Sellers of weapons and the fanatics of the amendment (damn I forget the name of) what permit each in the U.S to have weapons even close won't let anyone change the legislation.JamesPup wrote: The gun laws in the US need fixing as why should Zimmerman be allowed to have a gun still? All guns do is get him into trouble. I don’t see why so many people who don’t need a gun with work have to have one. I get hunting but just for self protection I am not that supportive with. It sounds like yet again Zimmerman will get out of this one.
We don't, but we gave ourselves the right to have them when we declared independence from the UK and wrote up the Bill of Rights (the right to bear arms, in this case.) I bet a lot of people who support gun rights don't have guns at home. That would be a case of "I don't like that you own guns, but I support your right to own them."JamesPup wrote:I guess I just don't get why Americans need to have so many guns.
You read it! You can't unread it!
I disagree. Taking his life will deter others from committing terrorist acts. That is far superior than a mere slap on the writs by letting him live. To state this a little differently:JamesPup wrote:Taking his life is no better then him living in prison for life.
Which is exactly why he must die at the hands of the State. Putting him to death will deter others from attempting terrorist acts as they will know that they themselves will be put to death.JamesPup wrote:This will send a message to people not to do terrorist attacks in America though or you will die.
Anyone committing terrorist acts must be put to death. Would you allow the one that did this in Boston to live, getting three meals a day, medical care, and shelter? It's easy, with the passage of time, to say that no one deserves the death penalty. Let me remind you of what he did:
It is described to be worse then death.
Still I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime. Instead people can just get a life sentence. We could create very strict prisons that would make people want to be dead. Its just as good. Suffering in prison is worse then dying painlessly. Imagine being in a cell for the rest of your life with no TV or books or any communication with anyone. It would be torture.
However, the death penalty will not defeat terrorism. Giving these bastards gifts and money by one hand and creating another kind of struggle, problem not solve. Tcarnaev only a tiny tip of the iceberg, the end product of the powerful machine called global terrorism. Problem is that Muslims are inherently quite fanatical and religious, falling under influence of radical Islamists (purpose is to scare you and force to draw the world in their faith. All who are against to be destroyed, because only their faith is only correct) these fanatics become obedient cogs in the machine. Execute him - and he becomes a martyr in the eyes of new followers who be inspired by his example and commit new acts of terror. Jailed him - and other fanatics will take hostages demanding his release.
Suicide bombers is another category. They crave death, so the threat of death does not frighten them. Moreover, these misguided fools are so brainwashed, that they are not able to think, and sincerely believe that all who dead along with them go to heaven.
But upset did not it. Of particular concern excite some special services, which use selective approach to this issue. Why, knowing that somebody are preparing attacks they do nothing to prevent it, and showing incompetence? Maybe it should be? Thanks to acts of terrorism can knock yourself more funding, citing pious pretext of fighting terrorism can be obtained more powers, take control of the Internet, without difficulty to spy for people, read personal correspondence, have secret prisons abroad, which obviously can get not only the real criminals and so on.
I'm else not talking about those fools in the government who naively believe that the terrorist-fanatics can be controlled, kept in subjection, to use them to your advantage. For example not far to seek - Al-Qaida, ISIL, the list is long. Get rid of them and world will be more peaceful.
I find it very strange that the same people who rant about big government are the same ones who almost seem to take pleasure in the death penalty. It's weird.
In the Boston case, I have a serious problem with the way a cowardly act of murder has been elevated to "terrorism" by the media and politicians thereby giving the perpetrators exactly what they wanted. Attention. Validation. And now martyrdom.
Let him rot instead.
You read it! You can't unread it!
I agree he should rot and be an old fart. It will bring only a little more pleasure saying he is dead. But being rotten and old will show weakness. Like Zawahri is old now and probably in India by now. We will get him sooner or later. These people are fools who use force to win.
I would like to believe, but I fear that without strong allies US forces as usual for a long time get bogged down in the ground operation. ISIS serious adversary, they should not be underestimated.JamesPup wrote: Everyone knows that a quick and victorious war is good for a country but the way Obama is doing it is wrong as it is drawn out too much and public opinion is getting more and more to wanting US ground troops and an end to the conflict.
Perhaps we could use its naval base in Syria, redeploy a few ships, aircraft carrier, a bit of ground troops to support Assad (there's where we would come in handy type helicopter carriers "Mistral", but we up till now can't take away them from the French), however, with our not too good financial situation, extra spending on the war is far from its borders now looks not best idea, besides Syria, Iraq or the United States is not asking from us direct intervention in the conflict.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests