[CanadianJeff]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is why we have a Second Amendment in the USA.

Yeah because shooting a police officer or pulling a gun on him would totally make this look better in her favor.

This is why I support mandatory dashboard cameras for all cars and support full recording privileges of police activity for all citizens.

It also has the added benefit of less people getting shot which I'm sure we both agree is a damn good thing.

[Unsound]

Mandatory dash cams is going a little too far imo. I don't need recordings of myself picking my nose on the highway...

Being able to record the police without getting a beat down definitely should be a right though.

[CanadianJeff]

I didn't think it needed to be said but those mandatory dash cams go on the police cars not on your car unless you are a police officer at which point I suggest you put a box of tissues in your car.

[Unsound]

Sorry, you said "all cars". I assumed you meant "all cars" mainly because I assumed that police cars already had 'em.

In any case, yes, all police cars should have them.

[DrCaleb]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I didn't think it needed to be said but those mandatory dash cams go on the police cars not on your car unless you are a police officer at which point I suggest you put a box of tissues in your car.

Why not on our cars too? Not manditory, but I've heard of incidents where someone wanted the police video as evidence, only to have it mysteriously 'dissappear'.

[CanadianJeff]

You ask me we should have the legal right to sue for negligence when that happens.

[DrCaleb]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

You ask me we should have the legal right to sue for negligence when that happens.

Negligence schmeglegince. What happened to that woman is assault, and deleting a dash cam video is obstruction. Pound-me-in-the-ass prison time.

[BartSimpson]

llama66 llama66:

shirley, he can't mean you can gun down a duly appointed member of law enforcement.

I surely do.

As a matter of fact, my country was started when British Army Regulars, acting as a constabulary, fired on armed civilians at Lexington. And then at Concord they got their butts handed to them and armed civilians killed a bunch of them and buried them in the middle of the road (which was a British Army tradition of the time that they'd do to others.)

I personally don't give a good g*ddam if someone has a badge when they commit a crime. Committing a crime makes them a criminal and if the crime is bad enough then that makes them a target.

[CanadianJeff]

A lot changes in over 200 years. Solving problems with violence in the age of the internet and global connectivity may no longer be a good solution.

This also wasn't in the age of fully automatic weapons or the ability to have things like dashboard cameras to enforce honesty through non violent means.

I think the intent of the second amendment was very plainly not at all about guns but about a citizens right to fight back. It just turns out we have more then one way of doing that today that was well beyond the imagination of humanity at the time the second amendment was written.

That is certainly worth a very very large amount of consideration.

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

A lot changes in over 200 years. Solving problems with violence in the age of the internet and global connectivity may no longer be a good solution.

If your problem is someone violently assaulting you then sending them a f*cking email isn't going to help.

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

A lot changes in over 200 years. Solving problems with violence in the age of the internet and global connectivity may no longer be a good solution.

If your problem is someone violently assaulting you then sending them a f*cking email isn't going to help.

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I think the intent of the second amendment was very plainly not at all about guns but about a citizens right to fight back.

In this you are exactly correct.

The key part being that people have the right to defend themselves even from their own government.

And that includes jackasses who like to beat up on women.

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I think the intent of the second amendment was very plainly not at all about guns but about a citizens right to fight back.

In this you are exactly correct.

The key part being that people have the right to defend themselves even from their own government.

And that includes jackasses who like to beat up on women.

And Canada is such a backwards country that it's residents/citizens can't?

[Alta_redneck]

Regina Regina:

Doesn't work for me either. Maybe a paywall?

I got it off of Global Edmonton, not sure whats up but I'll try this one.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alber ... story.html

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I think the intent of the second amendment was very plainly not at all about guns but about a citizens right to fight back.

In this you are exactly correct.

The key part being that people have the right to defend themselves even from their own government.

And that includes jackasses who like to beat up on women.

And Canada is such a backwards country that it's residents/citizens can't?

Given the general tenor on this forum it's more a matter of won't than can't.