NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s02-ussc.html?page=4

Finally, the US government and police force has acknowledged that gangsters are terrorists and that fighting them is part of the war on terror. If they didn't step in LA would be another New Orleans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518256). The US finally realized that by being half assed about law enforcement they would lose cities one by one to gangs and criminals. America can't afford to lose land and freedom to the ills of society so thus they have acted. I hope they storm the place and kill off every threat to freedom in society, their on US soil, the US government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals. When it gets to the point where crime rules not the government its time to call the goalies and take back the land with the armed defensive forces.

(note that I'm glad that the government is finally trying to do something about these imfamous and heartbreaking gang wars, I do not enjoy the idea of the killing I just hope that this conflict ends with peace and safety for all who suffered under scumbag gang oppression just as people hope the good guys win wars so that the victims may be free from the forces of evil)

Addendum: Arnold Schwarzenegger rules as governor!

Ever heard of due process?

The US police force should be more like the police force in my nationstate. I have security cameras with guns on them and I even have Comanche's shoot road ragers once sighted. Basically my police get as much weaponry as the military does to prevent terrorism and gang violence.And they can shoot you once you've been seen commiting a crime which is why crime is near non-existant in my nationstate.

Finally, the US government and police force has acknowledged that gangsters are terrorists and that fighting them is part of the war on terror. If they didn't step in LA would be another New Orleans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518256). The US finally realized that by being half assed about law enforcement they would lose cities one by one to gangs and criminals. America can't afford to lose land and freedom to the ills of society so thus they have acted. I hope they storm the place and kill off every threat to freedom in society, their on US soil, the US government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals. When it gets to the point where crime rules not the government its time to call the goalies and take back the land with the armed defensive forces.

Addendum: Arnold Schwarzenegger rules as governor!

Ever heard of due process?

Well, its great someone is finally acknowledging the deplorable levels that LA has been allowed to drop to. some of the highest murder rates, outlets for some of the most dangerous gangs in the world, A black market with a better payout than some corporations, and people who have never actually left their block because the blocks on both sides have a gang on them - are just some of the many wonders to behold in LA

Hopefully next in line: Detroit, "East-side" St. Louis, various parts of New York city and Chicago, Washington DC. We can work our way up from there.

The US police force should be more like the police force in my nationstate. I have security cameras with guns on them and I even have Comanche's shoot road ragers once sighted. Basically my police get as much weaponry as the military does to prevent terrorism and gang violence.And they can shoot you once you've been seen commiting a crime which is why crime is near non-existant in my nationstate.

So in other words we must eliminate all threats to American freedom by turning America into a totalitarian police state?

Can't argue with that logic.


BTW: My nation has no crime as well, but without the whole 1984 thing...

So in other words we must eliminate all threats to American freedom by turning America into a totalitarian police state?

Can't argue with that logic.


BTW: My nation has no crime as well, but without the whole 1984 thing...

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

You remind me of The Father from Equilibrium.

Never heard of it.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

You remind me of The Father from Equilibrium.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

Oh dear... nobody can be that bloody... I'm sorry, the only word for that is "stupid".

Really, do you know why the 50's may seem more pleasant than today? Honestly... some of the crime in major cities was far more rampant than today, even worse in some regards.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

Ah yes... those silly "rights pressers." Down with human rights!

Your "logic" backwards.

By your own admission the law only acts when "dangerous people" are the "most dangerous." This is right. You don't hit someone whose just been born on the basis that they might grow up and become dangerous. You wait until they are a danger, and not before.

You seem to want a totalitarian state so that people are punished for NOT being dangerous!

And lol.... the righteous 50s. Lol.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

That is just ridiculous. Once these measures are put in place, society becomes dependent upon them. Social Security number for example? Never was supposed to be used by anyone not in government. You give the state an inch and it will take a mile.

Ah yes... those silly "rights pressers." Down with human rights!

Your "logic" backwards.

By your own admission the law only acts when "dangerous people" are the "most dangerous." This is right. You don't hit someone whose just been born on the basis that they might grow up and become dangerous. You wait until they are a danger, and not before.

You seem to want a totalitarian state so that people are punished for NOT being dangerous!

And lol.... the righteous 50s. Lol.

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father. We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us. I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them. All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society. And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it. And no we won't hit babies, I only meant by shooting those dangerous to society once they start expressing anti-social actions, my ideal gov will try to identify the dangerous people early and then first try to deter them, once the first deteration fails bang, those who are law abiding are not shot. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of medicine.

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father. We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us. I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them. All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society. And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it.

WOW...I mean...uhh...WOW!

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father. We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us. I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them. All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society. And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it. And no we won't hit babies, I only meant by shooting those dangerous to society once they start expressing anti-social actions, my ideal gov will try to identify the dangerous people early and then first try to deter them, once the first deteration fails bang, those who are law abiding are not shot. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of medicine.

So people expressing dissatisfaction with the government are shot. Congratulations, you've just formulated Stalins USSR. Do you want gulags too Comrade General?

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father. We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us. I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them. All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society. And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it. And no we won't hit babies, I only meant by shooting those dangerous to society once they start expressing anti-social actions, my ideal gov will try to identify the dangerous people early and then first try to deter them, once the first deteration fails bang, those who are law abiding are not shot. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of medicine.

First, this sounds like a grab for attention because the only people I've met above the age of 15 who think a system like this is preferable is a narcissist, or delusional. If you are any of these three, you probably aren't going to be a responsive debater.

That, and just for the sake of entertainment, do you actually think this system is sustainable?

I can garuntee that if such a system existed I would become a terrorist with many others. Never forget that a government is defined by the people, not the other way around. There's a reason why dictatorships and monarchies never last.

So people expressing dissatisfaction with the government are shot. Congratulations, you've just formulated Stalins USSR. Do you want gulags too Comrade General?

I am not a Stalinist. I'll elaborate.

Have people educated about how crime hurts poeple ect, have propaganda campaign on crime (its against crimes like rape, organizing groups against the nation ect, so its good). Those who persist are dangerous. Face it the US police force and gov finds people who are a disaster waiting to happen and they know it and they just wait until he rapes an innocent teenage girl or decapitates a family or God knows what until they act.

Step 1) Deter crime

Step 2) Eliminate those undeterred

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.my solution... if they can't play nice with their toys, their toys will be taken away and their name, picture, fingerprints and DNA will be recorded. Should they obtain more toys, then they will be charged as adults with possession.

if they are "Adult" enough to do the crime, they are "Adult" enough to do the Time.

If they are Mentally Unfit to stand trial, they will be removed from their caregiver who has proven unable to raise such a person (seeing that the Mentally Unfit person did the crime.) and that person will be raised by the state in a state institution.

my solution... if they can't play nice with their toys, their toys will be taken away.

if they are "Adult" enough to do the crime, they are "Adult" enough to do the Time.

If they are Mentally Unfit to stand trial, they will be removed from their caregiver who has proven unable to raise such a person (seeing that the Mentally Unfit person did the crime.) and that person will be raised by the state in a state institution.

Keeping criminals alive gives us (supposing we are the people laying down the law and protecting the public) the possibility of escape and wastes resources like funding and food,ect. I say off with the criminals head and done with it.

I'm with you, Lizasauria.
The only thing is, the violent aren't the only threat to society. Stupidity is as big a threat. I therefore propose that the obviously idiotic should be rounded up and put in camps. It would prevent countless life-destroying errors by people in positions of power, all sorts of bureaucratic inefficiency would be prevented, you'd never get stupid policemen shooting the wrong guy, and this thread would never have happened.

Keeping criminals alive gives us the possibility of escape and wastes resources like funding and food,ect. I say off with the criminals head and done with it.

that is up to you.

I am for the death penalty, but only for certain circumstances.

Nevermind that 90% of the US is criminal in some manner.

for a claim like that, I'll have to say...

Proof?

Keeping criminals alive gives us the possibility of escape and wastes resources like funding and food,ect. I say off with the criminals head and done with it.

Nevermind that 90% of the US is criminal in some manner.

I'm with you, Lizasauria.
The only thing is, the violent aren't the only threat to society. Stupidity is as big a threat. I therefore propose that the obviously idiotic should be rounded up and put in camps. It would prevent countless life-destroying errors by people in positions of power, all sorts of bureaucratic inefficiency would be prevented, you'd never get stupid policemen shooting the wrong guy, and this thread would never have happened.

With a heavily armed police force the stupid won't be able to join because of all the weapons they'd have in this system.

for a claim like that, I'll have to say...

Proof?

Speed limit :p

I'm a little infuriated in this in the fact my father was a criminal, and the OP has suggested that killing him would be a good idea. As if criminals become a burden on the society compared to the fact that for a majority of their life help carry that burden.

Cutting them out of the picture just doesn't make any sense, and aside from the fact that it is down right disgusting.

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.

NOT crime and terrorism committed by the government.

Sorry guys, I have pretty strong feelings about law and order, I have thought it over and yes my proposals are a tad ridicules, however I still believe that there should be a system that successfully prevents or fights crime because I know the current one in the US fails miserably. When I get pissed about stuff whether its America allowing criminals to seize control over territory or some new problem as a result of the US invasion of Iraq I do tend to say some illogical things.

I apologize for any misunderstanding or offensive material I posted.

Speed limit :p
You speed? I don't...

please speak up for the confess...er... hard of hearing...

:p

I think China is probably more where your head is at, South Lizthingy. Say hello to the Central Comittee for me (or whoever's running things there these days).

I think China is probably more where your head is at, South Lizthingy. Say hello to the Central Comittee for me (or whoever's running things there these days).

Why do people keep comparing me to communist countries and leaders? I'm on the other end of the political spectrum.

Why do people keep comparing me to communist countries and leaders, I'm on the other end of the political spectrum.

Because you share a belief in authoritarianism.
http://www.politicalcompass.org

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.

A more motivated, better trained and better disciplined police force with a judicial system that is less susceptible to bias (preferably one run by machines capable of evaluating on a case by case basis, but that would require AI levels beyond what exist currently).

Not your totalitarian police state which does away with the judicial process, suffers from rampant power abuse, and executes people who do not agree with the government line.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

yea and we could freely lynch minorities:rolleyes:

The problem with your theory, Lizasauria, is that it seems to involve arresting people who haven't actually committed a crime yet, they just 'look a little bit dodgy'. The reason why those silly human rights activists are always pressing for these silly rights such as due process, fair trial and all that jazz, is for your own protection. Any slightly corrupt government (ahem) with access to such immense and vague powers could twist them for god-knows what. Not only that, but there are plenty of people who 'look a little bit dodgy' but never actually go off and commit a crime. So you'd basically be killing people who haven't done anything, and probably wouldn't have done anything.

And having the death penalty for all crime is a bit ridiculous. If you can't figure out why, you're beyond help I'm afraid...

No, if you want to make any kind of lasting impact on crime, you have to find the root causes and fix them. It's a long, difficult and expensive process, but it's infinitely more effective than being so oppressive that you drive half your population into terrorism.

ANYWAY. This thread has been rapidly dragged off topic, like a screaming child being taken to school. It's about time somebody in charge finally acknowledged LA's world-renowned gang problems. I don't see them making making any actual impact in the problem, but at least they have acknowledged that it's there.

I am not a Stalinist. I'll elaborate.

Have people educated about how crime hurts poeple ect, have propaganda campaign on crime (its against crimes like rape, organizing groups against the nation ect, so its good). Those who persist are dangerous. Face it the US police force and gov finds people who are a disaster waiting to happen and they know it and they just wait until he rapes an innocent teenage girl or decapitates a family or God knows what until they act.

Step 1) Deter crime

Step 2) Eliminate those undeterred

In other words, thought crime. You would execute people based on the success of a program with doubtful chances and how they respond to it.

You are executing people not on whether they commit a crime, or are taking action to commit it, but merely if they have a probability likeliness of committing it. And the fact that it's all arbitarily decided by a police force makes it nothing more than a corrupt power abusing armed militia of the likes that we see in South America.

Woah, how'd my post end up all the way up there?!

Why do people keep comparing me to communist countries and leaders? I'm on the other end of the political spectrum.

Because your espoused methods echo the very same lines Communist leaders and dictators have long since used to entrench their rule.

Good! Its about time the shrub pays attention to domestic issues. :)

With a heavily armed police force the stupid won't be able to join because of all the weapons they'd have in this system.

You know, State Terrorism makes Al-Queda look like a bunch of girl scouts* ( no offense to them, they can get aggressive sometimes) State Terrorism leads to far worse things than car bombings. It leads to things like Gulags, concentration camps, slavery, and mass graves.

The problem with your theory, Lizasauria, is that it seems to involve arresting people who haven't actually committed a crime yet, they just 'look a little bit dodgy'. The reason why those silly human rights activists are always pressing for these silly rights such as due process, fair trial and all that jazz, is for your own protection. Any slightly corrupt government (ahem) with access to such immense and vague powers could twist them for god-knows what. Not only that, but there are plenty of people who 'look a little bit dodgy' but never actually go off and commit a crime. So you'd basically be killing people who haven't done anything, and probably wouldn't have done anything.

And having the death penalty for all crime is a bit ridiculous. If you can't figure out why, you're beyond help I'm afraid...

No, if you want to make any kind of lasting impact on crime, you have to find the root causes and fix them. It's a long, difficult and expensive process, but it's infinitely more effective than being so oppressive that you drive half your population into terrorism.

ANYWAY. This thread has been rapidly dragged off topic, like a screaming child being taken to school. It's about time somebody in charge finally acknowledged LA's world-renowned gang problems. I don't see them making making any actual impact in the problem, but at least they have acknowledged that it's there.

What you said was poignant however the gangsters in LA are armed and dangerous, they're an army of criminals holding innocent people at gunpoint, its about smegging time the police marched in there with assault weaponry. The only way to deal with armed criminals is with armed force. Its too late to go to the root because they just looked the other way for too smegging long. They need to destroy this army of criminals who do not regard the life of innocents whatsoever.

Edit: I just get so pissed when stuff like gang violence happens and no one seems to care or lift a finger even when they have the power.

Sorry guys, I have pretty strong feelings about law and order

No you don't. You've got strong feelings for vigilanteism and chaos. Law and order doesn't mean attack helicopters blowing up speeders and parking offenders.

No you don't. You've got strong feelings for vigilanteism and chaos. Law and order doesn't mean attack helicopters blowing up speeders and parking offenders.

Chaos?

Chaos?

Yes. Chaos. What you propose is martial law with a good dose of thought crime and street executions thrown in. That's chaos right there. No order, no law, just "hey you! You look suspicious!" *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

And since you 2nd amendment lovers are always complaining about a tyrannical government taking away your guns, I fail to see how this won't erupt into pitched battles between cops and armed citizens.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

Your logic is crap.

That's pretty much it, and I have no further need to entertain your authoritarian masturbatory fantasies.

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous. According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

South Lizasauria, you must be 13 years old.

Your thinking scares me. These are the kids growing up today.

Yes. Chaos. What you propose is martial law with a good dose of thought crime and street executions thrown in. That's chaos right there. No order, no law, just "hey you! You look suspicious!" *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

And since you 2nd amendment lovers are always complaining about a tyrannical government taking away your guns, I fail to see how this won't erupt into pitched battles between cops and armed citizens.


I dont agree with his prepositions in any way, however, the best way to keep a government in check is for the populace to be armed and ready to rid themselves of a tryannical government if nessicary. It really is the best defence against a police state.

Sorry guys, I have pretty strong feelings about law and order

No, you have strong feelings about authoritarian bullshit. You don't gie a damn about law and order

No, you have strong feelings about authoritarian bullshit. You don't gie a damn about law and order

Your motives are bullshit. All you care about is flaming me. Get lost untill you actually have an argument.

Your logic is crap.

That's pretty much it, and I have no further need to entertain your authoritarian masturbatory fantasies.

They are not masturbatory. And your words are biased yet they hold no proof to back them up whatsoever. Now throw something that isn't a universal statement at me please. At least the others state their reasoning you just say "your dumb I hate you" using different words everytime. You bore me.

If you get rid of your meanest, most hardcore gangsters in America, then I dare say who'll protect AMERICA!!!, Just let the CANADIANS walk in

If you get rid of your meanest, most hardcore gangsters in America, then I dare say who'll protect AMERICA!!!

OK, you people are calling ME backwards and delusional? I call shooting innocents due to their ethnicity and leeching off of society as well as taking land by force a threat to America not protection. Uncle Sam maybe masochist but that doesn't meant that the more America hurts itself the better. Hey Bush got into office (which hurts America) and the middle east is up in flames.

If you get rid of your meanest, most hardcore gangsters in America, then I dare say who'll protect AMERICA!!!, Just let the CANADIANS walk in

LOL Canadian Bacon!

[joke]Don't worry if I become president I'll protect you from the Canadians. [joke/] :D

OK, you people are calling ME backwards and delusional? I call shooting innocents due to their ethnicity and leeching off of society as well as taking land by force a threat to America not protection. Uncle Sam maybe masochist but that doesn't meant that the more America hurts itself the better. Hey Bush got into office (which hurts America) and the middle east is up in flames.

What?

I agree we're way too soft on crime, but establishing a police state is going waaaaay too far. :eek:

I'm feeling in a totalitarian mood today. :rolleyes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeB6VhbbY_g

I can see myself as govornor doing similar things as this guy as a joke. :D

Guy: So what are the benefits for voting for you then?

Me: POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!!!!!!*zaps* Uhhh tax breaks unlimited tax breaks....

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father.

Big Brother, eh?

We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us.

Speak for yourself. Maybe you need government to think for you. Me, I am human and I have a brain.

I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them.

Ah yes - the feudal contract. The nobles give us protection with their knights and castles, and the peasants slave for life giving the nobles lots and lots of wealth.

Nonsense.

All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society.

Your solution to "gov abusing civs" is TOTALITARIANISM?

Christ. Maybe you DO need government - or anyone but you - doing your thinking for you.

And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it.

Yeah right. Show me some studies that support this.

And no we won't hit babies, I only meant by shooting those dangerous to society once they start expressing anti-social actions

So basically, you think Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Mussolini were all on the right track. Are you TRYING to be mindlessly offensive, or are you just natural?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s02-ussc.html?page=4

Finally, the US government and police force has acknowledged that gangsters are terrorists and that fighting them is part of the war on terror.

Errr... did you actually read that article? It says nothing of the sort. (On the first page one officer is quoted as saying that gangs operate like terrorists, but that doesn't make this into an official policy that they are terrorists and part of the GWoT.)

If they didn't step in LA would be another New Orleans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518256).

NO was screwed up largely by multiple layers of governmental incompetence.

The US finally realized that by being half assed about law enforcement they would lose cities one by one to gangs and criminals. America can't afford to lose land and freedom to the ills of society so thus they have acted.

Nope. No such thing has happened, nor will it.

I hope they storm the place and kill off every threat to freedom in society, their on US soil, the US government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals.

I thought suicide threads were banned?

When it gets to the point where crime rules not the government its time to call the goalies and take back the land with the armed defensive forces.

:confused: Say what?

(note that I'm glad that the government is finally trying to do something about these imfamous and heartbreaking gang wars, I do not enjoy the idea of the killing I just hope that this conflict ends with peace and safety for all who suffered under scumbag gang oppression just as people hope the good guys win wars so that the victims may be free from the forces of evil)

What's imfamous mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imfamous).

Well, its great someone is finally acknowledging the deplorable levels that LA has been allowed to drop to. some of the highest murder rates, outlets for some of the most dangerous gangs in the world, A black market with a better payout than some corporations, and people who have never actually left their block because the blocks on both sides have a gang on them - are just some of the many wonders to behold in LA

Hopefully next in line: Detroit, "East-side" St. Louis, various parts of New York city and Chicago, Washington DC. We can work our way up from there.

Houston should probably be high up on that list...

The problem with America is rights pressers have forced us to tolerate dangerous people and only allows us to act when they are the most dangerous.

The "rights pressers"? What on earth do you mean by that? :confused:

According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while

That's not what you proposed whenj you wanted to set up your vigilance committee.

then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

LOL

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father.

No. Period. You've simply got that one backwards. There's a very good reason why the people control trhe government and not the way you think you want it. (Basically: it's been tried before, and it doesn't work. )

We have no right to press rights

Still not quite sure what you mean by press rights. Do you mean exercise?

because the majority of us don't know whats good for us.

Utter tripe.

I think the government should try to make life as crime free, clean and healthy as possible while the civs work to support the government which protects them.

More tripe.

All thats happening with the gov abusing civs and civs abusing rights and each other is a monstrosity of society.

When government abuses the people, they rightfully rebel.

And the fifties were better at keeping the people law abiding and productive for the nation as opposed to today where few support the nation and most of the others leach off of it.

Wrong on all counts.

And no we won't hit babies, I only meant by shooting those dangerous to society once they start expressing anti-social actions, my ideal gov will try to identify the dangerous people early and then first try to deter them, once the first deteration fails bang, those who are law abiding are not shot. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of medicine.

So you do not agree with due process then. "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards", as the Queen of Hearts put it.

I can garuntee that if such a system existed I would become a terrorist with many others. Never forget that a government is defined by the people, not the other way around. There's a reason why dictatorships and monarchies never last.

Indeed.

With a heavily armed police force the stupid won't be able to join because of all the weapons they'd have in this system.

More LOL

Sorry guys, I have pretty strong feelings about law and order,

I'm going to have to agree with Non Aligned States on this one.

I have thought it over and yes my proposals are a tad ridicules,

Your proposals are ridiculed because they are indeed ridiculous. (And be more careful with your subject-verb agreement next time. Only the third person singular verb form takes an s.)

however I still believe that there should be a system that successfully prevents or fights crime because I know the current one in the US fails miserably.

Yes, possibly, but your proposal is NOT it.

When I get pissed about stuff whether its America allowing criminals to seize control over territory or some new problem as a result of the US invasion of Iraq I do tend to say some illogical things.

Indeed you do. And not just when you get upset about somnething that hasn't happened.

I apologize for any misunderstanding or offensive material I posted.

You shouldn't be apologising, but rather you should be completing your civics and English homework.

Why do people keep comparing me to communist countries and leaders? I'm on the other end of the political spectrum.

Because communist countries engage in the same sorts of policies you have peoposed. Actually, I'd agree that it's the wrong comparison. Facist would be more correct.

Woah, how'd my post end up all the way up there?!

It's astounding, time is fleeting
Madness takes its toll
But listen closely, not for very much longer
I've got to keep control

(That'd be the famous Jolt Time Warp, if you didn't recognise the song (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/therockyhorrorpictureshow/thetimewarp.htm).)


Your motives are bullshit. All you care about is flaming me. Get lost untill you actually have an argument.

Now you're simply being childish and petulant.

At least the others state their reasoning you just say "your dumb I hate you" using different words everytime. You bore me.

Why would he say his dumb?

Big Brother, eh?



Speak for yourself. Maybe you need government to think for you. Me, I am human and I have a brain.



Ah yes - the feudal contract. The nobles give us protection with their knights and castles, and the peasants slave for life giving the nobles lots and lots of wealth.

Nonsense.



Your solution to "gov abusing civs" is TOTALITARIANISM?

Christ. Maybe you DO need government - or anyone but you - doing your thinking for you.



Yeah right. Show me some studies that support this.



So basically, you think Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Mussolini were all on the right track. Are you TRYING to be mindlessly offensive, or are you just natural?

For your information I am not a weak minded git and I can think for myself. I'm just fed up with the tolerance for crime. Your saying that we should become an anarchy where we all govern ourselves, well people will group up with people they agree with and soon the most powerful group would take over repeating the situation in LA (the government went 'meh' and the gang power spiked). Do you support whats happening with all the gang wars? Do you know that the government sets down laws and regulations and isn't supposed to control the way we think, just set things up in a way thats best for the nation. Are you advocating chaos?

Oh and about the fifites thing, the past had a hell of a lot better society than today. Thats supposed to be obvious *kicks you for being like the guy putting words in the penguins mouth from that Tom Tommarow comic*

I need to get some sleep or something, I haven't been acting like myself today....:confused:

For your information I am not a weak minded git and I can think for myself. I'm just fed up with the tolerance for crime. Your saying that we should become an anarchy where we all govern ourselves, well people will group up with people they agree with and soon the most powerful group would take over repeating the situation in LA (the government went 'meh' and the gang power spiked). Do you support whats happening with all the gang wars? Do you know that the government sets down laws and regulations and isn't supposed to control the way we think, just set things up in a way thats best for the nation. Are you advocating chaos?

Oh and about the fifites thing, the past had a hell of a lot better society than today. Thats supposed to be obvious *kicks you for being like the guy putting words in the penguins mouth from that Tom Tommarow comic*

With a rant like that, maybe he's right...

Finally, the California government and police force has acknowledged that gangsters are terrorists and that fighting them is part of the war on terror.

California finally realized that by being half assed about law enforcement they would lose cities one by one to gangs and criminals.

the Californian government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals.

The Californian police force should be more like the police force in my nationstate.

Corrections in bold. The actions of the California government are not the actions of the US government. If US Marshals or the FBI were the ones doing this, it would be the actions of the US government, but if it's the LAPD or CHP it's the California government. Of course, I disagree strongly with your views on this matter, but your misunderstanding of who is doing what irks me more.

For your information I am not a weak minded git and I can think for myself.

Oh, so you're unique compared to the rest of us dolts who need government to think for us? How nice for you. How's that cross, it must be hard being a martyr for intelligence in a sea of stupidity?

I'm just fed up with the tolerance for crime.

What tolerance for crime? What crimes?

Your saying that we should become an anarchy where we all govern ourselves,

No. I am saying your advocation of STALINISM and TOTALITARIANISM is foolish, dangerous, offensive and did I mention, foolish?

You want to go live in an oppressive society where the government does all the "thinking," and shoots people for being MAYBE criminals in the FUTURE, go to the Peoples Republic of China. That seems like it would suit you fine.

Do you support whats happening with all the gang wars? Do you know that the government sets down laws and regulations and isn't supposed to control the way we think, just set things up in a way thats best for the nation. Are you advocating chaos?

No.

Oh and about the fifites thing, the past had a hell of a lot better society than today. Thats supposed to be obvious *kicks you for being like the guy putting words in the penguins mouth from that Tom Tommarow comic*

Oh, right. Better society. "No dogs or irish" signs at businesses. "Colored people drink here." Minorities sit in the backs of busses. What a fucking utopia, it's right up there with your idea of shooting people for thought crimes.

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.

How does, "Do what you can to make people safe without taking away their rights, and then accept that not every crime will be preventable, and that innocent people are going to die, no matter what we do," sound to you?

A reality of the world is that crime and terror will occur. They are something that will never go away. Therefore, we can make one of two choices: the first is to take away our own rights to protect ourselves, effectively defeating the whole purpose of fighting crime, and the other is to accept that life is not 100% safe or fair, and that we do what we can.

Oh, so you're unique compared to the rest of us dolts who need government to think for us? How nice for you. How's that cross, it must be hard being a martyr for intelligence in a sea of stupidity?



What tolerance for crime? What crimes?



No. I am saying your advocation of STALINISM and TOTALITARIANISM is foolish, dangerous, offensive and did I mention, foolish?

You want to go live in an oppressive society where the government does all the "thinking," and shoots people for being MAYBE criminals in the FUTURE, go to the Peoples Republic of China. That seems like it would suit you fine.



No.



Oh, right. Better society. "No dogs or irish" signs at businesses. "Colored people drink here." Minorities sit in the backs of busses. What a fucking utopia, it's right up there with your idea of shooting people for thought crimes.

I stand unchanged in my opinion that you are like the anti-penguin man. Everyone is allowed to think for themselves only they have to follow regulations put on them by government. It makes sense, I mean we have regulations for being on a patch of land (nation) for the same reason we have regulations in certain buildings and such, the admin sets up the rules for the safety of those on his premises just as a gov should set up rules for the safety of those living in the nation the gov rules. Your saying NO RULES basically! I'd hate to enter a building with you as administrator.

How does, "Do what you can to make people safe without taking away their rights, and then accept that not every crime will be preventable, and that innocent people are going to die, no matter what we do," sound to you?

A reality of the world is that crime and terror will occur. They are something that will never go away. Therefore, we can make one of two choices: the first is to take away our own rights to protect ourselves, effectively defeating the whole purpose of fighting crime, and the other is to accept that life is not 100% safe or fair, and that we do what we can.

True but the issue is we don't do what we can. We're soft on the lawbreaking bastards.

I need to get some sleep or something, I haven't been acting like myself today....

Err... I disagree. I find your postings to often be filled with illogical arguments and syntax errors.


Finally, the California government and police force has compared gangsters to terrorists.

Correction of your correction in bold. ;)

I stand unchanged in my opinion that you are like the anti-penguin man.

.........................wtf?

Everyone is allowed to think for themselves only they have to follow regulations put on them by government. It makes sense, I mean we have regulations for being on a patch of land (nation) for the same reason we have regulations in certain buildings and such, the admin sets up the rules for the safety of those on his premises just as a gov should set up rules for the safety of those living in the nation the gov rules. Your saying NO RULES basically! I'd hate to enter a building with you as administrator.

I am not arguing for anarchy. I am arguing against your "people are too stupid to think for themselves. Except me, I am teh brilliant" argument, and your "people should be shot so they won't be criminals" and "totalitarianism is kewl" arguments.

I am not sure why I'm even bothering. If you love totalitarianism so much, go to a country that embraces it. Seriously.

Correction of your correction in bold. ;)

Quite so, although I wasn't interested in changing the meaning of his posts, simply who the alleged actions were attributed to.

.........................wtf?



I am not arguing for anarchy. I am arguing against your "people are too stupid to think for themselves. Except me, I am teh brilliant" argument, and your "people should be shot so they won't be criminals" and "totalitarianism is kewl" arguments.

I am not sure why I'm even bothering. If you love totalitarianism so much, go to a country that embraces it. Seriously.

I'm not feeling right today, and I'm not really for totalitarianism I just want police to deal with armed gangs with violence becasue thats the only thing gangs seem to understand. And I didn't explain the whole shooting thing properly, in a city so crime filled and with people undeterred by the police just like in the article that is the only way, I mean the police won't start being a deterrent until they put fear in these types of people. Then they will realize the police are serious and become law abiding. And no I'm not that brilliant or there would have been no confusion in this thread.

I'm not feeling right today, and I'm not really for totalitarianism

Well... okay.....

I just want police to deal with armed gangs with violence becasue thats the only thing gangs seem to understand.

But it won't stop it. Fighting fire with fire doesn't work. Fighting terrorism with bombings doesn't prevent or stop terrorism - ask Israel.

Gangs need to be dealt with at the source of the problem, which is urban poverty and displacement of minorities. Not by just having police get more violent.

And I didn't explain the whole shooting thing properly, in a city so crime filled and with people undeterred by the police just like in the article that is the only way, I mean the police won't start being a deterrent until they put fear in these types of people. Then they will realize the police are serious and become law abiding. And no I'm not that brilliant or there would have been no confusion in this thread.

Why would gangs, who already face death from other gangs (and from their own members), suddenly become law abiding simply because they now face death from police?

True but the issue is we don't do what we can. We're soft on the lawbreaking bastards.

Anything but. And we do do what we can, and remain a free country. There is no point in giving up rights if you will get nothing of value for them.

Besides which, I stand by the saying, "Give me liberty or give me death." I would rather die on my feet, at the hands of a gangster, than live on my knees with no freedoms.

.........................wtf?

He's on about this (http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/03/05/tomo/story.jpg). I don't think he understands it.

I am not sure why I'm even bothering.

Not even sure why I even bothered in the first place.

South Lizasauria: do you have me on ignore for some reason? (A non-reply will be taken as a yes.)

Quite so, although I wasn't interested in changing the meaning of his posts, simply who the alleged actions were attributed to.

:)

Dude, lemme tell you. The last thing I think when I enter a building is, "who is the building administrator and will he be a better or a worse administrator than somebody I argued with on an internet forum a while back?"

quoted for lol

I'd hate to enter a building with you as administrator.

Dude, lemme tell you. The last thing I think when I enter a building is, "who is the building administrator and will he be a better or a worse administrator than somebody I argued with on an internet forum a while back?"

South Lizasauria: do you have me on ignore for some reason? (A non-reply will be taken as a yes.)



:)

Dude your list of questions was long and many of them seemed repititive, I already answered them in previous posts.

Dude your list of questions was long and many of them seemed repititive, I already answered them in previous posts.

I count seven question.

Errr... did you actually read that article?

I thought suicide threads were banned?

:confused: Say what?

What's imfamous mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imfamous).

The "rights pressers"? What on earth do you mean by that? :confused:

Still not quite sure what you mean by press rights. Do you mean exercise?

Why would he say his dumb?

That's not a terribly long list. Nor are many repetitive.

I count seven question.



That's not a terribly long list. Nor are many repetitive.

Then again I tend to scan over things.

Imfamous-opposite of famous, Pearl Harbor was an imfamous day

Rights pressers are those who use "rights" as an excuse to do tings which they shouldn't do, a situation would be a muslim giving someone a death threat then hiding behind freedom of religion and saying that infidels must die and taht they can't arrest him because it was part of his religion.

Arthais doesn't elaborate on how he came to his conclusions, he just states them, I mean if he stated why my logic was crap in all those threads he flamed me in (including teh joke ones sheesh) rather than just saying it and giving me childish responses I might think different of him.

I can garuntee that if such a system existed I would become a terrorist with many others. Never forget that a government is defined by the people, not the other way around. There's a reason why dictatorships and monarchies never last.

Way with you there, dude.

According to my logic we must be totalitarian when it comes to law and order for a while then when the US is no longer a haven for terrorists and criminals we can go back to the peaceful days like in the fifties where crime was unheard of and people didn't need locks.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1168702253-1167481579703.png

Imfamous-opposite of famous, Pearl Harbor was an imfamous day

"Imfamous is still not in my dictionary. Did you by chance mean infamous?

Rights pressers are those who use "rights" as an excuse to do tings which they shouldn't do, a situation would be a muslim giving someone a death threat then hiding behind freedom of religion and saying that infidels must die and taht they can't arrest him because it was part of his religion.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452) established the current, very-clear legal line of what is and is not protected speesch where threats are concerned. So, you would summarily execute people without trial for exercising their rights.

Arthais doesn't elaborate on how he came to his conclusions, he just states them, I mean if he stated why my logic was crap in all those threads he flamed me in (including teh joke ones sheesh) rather than just saying it and giving me childish responses I might think different of him.

That doesn't explain why you said he was saying "your dumb". Dumb is an adjective, and as such cannot be possesed.

Actually, out of all the questions I asked, the one regarding your "suicide by cop" posting was the most concerning to me. :(

"Imfamous is still not in my dictionary. Did you by chance mean infamous?



Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452) established the current, very-clear legal line of what is and is not protected speesch where threats are concerned. So, you would summarily execute people without trial for exercising their rights.



That doesn't explain why you said he was saying "your dumb". Dumb is an adjective, and as such cannot be possesed.

Actually, out of all the questions I asked, the one regarding your "suicide by cop" posting was the most concerning to me. :(

Oh that. That was a simple spelling error. And thats all he says "you're dumb, your opinion sucks *repeats it but in different words* Its always been like that in every argument I've had with him.

Oh that. That was a simple spelling error. And thats all he says "you're dumb, your opinion sucks *repeats it but in different words* Its always been like that in every argument I've had with him.

And your threat to "suicide by cop"?

I hope they storm the place and kill off every threat to freedom in society, their on US soil, the US government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals.

The way I look at it the government is like the civilian population's father. We have no right to press rights because the majority of us don't know whats good for us.

Wrong. The government is the product of the people, not the other way around. Emperors don't descend from heaven on a ray of sunshine, or get the divine right to rule.

Those who persist are dangerous.

LOL IRONY

Face it the US police force and gov finds people who are a disaster waiting to happen and they know it and they just wait until he rapes an innocent teenage girl or decapitates a family or God knows what until they act.

In the future, nobody will be racist. Water fountains will say "pedos drink here" and anybody caught wearing red will be stripped and hanged.

Sounds like a wonderful society.

Oh and about the fifites thing, the past had a hell of a lot better society than today. Thats supposed to be obvious *kicks you for being like the guy putting words in the penguins mouth from that Tom Tommarow comic*

Yeah, the good 'ol 50's. :rolleyes:

Its too late to go to the root because they just looked the other way for too smegging long. They need to destroy this army of criminals who do not regard the life of innocents whatsoever.

It's never too late for the next generation. Don't forget about posterity, man.

Besides, how do you plan to finance or justify this mass slaughter of 1/3 of the city's population? Go on.

With a heavily armed police force the stupid won't be able to join because of all the weapons they'd have in this system.

You'd have trouble using a gun, then.

South Lizasauria, you must be 13 years old.

Your thinking scares me. These are the kids growing up today.

Come now, it isnt any different than the idiot fantasies of thirteen year old anarchists.

People go through stages, and tend to get more reasonable as their brains finish up growing and they learn a thing or two about life.

Nevermind that 90% of the US is criminal in some manner.


On what do you base this opinion?

Well when a society is based on individualism, consumerism, classism and a generally selfish model, when having money makes someone a higher class citizen, crime is bound to be a problem.

Your motives are bullshit. All you care about is flaming me. Get lost untill you actually have an argument.

No. As an attorney I have sworn an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. That is my motivation.

The fact that I can make fun of a mini stalin in the process just makes it more fun.

They are not masturbatory. And your words are biased yet they hold no proof to back them up whatsoever. Now throw something that isn't a universal statement at me please. At least the others state their reasoning you just say "your dumb I hate you" using different words everytime. You bore me.

I reserve my efforts to make an argument for those who have MADE an argument. You haven't. You've just pressed forward dillusional, ill thought out and nonsensical beliefs about what is "good".

And it's crap.

I have no problems pointing out that crap is crap. The fact that you are pretty dumb is mearly ancillary.

Oh that. That was a simple spelling error. And thats all he says "you're dumb, your opinion sucks *repeats it but in different words* Its always been like that in every argument I've had with him.

that is because you are dumb, and your opinion sucks.

When you present something that's actually worth my time to form a cohesive and cognitive argument, you will get it. If that is what you wish I suggest trying harder.

LA has already improved greatly since the 80's, it's not as if the US just ignored it altogether.

I'm with you, Lizasauria.

Then I propose that you and the OP both be rounded up and thrown into one of your idiot gulags. You both belong there more than anyone else here.

A more motivated, better trained and better disciplined police force with a judicial system that is less susceptible to bias (preferably one run by machines capable of evaluating on a case by case basis, but that would require AI levels beyond what exist currently).
Why assume that an AI is better than a human? If it evolves to a point high enough to attain sentience, bias will enter - and as a nonhuman entity, it has no reason whatsoever to respect human life.

Your logic is crap.

And that about sums it up. :)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s02-ussc.html?page=4

Finally, the US government and police force has acknowledged that gangsters are terrorists and that fighting them is part of the war on terror. If they didn't step in LA would be another New Orleans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518256). The US finally realized that by being half assed about law enforcement they would lose cities one by one to gangs and criminals. America can't afford to lose land and freedom to the ills of society so thus they have acted. I hope they storm the place and kill off every threat to freedom in society, their on US soil, the US government rules it not a bunch of cheap criminals. When it gets to the point where crime rules not the government its time to call the goalies and take back the land with the armed defensive forces.

(note that I'm glad that the government is finally trying to do something about these imfamous and heartbreaking gang wars, I do not enjoy the idea of the killing I just hope that this conflict ends with peace and safety for all who suffered under scumbag gang oppression just as people hope the good guys win wars so that the victims may be free from the forces of evil)

Addendum: Arnold Schwarzenegger rules as governor!


Did you read the article, or are you being sarcastic?

"You can't arrest your self out of a gang problem."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is in line with that thinking, too...

...L.A.'s extensive plan for facing down gangs – including job and community development, after-school programs, and other investments – can work.

Gangs are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Much like a fever is a symptom of the flu. Yes, if it's bad enough the fever can boil your brain and kill you, but it was caused by something else and trying to treat gangs like we have been treating terrorists is like trying to cure the flu with an ice bath.

OP's a pretty terrible troll.

OP's a pretty terrible troll.

agreed. He really is bad at it.

But how can gang violence be a problem if everybody is in prison? I thought that all the gangsters had already been taken off the streets.

Prison population 1980-2004:

1980 501,580
1981 558,533
1982 618,780
1983 655,133
1984 691,407
1985 754,167
1986 812,953
1987 872,580
1988 968,413
1989 1,103,020
1990 1,172,873
1991 1,242,787
1992 1,317,673
1993 1,392,747
1994 1,503,187
1995 1,615,560
1996 1,677,627
1997 1,765,960
1998 1,836,620
1999 1,910,167
2000 1,957,987
2001 1,974,240
2002 2,042,433
2003 2,090,567
2004 2,135,540

I've been thinking about this for a while. California should declare martial law in areas where gangs completely control the streets and the national guard should be deployed to patrol the streets.

Fine then, state your solution to crime and terrorism.

The crime one is easy. You have to dig into the root basis for why people commit crime. It generally stems from a lack of equity between people who live in extreme poverty and those who live in extreme affluence. I'm not saying it is not their right to be wealthy, but just that is a cause for dissonance between the groups. With this inequity in wealth there is generally an inequity in Education. This is the primary root of the entire situation as education can free people from the ties that bind. The young thug on the street sticks up the lady for her purse because his ribs are touching and he hasn't eaten in three days. Do you truly blame him? He grew up hungry, hated, and almost destined for the hell-holes of prison. Granted there are people who can rise above these things on their own, but do you think this is the case with most people? As long as their is inequity in the world there will be crime. The rich commit white collar crime which only serves to hurt the masses most because it robs from them the very system which will allow them to grow and prosper. The company crumbles, the jobs are lost, and the working person always get hit the hardest. The wife if the executive that goes to jail still gets to keep the house, the cars, and the jewelery that was taken from the fraud (no sexism but most CEO's are male).


The terrorism thing is more complex but I have a solution which might make a big dent in the problem. When the world powers come up for solutions to problems that take place in other lands they should weigh the benefits to the countries themselves over their own self interest. European and US intervention is the primary cause of much of the turmoil in the region today. Instead of looking at what the best interests of the countries involved were they look at it from their own interests. One example from the US perspective could be the situation in Iran with the shah. We (the west) have a habit of thinking in the short term when we'd be best to look at short term steps towards long term goals. That's my general overview of how we could accomplish more. Granted this is different than your totalitarian police state because I happen to be a mix of Republican and Libertarian who believes that more government is not the answer as government tends to make things worse rather than better.

The US police force should be more like the police force in my nationstate. I have security cameras with guns on them and I even have Comanche's shoot road ragers once sighted. Basically my police get as much weaponry as the military does to prevent terrorism and gang violence.And they can shoot you once you've been seen commiting a crime which is why crime is near non-existant in my nationstate.

I'm sure you are also a tyrannical dictator too. And learn to type for shit.

Then I propose that you and the OP both be rounded up and thrown into one of your idiot gulags. You both belong there more than anyone else here.

Er... that was my joke. My irony is obviously too hardcore and British for these forums sometimes. I said that if stupid people were rounded up then the thread would never have happened, was that not clear enough?

What you said was poignant however the gangsters in LA are armed and dangerous, they're an army of criminals holding innocent people at gunpoint, its about smegging time the police marched in there with assault weaponry. The only way to deal with armed criminals is with armed force. Its too late to go to the root because they just looked the other way for too smegging long. They need to destroy this army of criminals who do not regard the life of innocents whatsoever.

Edit: I just get so pissed when stuff like gang violence happens and no one seems to care or lift a finger even when they have the power.

You can go in there with an entire army and slaughter the entire lot of them, but if you don't fix the root cause, the next generation will take their place and you'll have exactly the same problem again in less than a decade, only it'll get harder and harder to deal with them each time.

I think an owned image is in order for South Lizasauria...

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/6/61/Merkavaowned.jpg

You can go in there with an entire army and slaughter the entire lot of them, but if you don't fix the root cause, the next generation will take their place and you'll have exactly the same problem again in less than a decade, only it'll get harder and harder to deal with them each time.

not to mention that we wouldn't have much of a police force left after the numerous lawsuits claiming massive civil rights violations bankrupt the government and cripple the budget.

Er... that was my joke. My irony is obviously too hardcore and British for these forums sometimes. I said that if stupid people were rounded up then the thread would never have happened, was that not clear enough?
No, it's nothing of the sort. I was skim-reading through the thread, so I missed that bit. My apologies.

not to mention that we wouldn't have much of a police force left after the numerous lawsuits claiming massive civil rights violations bankrupt the government and cripple the budget.
Easy! Just outlaw civil rights. No rights, no problem. :)

The US police force should be more like the police force in my nationstate. I have security cameras with guns on them and I even have Comanche's shoot road ragers once sighted. Basically my police get as much weaponry as the military does to prevent terrorism and gang violence.And they can shoot you once you've been seen commiting a crime which is why crime is near non-existant in my nationstate.

and do you know what the other defining characteristic of your nationstate is?

It's fiction

not to mention that we wouldn't have much of a police force left after the numerous lawsuits claiming massive civil rights violations bankrupt the government and cripple the budget.

I would imagine that any government that decided to send massive armies into areas of its own territory and just randomly slaughter people on the streets would be well past the point of paying attention to lawyers.

At the very least I'm sure it would repeal the legislation that allowed it to be sued.

Easy! Just outlaw civil rights. No rights, no problem. :)

yes well, I could think of a problem or two that would result...

I would imagine that any government that decided to send massive armies into areas of its own territory and just randomly slaughter people on the streets would be well past the point of paying attention to lawyers.

At the very least I'm sure it would repeal the legislation that allowed it to be sued.

which is the fundamental problem of the OP. To do what he describes would require a drastic and fundamental alteration to governing law.

yes well, I could think of a problem or two that would result...

Maybe, but once you do away with people's rights, it's so much easier to deal with the occasional malcontent. And after a while ... peace and quiet.