotyping the republican party? Reading your post my advice is to not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.
And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country.

[jfirneno]

For the rest you accuse me of stereotyping the republican party? Reading your post my advice is to not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.
And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country.

Why would I not stereotype you what you feel justified in doing it to me.  You pretend that your analysis of conservatives is objective but actually it's just the opinion based on your perspective.  But since you won't admit that I am justified in using the same technique with you.

[pegelli]

Why would I not stereotype you what you feel justified in doing it to me.  You pretend that your analysis of conservatives is objective but actually it's just the opinion based on your perspective.  But since you won't admit that I am justified in using the same technique with you.

OK, fair point.
How about answering my question?

[jfirneno]

OK, fair point.
How about answering my question?

"And one last question for you now: does everybody in your country support what you and your country stand for? If I guess the answer to that my comment is, unfortunately neither do all people in my country".

Many people in America have forgotten (or never learned) what is in the Constitution.  It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom.  They probably don't know what a serf is.  We'll find out pretty soon.  As far as other countries, it's hard for me to tell what they want.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom.

Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment

[jfirneno]

Ivy leaguers sign 'petition' to repeal First Amendment

They pay $50,000 a year to turn their kids into morons.  What a deal.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People...

According to Trump 

[pegelli]

Many people in America have forgotten (or never learned) what is in the Constitution.  It may just be that these young people don't understand what it means to give up your freedom.  They probably don't know what a serf is.  We'll find out pretty soon.  As far as other countries, it's hard for me to tell what they want.

Interesting spin you put on there, since you're assuming that if people would know the convention they would support what your country stands for (or you didn't answer my question). I didn't ask about other countries, so that's OK.
I must applaud Trump on several things, some of his stands I find nuts but the main one where I support him is his support for LBGT community. The way he's taking on the party line there is exemplary. I just hope the new US government (whoever it will be) will be as vicious defending the "freedom of religion" as the current conservative efforts defending the "right to bear arms". You can't pick and choose from the constitution what you like and disregard other parts.
And as far as you saying that "hate of Hillary" is a stereotype, well if that isn't the case how do you explain the long periods at the convention in which thousands of people scant "Lock Her Up" and all the buttons and memorabilia with the same message being sold in large numbers at the convention. Giving this enormous out poor of this  message I think it must be something the party stands for and not a stereotype. Obviously they're free to say so since we both support freedom of speech, but to downplay what's happening there as unjust stereotyping is for me a bridge too far.

 

[tom b]

OK, I started this thread because five police officers were shot and killed and I thought that it may be a tipping point (hey, they were all highly trained in using guns Slobodan?). Sandy Hook should have been the tipping point, and America now has mass murders every second week, surely that should be a tipping point.

In Australia we had a tipping point, the Port Arthur killing spree in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. Left and right wing members of Parliament banded together to prevent mass murders happening again. Hey, twenty years later not one mass murder.

Forget the left/right wing rhetoric, what do you suggest that America does to stop mass murders and can Americans actually get legislation through to enforce it?

As I said, I despair, the only solution to mass murders on this thread is from conservatives, "Get a gun!"

Really, "What does it take?"

I know Rob, I'm a delusional colonial, but there is always hope, isn't there?

Cheers,

[pegelli]

Forget the left/right wing rhetoric, what do you suggest that America does to stop mass murders and can Americans actually get legislation through to enforce it?

I think the first requirement would be that a majority of the population agrees this issue as a problem. If there is no widespread acknowledgement of that among the voters I'm afraid noting will change. In a democracy the people will get the government and the policies that are supported by the majority. We can say what we want but if that's what the people of the US vote for who are we to say they're wrong? In my personal opinion they could do an awful lot to make the purchase of automatic assault weapons by nutters and criminals more difficult but as long as that is portrayed as a limitation of the 2nd amendment it won't happen. So it will need a lobby that is as strong and rich as the weapon industry lobby to try and make any change. But who has the energy and the resources to do that?

Maybe watch this to see how assault weapons can be (mis) used for other purposes 

[jfirneno]

Interesting spin you put on there, since you're assuming that if people would know the convention they would support what your country stands for (or you didn't answer my question). I didn't ask about other countries, so that's OK.
I must applaud Trump on several things, some of his stands I find nuts but the main one where I support him is his support for LBGT community. The way he's taking on the party line there is exemplary. I just hope the new US government (whoever it will be) will be as vicious defending the "freedom of religion" as the current conservative efforts defending the "right to bear arms". You can't pick and choose from the constitution what you like and disregard other parts.
And as far as you saying that "hate of Hillary" is a stereotype, well if that isn't the case how do you explain the long periods at the convention in which thousands of people scant "Lock Her Up" and all the buttons and memorabilia with the same message being sold in large numbers at the convention. Giving this enormous out poor of this  message I think it must be something the party stands for and not a stereotype. Obviously they're free to say so since we both support freedom of speech, but to downplay what's happening there as unjust stereotyping is for me a bridge too far.

Look this is just silly.  You're a leftist so why would you agree with republicans and disagree with leftists like Hillary.  The only thing that is objectionable is you pretending that you are objective in your opinions.  We like our freedoms.  You prefer state control of just about everything.  Good luck with that.

[jeremyrh]

Except, Bart, the overwhelming majority of crime and incidents are caused by ILLEGAL guns, thus nothing to do with gun laws.

Do you actually believe that? Are you unable to see the flaw in your reasoning?

[pegelli]

Look this is just silly.  You're a leftist so why would you agree with republicans and disagree with leftists like Hillary.  The only thing that is objectionable is you pretending that you are objective in your opinions.  We like our freedoms.  You prefer state control of just about everything.  Good luck with that.

Sorry, you're wrong, you're stereotyping me because you can't win the argument another way. That's fine, it doesn't impress me.
I'm not pretending I'm objective, I'm just stating my opinion, I'm just sorry you can't deal with other opinions then your own.
Also the world is more complicated then "if you're right you follow the republicans in everything, if you're left you follow the democrats in everything", for me that's too much of a simplification that mainly leads to polarization and not to sustainable progress.
Politically I'm certainly right from center in Europe, I also like less state control but less extreme as some people in the US.
However since I can't vote there and you can it's up to you to follow your conscience, non-US citizens can't help with that