True, but it still does not change the fact that nothing is being done to prevent police brutality. They are only getting more power to abuse civilian rights. For instance the cops can now smash your door down if you do not answer within a minute or if they don't call out "I'll be there!". Whatever you do, do not remain silent or flush the toilet, they can break down the door due to their suspicious belief that you are "'Suspicious'. All this can now be done without warrant. Which contradicts the 4th Amendment.
Supreme Court: Justices give police more leeway in home searches - Los Angeles Times
It is not just about "making amendment" they have to enforce and adhere to the law - preventing similar cases from happening.
It doesn't stop the cops cornering the protesters and falsely claiming that they are blocking the pavements and spraying them does it? I think some of the laws are too losely defined and are often taken advantage of by the cops. Does this not interfere with their freedom of speech and protest?
We will just have to see about that. I'm sure he knows what he is doing, it was one of the things on top of his list to be done after winning the election.
New mechanisms can be agreed upon, meaning it does not apply only on small arms.
Then this man's belief and how he gave the ATT a green light should not be of concern to all these gun and wannabe gun owners:
If you allow that to happen then something is seriously wrong with your country.
There is a reason why America is right up there in gun related crimes compared to places like UK and Australia.
Japan is the perfect example of a functional society without guns backed by low rates of gun crime:
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic
It will undoubtedly still exist, but that is not the point here. The point is to significantly reduce the levels of gun related crimes.
It could be more, but you never know. not everyone have access to computers at home. For instance people living in the streets, victims of Hurricane Sandy who are still being denied power, not to mention ones who are simply to lazy to do anything about it. Moreover the White House has to give the public an answer when each petition reaches a certain threshold. In this case it is around the 25k mark. This is happening across 20 plus states. Which is a clear indicator that something is not right and something needs to be done.
Perhaps he will do just that, but it may not go down without a fight. With guns people can fight for their freedom, but not without guns. Perhaps this is the true reason why Obama wants guns out of the streets and be in the hands of the military.
Of course you can't. It is merely an apparatus allowing them to let off some steam. Problem is, the government now have the intention to take away their guns. What exactly can the unarmed do against the military?
It will be another repeat of the South Korean "5.18 Gwangju Democratization Movement".
I don't blame you as there is little coverage of this:
North American Military Agreement Signed by the U.S. and Canada | Global Research
At least he got the number of letters right
It's not about the West forcing them to change religion, it is them toppling their government and implementing the so called "democratic" system. Each country, like you said, should have its own rights to govern in ways they deem fit. Not by arming separatists, calling them freedom fighters and helping them destroy a country.
First of all, forgive me for not breaking your paragraph down as i am really tired so i will just bunch my response together, i will come back and fix the format of my response in a later time.
1.) About the Civil liberty things. You cannot literally assume people who will play nice and follow the amendment to the limit, same way you cannot assume people to follow your law to the limit, otherwise we will not be having cops and no jail nor a legal system. Part of society is to believe people can raticify the wrong they were doing, NOT prevent them from doing in the first place. That's why we don't generally shoot poeple if they commit a serious crime on the spot....
Just beause there are law, does not mean everyone will follow them, same goes to constition, just because there are constitution, doesn't mean everyone will playby it.
2.) when there a "Probably clause" 4th Amendment can be broken, you have to balance the situation
when you are going toilet and taking a dump and the police came with
when there are someone in your home and holding a gun to your head when the police came. You can choose to look at one side of the problem, or both side. But in the end, if there are suspicious sign (Not answering the police is suspicious) police can break in the door even without a warrant. Simply they don't know if you call the police because you can't take a dump with your constiupation or you called the police because someone holding a gun on your head. I would say, better safe then sorry.
3.) See point one, you cannot assume there are law and everyone will follow. If so, we don't need the police, not criminal justice system.
4.) Well, how you see from your TV 5000 miles away does not represent a truth representation, unless you yourselve have been sitting in a peaceful rally and America's Police suddenly came and Teargas your ***** without any provokation, then we can talk, what you precieve as "Peaceful" and what the duty officer preceive as "Peaceful" usually is of different standard, you have to be there to judge it.
5.) ATT is non binding
Arms Trade Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The ATT is part of a larger global effort begun in 2001 with the adoption of a
non-legally binding program of action at the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in 2001. This program was formally called the “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” (PoA).[2]
Later put forward in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates led by Óscar Arias, the ATT was first addressed in the UN in December 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common
international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.
The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the
illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. This hypothesis was ultimately disproven through progressive improvements in scholarship in the 2000s. The global size, scope, and impact of the entirely illicit international trade in small arms turned out to be much smaller and less of a concern to countries themselves than first hypothesized, with internal societal factors rising in relative importance.
According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[3] The authors go on to elaborate that..."For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[4]
Well, since it's non-binding and Republican hold majority of senate(Last time i check) I don't really think the ATT is gonna pass no matter how Obama try.
6.) You do know what small arms means right? Small arms is small caliber weapon, which usually mean any weapoin below .50 cal, it does not make any different to US civilian even if the scope of ATT expand beyond Small arms, as US Citizens in general cannot purchase non-small arms weaponry (When you talk about non-small arm weapon mean artillery and tanks......) Small arms mean all sort of pistol, rifle and rocket launcher......
7.) for soem reaosn i cannot watch the youtube video on your post, my screen frozen on obama on the background of National Urban League, i have been having some internet issue lately with all the rain and storm in Australia. I cannot comment on this point.
8-10.) If you want to discuss gun crime and gun law i am all for it, but this is not the post to do it, all i can say is, i can give you about million example on our coutnry why guns in good and you can probably give me a million example in your country why gun is bad. But in end, you live in your country and i live in mine, so your statistic do not support my country and mines did not support yours.
11.)say all 59 million who vote for Romney sign the petition, still consider less than 1/6 of American population, i pretty much doubt there will be more than 10 millions, again, you don't live in America, you don't really know how casual these petition mean to normal American. Again, not all those people who sign the petition are "American" , some are people living in America for a visa and you can virtually sign those petition if you are living outside US, you don't need your social security number to sign thsoe petition. I will not be surprise if there are more than total number of US Citzien sign those petition, as everybody can sign it, even Chinese living in China.
12.) What fight? You either let those poeple secede or you ask them to leave, there are no fight involved. You can try and see if people are gonna duel it out with the government, i would say there are not enough concern to whatever the FBI, DHS facing everyday, there will not be increase threat if there are a lot of people sign those petition, as i said you are sane enough to sign petition, you are not crazy enough to fight.
13.) As i said, there are NO plan to take away the American Guns, even if we talk about ATT did get through the US Senate (WHich is about 10% possibility) ATT do not retrospectively apply to people who already own gun (You do not hand in/Surrender guns even if ATT gone through), and they are not limiting the legal ownership of gun owner, rather the illicit trading of guns, so they are more targetting the Gun Dealer than average joe who buy guns.
Hence i said, you don't really know American Gun culture and Gun law.
14.) The word domestic emergency have a lot of meaning, not only civil war. Domestic emergency can mean anything from Earthquake to Super Storm or terrorist attack like September the 11. If the stem of civil war was there long before these petition, and the pact was to specifically designed to deal with a Civil War situation, then would the Pact should be signed long before 2008? Plus what canadian can do in the event of America Civil War i wonder, have you look at Canadian National Defence power? It's even smaller than a state of Texas
The pact will make more sense if Canadian is in domestic trouble and we send troop to helf them. Not the otherway around.
15. They did got the right number, yes.
16.) No, America war is about money, actually every war this earth fought is about money (execpt maybe for WW2, even WW1 is about money) the fact is, look at all the war american fought in the last 100 years. Did we change the German in WW1? No, Did we change the Spanish and Mexican system? No, did we change the South Korean? No (They were align to the US before the war not after). Did we change the Vietnamese? No, Did we change the Panama government? No, Do we change the Kuwait Government? No, Do we change the Iraqi Government? No, Do we change the Afghanistan? No.
Can you name one government we impose on our "Political System" to them?
I don't understand this, most people accuse American Start war to get money, in the mean time they accuse of us of changing the government, you can only do one, you cannot do both. Except if we invade your country and we stay and annexed them as part of America. Otheriwse we are not into your political system, we are only into your money.
As if mindless shooting is the only thing guns are used for.
