Guns.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Earthdog: Theres one thing I agree with as far as middle eastern countries laws go. Ya steal something they cut off your hand. Steal something again and they cut off your other hand. Steal something again (if you can manage it) they cut off you head. Now theres a serious 3 time loser law. 3 strikes and youre out..... permanently. Ive actually seen a video of a guy in Saudi Arabia who raped a woman. They publicly cut off his penis. The woman he did it to was forced to watch so that she would see with her own eyes that justice had been served. Seems like a criminal justice system at its finest to me.

And what if the guy is innocent?

[ 05-24-2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Earthdog: Ok I realise that Buckingham palace burned and not to the ground. ONE wing burned doing $900 million worth of damage. I thought it was common knowledge and didnt need to be stated. Seems to me like I heard they passed an EXTRA tax to pay for the damage. I saw some of the Debate when they politicians were argueing about who should pay for it. My wife is Australian and we were discussing the fire the other day. Ok she could be wrong as well. Did the English Parlaiment pass an extra tax to cover the damages?? If so, it sure sounds to me like the Queen didnt pay for it herself. If they didnt pass an extra tax then I apologise for my ignorance. Fill me in. Youre there and Im not.

Okay Earthdog. You are probably thinking about Windsor Castle. Part of this burnt down in 1992 and was rebuilt at a cost of £37 million (£3 million under budget). I can't remember how much was funded by Government funds but it may well have been all of it. There would have been no need to raise taxes for it. Windsor Castle brings the country a lot of tourist dollars.

Windsor Castle is west of London near Heathrow Airport and is over 900 years old. One foreign tourist was heard to say 'Isn't it beautiful, what a shame they built it so close to the airport.

We also fought a Civil War in this country. It was to determine whether Parliament or the monarch ruled the country. Parliament won and that is why the Queen has virtually no power.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Earthdog: Ok I realise that Buckingham palace burned and not to the ground. ONE wing burned doing $900 million worth of damage. I thought it was common knowledge and didnt need to be stated. .

Common knowledge for whom? Not all of us here are English.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Earthdog: Theres one thing I agree with as far as middle eastern countries laws go. Ya steal something they cut off your hand. Steal something again and they cut off your other hand. Steal something again (if you can manage it) they cut off you head. Now theres a serious 3 time loser law. 3 strikes and youre out..... permanently. Ive actually seen a video of a guy in Saudi Arabia who raped a woman. They publicly cut off his penis. The woman he did it to was forced to watch so that she would see with her own eyes that justice had been served. Seems like a criminal justice system at its finest to me.

And what if the guy is innocent?[/QUOTE]If he was innocent he shouldnt have appeared guilty [img]smile.gif[/img] Woe unto you if you hang out in bad places or emmulate the clothing and mannerisms of the criminal element [img]smile.gif[/img] ......and errr they could just try to reattach the uhhhh appendages [img]smile.gif[/img] Good point Yorick, but maybe with out such restrictive civil liberties they got him to confess [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Earthdog: Theres one thing I agree with as far as middle eastern countries laws go. Ya steal something they cut off your hand. Steal something again and they cut off your other hand. Steal something again (if you can manage it) they cut off you head. Now theres a serious 3 time loser law. 3 strikes and youre out..... permanently. Ive actually seen a video of a guy in Saudi Arabia who raped a woman. They publicly cut off his penis. The woman he did it to was forced to watch so that she would see with her own eyes that justice had been served. Seems like a criminal justice system at its finest to me.

And what if the guy is innocent?[/QUOTE]If he was innocent he shouldnt have appeared guilty [img]smile.gif[/img] Woe unto you if you hang out in bad places or emmulate the clothing and mannerisms of the criminal element [img]smile.gif[/img] ......and errr they could just try to reattach the uhhhh appendages [img]smile.gif[/img] Good point Yorick, but maybe with out such restrictive civil liberties they got him to confess [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]A vindictive woman is a powerful woman and would fool even you. The innocent can framed MagiK. No justice system is faultless.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: This is just a reminder. My fellow GD mods have already stated that if this thread is to remain open, then the all contributors MUST refrain from personal attacks. So far you have (largely) done so recently for which you are to be congratulated. This is a serious and emotive subject which deserves proper consideration. One other point, please learn to avoid nested quotes. There is a preview function available so you can see the effect of editing previous posts you are quoting - USE IT

Ok since this has come up a couple of times..I need to ask...what exactly does "nested quotes" consist of? I think I know but I would like to know for sure.[/QUOTE]The above is an example. It's where you quote a post that already contains a previous quote. Below is the way it should be done

Originally posted by MagiK: Ok since this has come up a couple of times..I need to ask...what exactly does "nested quotes" consist of? I think I know but I would like to know for sure.

All you need to do is carefully edit out the extra quotes. The preview function lets you see the effect before posting. Just be careful with the tags!!

Hope this helps

[Earthdog]

Good point. They do have the technology though to prove that hes the one who did it just like we can. Heres a scenario for ya. They had premarital sex. They got caught. Shes screams rape. uh oh. The law there says thats a no-no and he gets his dilly whacked anyway. even if she didnt scream rape he gets it whacked. They take Out of Marital sex very seriously. BIG no.

One thing I thought was unclear on was the fact that there were about a dozen women watching. My wife and I discussed it as we watched and she thought that the other women were also victims. Hard to say but I thought my wife might have been right. Serial rapists occur in more than just America.

Also, I think shed have had to do more than just scream rape. Shed have to offer some kind of evidence. That didnt sound right, but I hope you know what I meant.

And thank you for the clarification on which castle it was that burned. In US dollars it was $900 million in damages. Its been 10 years and Ive slept since then [img]smile.gif[/img] I still think Im right in saying they passed an extra tax to cover it. If only there were a website I could go to and find out for sure.

Cheers [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-24-2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Earthdog: sort of keeps the people from revolting if they have to fight tanks with butcher knives.

WTC was destroyed by men with boxcutters and the will to die.

The last revolt in the Philipines was a peaceful one, which succeeded.

I remember Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank without a gun during the Russian catalyst.

When soldiers are faced with their mothers and sisters, unarmed, prepared to die, history has shown they will not fight.

When soldiers are faced with their brothers and fathers with guns, history has shown bloody violence results.

The most powerful revolt wins not because of might or right, but because of who is left. Who will you rule if you have to kill everyone to keep ruling?

The gun is irrelevent.

What occured in America against Britain occured with no other British colony. The Indian revolution involved thousands of Indians, unarmed nonviolently marching up to the British who would knock them to the ground with their rifle butts. There were so many Indians, the soldiers would grow tired of hitting them down.

Also the American constitution declared th right to bear arms,
yet this was in the days before the UZZI, or the semi-automatic. In the days when it took a few minutes to load a bullet.

Technology changed, but the law remained still.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Earthdog: Good point. They do have the technology though to prove that hes the one who did it just like we can. Heres a scenario for ya. They had premarital sex. They got caught. Shes screams rape. uh oh. The law there says thats a no-no and he gets his dilly whacked anyway. even if she didnt scream rape he gets it whacked. They take Out of Marital sex very seriously. BIG no. One thing I thought was unclear on was the fact that there were about a dozen women watching. My wife and I discussed it as we watched and she thought that the other women were also victims. Hard to say but I thought my wife might have been right. Serial rapists occur in more than just America. Also, I think shed have had to do more than just scream rape. Shed have to offer some kind of evidence. That didnt sound right, but I hope you know what I meant.

Both you and MagiK totally missed the hypothetical nature of my question. Instead of answering the "what if he's innocent" question, you both tried a line of "well he IS guilty.... or should be" That's not the point.

Let me spell it out for you.

Let's pretend that with all the circumstances, this guy has been convicted of a crime he didn't commit.

Say he's put to death, or castrated or any other nonreversible punishment. What then?

What if that were you?

It happens. All Justice systems make mistakes. A wise justice system allows for an miscarriage of justice to be reversed somewhat. With a gaol sentance you cannot give back lost time, but you can give freedom. With chemical castration, you can stop the chemical diet.

With mutilation and death, you cannot reverse anything.

[ 05-24-2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

The gun is irrelevent. What occured in America against Britain occured with no other British colony. The Indian revolution involved thousands of Indians, unarmed nonviolently marching up to the British who would knock them to the ground with their rifle butts. There were so many Indians, the soldiers would grow tired of hitting them down. Also the American constitution declared th right to bear arms, yet this was in the days before the UZZI, or the semi-automatic. In the days when it took a few minutes to load a bullet. Technology changed, but the law remained still.

The Pen is mightier than the sword (and the gun) and yet the freedom of speech is still in effect.

As for India's revolt, as I recall there was quite a lot of bloodshed..only it was all on the non-violent non-armed side that the deaths were counted no? Oops wait..there were British deaths too..never mind.....the independance of India did not come about without bloodshed and death....it was not some peacful negotiation.
(this from history class a long long time ago..so I could have the facts wrong here)

And if the gun is irrelevant then leave law abiding gun owners alone.

The fact is, passive resistance only works when you have enough people who do not care if they die and you have a government really cares if those people live or die. History has many examples of mass executions of unarmed civilian populaces.

[ 05-24-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]