SIR_Sergeant

You are throwing this question on forums about a police mod, while being yourself an officer. Don't you think those questions are a bit biased? Not wanting to be rude, but to me it sounds a bit like you are just looking for people to comfort yourself in your opinion.
About your questions, I think this is not only a matter of police brutality, but also the mistakes police officers do. Pulling your gun and emptying your magazine into someone's body just because you thought you saw something threatening shouldn't be applauded as "Wow he reacted so quick, good job, here, take a treat". Police officers in the US seem to be much more keen to respond to a situation by violence than in other countries.

That wouldn't be the case. Look at Colorado. Gangs aren't supplying weed shops, honest farmers are.

That wouldn't be the case. Look at Colorado. Gangs aren't supplying weed shops, honest farmers are.

Mexico's war on drugs has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Carrying on with a war against drug cartels isn't going stop anything. Decriminalization and legalization is the answer. The impact of marijuana legalization efforts alone has taken millions, if not billions from the cartels. 

Yeah, but that isn't going to happen. I think there might be a few states that have no/minimal restrictions at all, but I'm not sure. No states have completely banned it but some municipalities throughout the country have.

It depends on the state. Here in Maryland getting a concealed carry permit is difficult. There are "may issue" and "shall issue" states. May issue states may give you a concealed carry permit if you meet the proper qualifications, but they don't have to. Shall issue states are required to grant you a concealed carry permit if you meet the qualifications. Maryland is a may issue state.

Just ignore him, he is a known troll. Every post he makes in this forum is always about some conspiracy theory or some other ridiculously radical idea. He is only seeking attention and try to stir shit up.

Imagine you're part of that <5%. You meet someone that you fall in love with, but then someone tells you that you two can't be together. That you can't be on their death certificate. That you have limited hospital visitation rights, that you're not equal. But you'd be okay with that, right? Because you're just a minority. And who actually cares about minorities?!?! It's not like people are born lesbian/gay. I mean they could totally just change their sexual orientation if they wanted to.

Giving some people rights and equality is moving backwards? Do you think it was moving backwards to give women more rights and equality? Do you think it was moving backwards to give black people rights and equality? You are free to be homophobic all you want, but you are not free to claim that a whole country went backwards just because YOU disagree with it. Anyone who actually supports human rights and equality will tell this is a great step forwards. And I don't see why anyone would NOT support human rights and equality. In what century are you living in? 18th?

As said above, it was about time. Anyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want, and it is now possible. I'm actually secretly laughing mockingly at the super conservative states where gay marriage was still banned. Like "Bam, in ya face yo". Humanity should move forward, not stay anchored in the past with outdated customs and ways of life.

My favorite part about this was the people tweeting how they were going to move to Canada now that gay marriage is legal in the US when Canada made it legal in 2005.

In regards to the things posted about Nazi Germany on the previous page... I think there are a few problems. I would hardly call Nazi Party membership an entirely voluntary affair. While many people did actively decide to join the party, many didn't really have much of a choice in the matter. I'd imagine things would be a bit difficult for you if you were a member of a party the Nazis didn't like, and you'd have to join or ultimately suffer consequences. I think it's fair to say that many Germans joined and supported the Nazis without understanding how self-destructive this would be for Germany, Europe, and their peoples. 
That being said, I think some parallels can be drawn to the pre-war South. The vast majority of southerners were not slaveholders. In fact, it's become well understood that slavery negatively impacted the average, poor, white farmer and just benefitted the aristocracy. Yet, people then rose to defend the rebellion and the institution it backed. And still today, people today celebrate a romanticized adaptation of a traitorous nation that defended an institution that likely helped keep their ancestors in a lower place in southern society. Germans today don't look back on 1933-1945 as some kind of profound era that they should take pride in. Yet so many people try to pull some positive feelings out of 1861-1865 when it's really not true. 
Also, don't try to suggest that the Wehrmacht was a glowing force for the German nation while the SS was the only evil force. The "Clean Wehrmacht" myth has been thoroughly debunked

Very well put. I can tell you did much more research on the topic than me, lol. That is pretty much what I think every time someone says "the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights". They are only half right. Like you said, it was about state's rights...the right to have slaves.
The Confederate Flag does not offend me; I don't like the flag and I don't have a like seeing it flown everywhere (Florida is full of them), but I also think it is someone's 1st Amendment right to fly whatever flag they want whether it be the US flag or the Confederate flag (shit you could fly the ISIS flag for all I care). The only thing I disagree with is flying the Confederate flag on government property. The only flags that should fly on government property are the US flag and the state flag.

Why are you mad that companies are pulling CSA items off their shelves? That's capitalism. They're responding to the market.
The CSA is (literally) the symbol of the organization that committed the largest action of treason in the history of United States, all in the effort to defend their right to hold slaves. They hated being Americans so much, that they literally left it. THAT is history. If Walmart and Amazon don't want to sell products that celebrate that fact, they have every right to. That's not political correctness, that's a free market at work.
Nobody is telling anyone they can't have one on their private property. It just doesn't belong on public land. That's not "political correctness" or disrespecting the dead, that's part of being on the winning side of history.

I'm sorry, but very little of what you said about the Confederate flag, the Confederacy, or the Civil War is in any way accurate.
 
The Confederacy seceded for a primary purpose of preserving slavery. This is not a point subject to reasonable debate. I will repeat from the other thread: The actual vice president of the Confederacy, who had some idea what it was about, labeled slavery and subjugation of blacks as the cornerstone of the Confederacy. It contained a line in its actual constitution explicitly protecting slavery, with no end date. It is absolutely legitimate to consider the Confederacy the face of slaver, since that was actually a (if not the) primary point of contention between them and the United States. In fact, their support of slavery was a factor in their loss of the war: Europe had economic reasons to support them, but no European country could justify supporting a nation seceding for the absolutely abhorrent reason of protecting slavery.
 
The Confederate flag is, in fact, a symbol of racism. It has been recognized as this for a very long time; if you didn't know that, you should probably have paid more attention. Confederate flags were not flown at the SC state capitol in the mid-1900s. Quite conveniently, they were added when the civil rights movement was taking off (in 1962), and people were telling Southern states to be less of racist fuckwads. Ever since then, it has been routinely condemned as a symbol of racism, because, to be clear, it was the actual emblem of people who literally fought a war to preserve the right to own human beings based on race. The "heritage" it represents is, in fact, one of extreme racism. Yes, there has been racism under the US flag, but the United States was not in fact established for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. The Confederate battle flag was simply not such a big thing until the South clung to it when they couldn't cling to Jim Crow laws as much anymore.
 
As for memorials: It's actually instructive to look at German war memorials in France. It's quite possible to respect the soldiers who died without in any way glorifying their cause. Few people object to respecting people who died in battle. That doesn't mean you pay any tribute at all to their cause, which, again was perpetuating the institution of slavery. Germans who died in WWII are in memorials that don't honor the cause they fought for. I see no reason why a memorial for soldiers who died should necessarily honor their cause.

While I do understand what MayhemMercenary is saying, I do agree with you here. The user you responded to is a known troll, and I've gotten into several nasty encounters with them myself. They only post to incite hate, bitterness, and conspiracy theories that hold very little water. I have no respect for someone such as this, and I'd tell said person to do the same thing you told them to; shove it up their ass. I'm surprised he's actually still around.
I always wonder if Abraham Lincoln would be proud. We will never know for sure.

 

While I don't have an issue with people displaying the Confederate flag on their own property, I don't think it should be displayed on public property, like southern state capitols. I understand the historical significance, but for a state to display the flag of a rebellious nation that sought to break apart the union we all live in is wrong. 
 

*I'm aware not all conservatives (it's an umbrella term) believe the exact same things, don't jump on me for that*
 
I think some of their opinions tend to be hypocritical. They preach small government but don't follow up on it. They want to impose their morality on you through government force (laws). Abortion, drug prohibition, gay marriage, lack of separation of church and state, etc. They want a massive military (which is a part of government), even if it majorly contributes to the national debt and lines the pockets of defense contractors. *hint hint* Eisenhower *hint hint* They back the police almost without question. If you're so opposed to the government, why do you unilaterally stand behind their agents? They want to get government out of the way of business, but then they buddy up to the lobbyists and the corporations that pay the campaign bills. They appeal to the Founding Fathers as if they were the intellectual descendants of those men, even though classical liberalism mirrors contemporary libertarianism (which I do not consider in-line with contemporary conservatism or liberalism) and not the GOP or the Tea Party. 
 
I'm sure what I say next will go totally unheeded and I'll be blasted as a "typical libtard," but as a libertarian (and registered independent), I am generally opposed to a significant number of things both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, support. 
 
I'm sure this thread will end well. 

Uh...

This is why filming cops is the best thing we can do. This sort of thing used to happen all the time before we had cameras in our phones and on our news helicopters. Keep filming cops, they are public officials and deserve to be held accountable for everything they do. Just because you have a lot of adrenaline going, and you're probably frustrated that you had to chase this guy so long, doesn't mean you can beat the crap out of him when he's not resisting.

You remind us of it in every thread you make. We get it.
 
Enjoy your new toy. 

"As a felon look at this collectible firearm that I, as a felon, bought as a felon." 

They're not drawing attention because they're Christians. They're drawing attention because they refuse to cater a wedding because it was for a gay couple. If every business that was owned by Christians was targeted specifically because the owners were Christians, the majority of businesses operating in the country would be affected. 

Personally, I have no issues with same sex marriage. The issue is that marriage is traditionally a religious event. Some religious people do not agree with the concept, and should not be forced to participate in a gay wedding, in any capacity.
 
Does anyone know when and why RFRA was signed into law? Bill Clinton passed the federal RFRA law in 1993 to allow Native Americans the right to use peyote in religious ceremonies.
 
Since 1993, around 30 states have passed a RFRA law at state level, because a court ruling determined that the federal government cannot tell states how to use their land, and the federal RFRA law didn't apply.
 
Indiana's RFRA law is almost word for word, the same law Clinton passed in 1993. Why the uproar about Indiana? Over half the states have nearly identical laws!!
 
I am headed to Walkerton this weekend. Gonna get me some Memories Pizza. I read the Yelp reviews. A lot of bad reviews from California... Yeah, like Walkerton is a huge tourist attraction... I would be confident in saying that 90% of their reviewers have never even been to Indiana.
 
Look, bottom line is, this law protects people who want to practice their religion. It doesn't allow discrimination. If you're gay and a store refuses to provide service for gay wedding, you can still sue them, and you can still win. All RFRA does is provide a legal defense. Or, you can just go somewhere else that will do what you need done.