Riley24

Just look at it this way: the Supreme Court can determine whether or not states can deny legal protection. The Supreme Court didn't overstep its bounds by passing a law that legalized same sex marriage, it simply interpreted the constitution in context of whether or not to allow same sex marriage, and determined that all 50 states do not have the legal ability to deny marriage to same-sex couples. It may seem that the SC is telling conservative states what to do, but they're completely within their power to do that with a ruling like this. Its not that its unconstitutional for the SC to make a ruling like this, its unconstitutional (according to this ruling) for same-sex couples to be denied marriage in any state.

Right, but no amount of altered perspective will change the fact that they fought for the right to enslave other human beings, and murder, rape, and torture them. A flag that honors those people belongs in a museum, not a capitol.

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.

This is a good day for personal freedom, equality, and those on the right side of history. Extra proud to be an American today.

The 60s and 70s were a high point for left-wing terrorism, its been declining rapidly since then(https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states.) Its almost unheard of now. And I'm not trying to assert that the left is somehow morally superior to the right, its just that the right has some significant problems that should be addressed. I've always believed that the actions of a few don't represent the beliefs of the many, whether it be Islam, Christianity, conservatism, and so on. A terrorist is a terrorist, and terrorists don't represent legitimate beliefs. I just think that the right should stop calling these terrorists "lone wolves" and start connecting the dots, because the pictures pretty scary.

Left-wing terrorism isn't nearly as common or deadly, but usually comes in the form of property damage by groups such as the Animal Liberation Front.

"The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." - Winston Churchill

Apart from the controversy of the wars and weather or not they spurred more attacks, there's nothing wrong with investigating and stopping islamic terrorism. But we're way beyond that point. Muslim Americans are vilified 24 hours a day by the media, particularly conservative media. We don't hold right-wing extremists to the same standard. When it comes to stopping Islamic terrorism, we've invaded two countries, tortured people, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sacrificed thousands of American lives, and spent trillions of dollars. But when it comes to dealing with right-wing terrorism, the furthest we've gotten is an unproductive discussion about gun control. Watch as Fox News responds to the Charleston shooter, and just imagine if the shooter was a member of ISIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXn6sJDypT0

He was inspired to do the shootings by a group called the "Council for Conservative Christians". He was known among his friends to have hardcore right-wing views. Right-wing terrorism is often fueled by racism and other hardcore conservative views, another example being the bombings and killings of abortion doctors. Religious and racial fundamentalism are strictly conservative ideologies. Just because he's not a "good ol' patriotic right wing conservative", doesn't mean he's not a right-wing terrorist. And you're actually incorrect, right-wing terrorism is a greater threat to Americans and American police officers than Islamic terrorism. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

Maybe investigate right-wing terrorism as much (or more than) Islamic terrorism?

Also, the Dallas Police HQ shooting (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-shooting.html?_r=0). And I found multiple other recent shootings in Dallas just trying to find this article. We have the most guns per capita than any other country in the world. The gun industry is huge here, and we have a huge gun culture as well. There's a reason that cops here keep their hands on their gun when they approach a car during a traffic stop. These sorts of things don't happen in other countries, or at least not nearly with the frequency that it happens here. We're swimming in guns, why are we surprised so many people are getting shot?

Fairly ironic, considering England abolished slavery long before us, and fought for the freedom of slaves around the world. And you do realize that secession is one of the most un-American and treasonous things possible, right? You're literally leaving the country. Why should South Carolina keep the Confederate Flag? For what possible reason, 150 years later, could we still be celebrating the single greatest act of treason in American history? https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3273/2665070763_d99bd66d81_z.jpg?zz=1

Amen to all of that. The Swastica symbolizes German strength and good luck, only if you are willing to completely ignore the history of its use. Great point, DivineHustle.

In terms of militarized police, I honestly think its two different conversations. I've said, and will always say that police should have every tool they (actually) need in order to fight domestic terrorism. Although Sharpton and Jackson might not be very good at articulating it, I think the overall consensus from the left is that its more of an issue of when the police should be able to use the gear, not necessarily nitpicking on what gear they can have. I think there's a big difference between using armored vehicles to apprehend Dylann Roof and parking an armored vehicle with 20+ heavily armed cops next to a peaceful protest. I don't really want to get into that now, but there's plenty of threads already open for that discussion haha. And nobody is really crying that they need heavily armed cops, because the heavily armed cops have always been there, and were very quick to apprehend the shooter. If there's ever a time for heavily armed cops, its when there's a situation like this (also the one in Dallas). I can't seem to find the article that references this, but did you know that there's 1 person at the federal level responsible for keeping tabs on right-wing extremism? That really shows how incredibly weak our government is on domestic terrorism (at least the kinds not carried out by Muslims). And as I said before, Dylann Roof was quickly apprehended and will likely have every charge possible thrown at him. Who's crying about how we need police and how the legal system isn't doing enough...?

The shooter was a racist, right-wing extremist that specifically targeted a historic black church, because he wanted to kill black people. That's fact. If ISIS shot 9 people in a church in Charelston, we'd be screaming about how ISIS is coming to America and how terrorism is a huge threat. But when its a 21 year old racist white kid that got a .45 as a gift, its a situation that's incurable? At the cost of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of civilians, we invaded two countries in the name of fighting terrorism. But when we do it to ourselves, we can't do anything about it? We need to accept that there is a violent element to the right-wing in this country. Dylann Roof is a terrorist. Admitting that doesn't hurt conservative ideology. The confederate flag flies over the capitol of South Carolina, and black people in the south are forced to drive on roads named after confederate generals that fought tooth and nail to keep their ancestors enslaved. That's wrong. 150 years later, we still haven't gotten over the civil war. The confederate flag shouldn't stand for southern pride, it's a flag of treason and racism. As Americans, if there's anything we need to take away from this, its that its about time we started looking at domestic terrorism as a serious issue. When two Muslim extremists set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, conservatives called for stopping Muslims from entering the country. And now, they're saying that nothing can be done, and we'll never understand why the shooter did it. There's a double standard here.

Everything that was in LCPDFR, and build from there.

This isn't the time or the place to discuss that, because I don't believe in needlessly politicizing someone's death. so I'm not going to be the one to re-start that conversation. Hope this thread doesn't end up like the others, its not right.

​Come on..really? Really? Anyways, my condolences to the officer's family. Its a horrible thing when innocent people are killed, especially when they're trying to protect people.

​Its a state border. Still a border checkpoint.

​Giving up freedom for security is a complicated thing. As it turns out, the TSA isn't exactly keeping us safe, and they're constantly abusing their power. But the fruit checkpoint guy doesn't seem to be having the same problem. If we followed the Constitution to the letter under every circumstance, the country would be a mess. I don't see anything wrong with a fruit checkpoint if its protecting the environment, since its the government's job to protect the people and the land. Its kind of like how the CDC can quarantine a person when they have Ebola. Is it against the person's constitutional rights? Probably. Same general concept as the fruit checkpoint guy. We shouldn't be willing to give up our rights, but we should accept that there are specific situations that the founding fathers didn't exactly have in mind.

​But they're already knocking, in fact they're already in the house. They're bulk collecting all of our phone and email data without a warrant or probable cause. They're violating the Fourth Amendment in a very extreme way, and I'll be the first one in this forum to point that out. There's a fundamental difference between "There is terrorism in the world, so we have to collect all of your data", and "some beetles are devastating our environment, lets make sure people aren't bringing in firewood".

​True haha. The Fourth Amendment protects against unwarranted searches and seizures....but come on.....he's just asking the guy if he has fruit...

​Exactly haha. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, I don't think they were talking about fruit checkpoints. People are so caught up in defending their rights that they seem to forget why they have them in the first place.

​It....is a border checkpoint refusal video..... I'm totally OK with a conversation or a debate about border checkpoints, so I put my opinion as a disclaimer. You just completely misunderstood the main point of the thread. I'm not "cop-bashing". It is entirely possible to have a lighthearted conversation about a serious issue, and laugh at a funny officer's reaction without having a huge angry debate. Keep it civil.

​Actually I posted a video to laugh at a constitutional advocate that's spending his day yelling at a man asking if he has fruit. I made it very clear that I think this stop is totally fine, but said there are some ethical and constitutional problems with other kinds of searches. So if you're going to completely ignore the OP and start a needless debate, please stop.