NationStates Jolt Archive

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

Oh, right, hon.
I'm sure the nice man in the white shirt will be along soon with your medication.

Yes, because that war on drugs is such a success.

No way. We need all our resources to continue the War on Christmas, fool.

How about we hire them as mercs for the military. You said it "terrorize civillians, try to destroy gov'ts... I mean, we could use that type of force.

Wow, is this a joke?

No way. We need all our resources to continue the War on Christmas, fool.

Yes, because that war on drugs is such a success.

Whats up with America and war? :confused:

'cuz occupying your own country is always good! :)

No we need a War on War!

No way. We need all our resources to continue the War on Christmas, fool.
The War on Cancer needs more money too. Damn cancer patients, always causing trouble!

http://www.simplifiedsigns.org/fail.jpg

you know, it's not even sort of april 1st anymore and you've gone and presented us with an idea almost as stupid as the last one. you do know you are suggesting marshall law, right? that's about the worst thing a state can implement as a strategy. replacing armed gangs with state sanctioned armed gangs is not the answer.

Have I ever mentioned I wish America would declare war on me? Because whenever we declare war on something, it is assured to never stop. Drugs, terrorism, etc. And I just like the concept of eternal life.

Oh, right, hon.
I'm sure the nice man in the white shirt will be along soon with your medication.

Ok, give me a "sane" way of dealing with gangs. Or are you content with letting them destroy people's lives and work for their own benefit, are you content with all the acts of terrorism they commit like shooting people in the streets in cold blood due to ethnicy, and gun crime which is on the increase in Britain. Give me a "rational" solution then! Well? I'm waiting.

Did you get robbed by a gang or something?

you know, it's not even sort of april 1st anymore and you've gone and presented us with an idea almost as stupid as the last one which you. you do know you are suggesting marshall law, right? that's about the worst thing a state can implement as a strategy. replacing armed gangs with state sanctioned armed gangs is not the answer.

Gangsters only understand the language of violence so have someone else in violence talk tell them "STOP PULLING ?YOUR CRAP IN MY COUNTRY!!!!:mp5: "

It's my understanding that sanctioned troops aren't allowed to harm innocents or at least ovoid that in fear of losing their job.

Well, one could argue that gangs are rival governments trying to claim territory. In that way a war on gangs would be a civil war (or even multiple civil wars; one for each gang). The question really, is do you want to turn the parts of your country with gangs in into war-zones? Seems like it would mean instituting martial law.

'cuz occupying your own country is always good! :)

Somewhat funny too, France did it. :p

Well, one could argue that gangs are rival governments trying to claim territory. In that way a war on gangs would be a civil war (or even multiple civil wars; one for each gang). The question really, is do you want to turn the parts of your country with gangs in into war-zones? Seems like it would mean instituting martial law.

Well if they are governments they are rotten corrupt dictatorships that are like the governments in the middle east. And also there is already a government for America, the US government :eek: (gasp) So terrorist governments similar to those which are the US's sworn enemy right now are fighting over US soil which belongs to the US. This is what I call an invasion.

Gangsters only understand the language of violence so have someone else in violence talk tell them "STOP PULLING ?YOUR CRAP IN MY COUNTRY!!!!:mp5: "

It's my understanding that sanctioned troops aren't allowed to harm innocents or at least ovoid that in fear of losing their job.

cuz that particular taboo has worked so well in the past...

No we need a War on War!

There already is one, the hippies and dems fight it to this very day. :(

cuz that particular taboo has worked so well in the past...

Well there'd be MPs to police the police right?

A serious answer is in order here.

Martial Law is the second step in the quickly shortening path to Dystopia.

Well, one could argue that gangs are rival governments trying to claim territory. In that way a war on gangs would be a civil war (or even multiple civil wars; one for each gang). The question really, is do you want to turn the parts of your country with gangs in into war-zones? Seems like it would mean instituting martial law.

lulz, i used the wrong 'martial' in my post. silly beer, muzzying up my head.

A serious answer is in order here.

Martial Law is the second step in the quickly shortening path to Dystopia.

that'd be the one after censorship, eh? i wanna see this roadmap to dystopia of yours. which one does it lead to by the way? 1984?

:p

Well there'd be MPs to police the police right?

you want to read the post you quoted as an answer to this i think.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!!

Right. As if that won't casue even more problems. :rolleyes:

The 2000th post. Johnny B N00b no longer. Johnny B Goode is IN THE HOUSE!

(Yeah, I just had to say that)

I'm surprised no one has advocated killing poor people yet...

I'm surprised no one has advocated killing poor people yet...

They are the victims of gangs along with everyone else (including other gangsters) so why should anyone advocate the killing of poor people?

They are the victims of gangs along with everyone else (including other gangsters) so why should anyone advocate the killing of poor people?

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, I wasn't serious. But since you asked, most gangs are composed of poor people, so I could see some whackjob saying "OMG!! I NOES THE ANSWR!!! LEZ KIL ALL POOR PPL!!", or some such.

that'd be the one after censorship, eh? i wanna see this roadmap to dystopia of yours. which one does it lead to by the way? 1984?

:p

A dictatorship is third, and it ends there. I would say 1984 is a pretty good representation.

I only mention it so often (if twice is often) because it is a remarkably good way to show what happens when civil and political rights get flushed.




And its a cool word. Dystopia. He he.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:
Yeah great idea to have the police pretend to be law enforcement :rolleyes:

Yeah great idea to have the police pretend to be law enforcement :rolleyes:

Police and law enforcement are the same thing as I recall.

And I suppose they are supposed to decide who is innocent and who is not?

Damn, people no longer know the true meanings of words these days do they? :confused: I'll give each one a dictionary should the need arise... :headbang:

Gangsters only understand the language of violence so have someone else in violence talk tell them "STOP PULLING ?YOUR CRAP IN MY COUNTRY!!!!:mp5: "

It's my understanding that sanctioned troops aren't allowed to harm innocents or at least ovoid that in fear of losing their job.

And I suppose they are supposed to decide who is innocent and who is not?

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, I wasn't serious. But since you asked, most gangs are composed of poor people, so I could see some whackjob saying "OMG!! I NOES THE ANSWR!!! LEZ KIL ALL POOR PPL!!", or some such.

Russians made up the USSR but they also victimized Russians, just as gangs are made up of poor people yet they victimize poor people.

There already is one, the hippies and dems fight it to this very day. :(

Why the sad face? You like war?

Russians made up the USSR but they also victimized Russians, just as gangs are made up of poor people yet they victimize poor people.

So?

So, here's the reason this won't work:

How does your army that you're going to send into East Oakland tell the gang members from the other poor people?

Another flaw: Lets say the gangs are completly eliminated. None left. Who sells the drugs and pimps the hoes?
I'm not advocating these things, (even though I do), I'm simply trying to get you to guess, on your own, who would take over the running of theses illegal activities.

I'll give you a hidden hint. It starts with a P, and rhymes with niece.

Why the sad face? You like war?

well its one of those bad things thats needed, like scavengers for example. Everything can't be settled over tea and biscuits, sometimes its necessary, humanity would become unhealthy without it due to the inability to settle disputes. Can you imagine all the stress that would put on two leaders. They'd all have heart attacks and throw the nations into anarchy.

So, here's the reason this won't work:

How does your army that you're going to send into East Oakland tell the gang members from the other poor people?

Daily inspection and technology perhaps. Maybe an APC would have a special scanner that can see whats in your pocket. Go into every house and confiscate all weapons that civs shouldn't have anyway like mp5s and ak-47s. Intogerate all suspicious individuals, wiretaps and net snooping in areas notorious for gang activity.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

You know, I expect that sort of post from a person with under 10 posts.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

A lovely solution, completely impossible to implement, no real benefit an a barrage of smileys.

It seems that people treat gangs, like back in the days of the mafia, like some big systematic corporation-like organization.

Let's say what you propose is somehow succesfully implemented. All the crips, bloods, MS-13 members are identified, tried and imprisoned/executed. Then what? People still want drugs, so someone else is going to step into fill the demand. Children are still going to get shitty education, and they are going to be unable to enter the job market. And because of that they will still be unable to enter society completely.

What it comes down to is that gangs are a symptom of the problem. Simply destroying the gangs would be like giving someone with bronchitis a shitload of "kleenex". It does not solve the problem.

Daily inspection and technology perhaps. Maybe an APC would have a special scanner that can see whats in your pocket. Go into every house and confiscate all weapons that civs shouldn't have anyway like mp5s and ak-47s. Intogerate all suspicious individuals, wiretaps and net snooping in areas notorious for gang activity.

Not everyone who has a gun in East Oakland is a gang member. If I lived there, you could bet your ass I'd have an AK. And also, to you, probably everybody except for the elderly would look suspicious there.

well its one of those bad things thats needed, like scavengers for example. Everything can't be settled over tea and biscuits, sometimes its necessary, humanity would become unhealthy without it due to the inability to settle disputes. Can you imagine all the stress that would put on two leaders. They'd all have heart attacks and throw the nations into anarchy.

You make me LOL. I'd disprove your point, but it's too funny to watch you flop around with your warmongering.



Nope, too tempting. Are you seriously trying to say, that if we never had war, our world leaders would be MORE stressed out? Think about what you just said there.

Daily inspection and technology perhaps. Maybe an APC would have a special scanner that can see whats in your pocket. Go into every house and confiscate all weapons that civs shouldn't have anyway like mp5s and ak-47s. Intogerate all suspicious individuals, wiretaps and net snooping in areas notorious for gang activity.

Woo. Police state.





Not. If you would like to fund this, or implement it, or deal with the ensuing riots, be my guest.

A lovely solution, completely impossible to implement, no real benefit an a barrage of smileys.

It seems that people treat gangs, like back in the days of the mafia, like some big systematic corporation-like organization.

Let's say what you propose is somehow succesfully implemented. All the crips, bloods, MS-13 members are identified, tried and imprisoned/executed. Then what? People still want drugs, so someone else is going to step into fill the demand. Children are still going to get shitty education, and they are going to be unable to enter the job market. And because of that they will still be unable to enter society completely.

What it comes down to is that gangs are a symptom of the problem. Simply destroying the gangs would be like giving someone with bronchitis a shitload of "kleenex". It does not solve the problem.

Well then improve education and execute all drug addicts and those who want drugs, drugs are only an excuse for people to shoot each other, besides most junkies are dangerous because they mug people for more drugs, society will do better without them.

The war on drugs seemed to have succeeded only in preventing the OP from taking his meds today. This is still a net loss for society, and I can't imagine the 'war on gangs' would fare any better.

Perhaps the OP - since he appears either to be on illegal drugs or off prescription ones - should be the first rounded up and worked over with a rubber hose, since drugs have a connection to gangs, and he thinks its a great idea.

Aside from being stupid, the idea is contrary to civilized, free society, as well as unconstitutional here and probably elsewhere.

Well then improve education and execute all drug addicts and those who want drugs, drugs are only an excuse for people to shoot each other, besides most junkies are dangerous because they mug people for more drugs, society will do better without them.

Questions for thought:

Why do people want drugs?
Do you know anyone who has had their lives affected by drugs?
Have you/will you ever try drugs?

South Lizasuria, it's safe to say you have been well and truly debunked. Your logic is COMPLETELY flawed and your ideas immoral.

And with that, I'm off.

Well then improve education and execute all drug addicts and those who want drugs, drugs are only an excuse for people to shoot each other, besides most junkies are dangerous because they mug people for more drugs, society will do better without them.

Lets kill everyone with an addiction! Yeah! Sounds Awesome!

A lovely solution, completely impossible to implement, no real benefit an a barrage of smileys.

It seems that people treat gangs, like back in the days of the mafia, like some big systematic corporation-like organization.

Let's say what you propose is somehow succesfully implemented. All the crips, bloods, MS-13 members are identified, tried and imprisoned/executed. Then what? People still want drugs, so someone else is going to step into fill the demand. Children are still going to get shitty education, and they are going to be unable to enter the job market. And because of that they will still be unable to enter society completely.

What it comes down to is that gangs are a symptom of the problem. Simply destroying the gangs would be like giving someone with bronchitis a shitload of "kleenex". It does not solve the problem.

Well in a war on gangs the objective of the war is to solve the problem so after the military retaliation I expect the situation would become flexible enough for the gang problem to be solved.

South Lizasuria, it's safe to say you have been well and truly debunked. Your logic is COMPLETELY flawed and your ideas immoral.

And with that, I'm off.

Whats so immoral about stopping an immoral force that oppresses the bad part of town after knowing of course they're a main reason that part of town is bad in the first place?

How come no one wants to end corruption in places notorious for corruption, we sit here letting atrocities occur and when someone says "we must stop it with martial law" you all holler "your immoral!"

I'm surprised no one has advocated killing poor people yet...

Personally I'm half expecting the OP to start advocating eatting babies.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

1. 'Territorize' is not a word.
2. Your suggestion would cause civil war. Not a good thing, methinks.
3. Gratuitous emoticons, especially those, are used only by noobs. Don't do it again.

Ilaer

Whats so immoral about stopping an immoral force that oppresses the bad part of town?

It's the means.

So, you're going to drive an army into East Oakland. Then, somehow, you're going to wage war on the gang members, which requires identifying them. Trouble is, they look pretty much the same as everyone else. You suggest scanning people for weapons and searching homes. Not everybody who has a gun in the ghetto is a gang member, and not all gang members have guns (most do though). Not to mention that unwarranted searches are unconstitutional.

So pretty much your plan is made entirely of fail.

How come no one wants to end corruption in places notorious for corruption, we sit here letting atrocities occur and when someone says "we must stop it with martial law" you all holler "your immoral!"

Mainly due to the fact that it violates about...8 constitutional amendments in one go.


Got a quick question for you, well, two really. First, since you advocate brutal and swift punishment for these gang members....how exactly do you determine which ones are in the gang and which ones are not? Second, what precisely will you do when one of these heavily armed highly empowered police troopers believes you to be a gang member?

Whats so immoral about stopping an immoral force that oppresses the bad part of town after knowing of course they're a main reason that part of town is bad in the first place?

How come no one wants to end corruption in places notorious for corruption, we sit here letting atrocities occur and when someone says "we must stop it with martial law" you all holler "your immoral!"

I'll keep my corruption if I have to give up my rights as a citizen, thanks.

Questions for thought:

Why do people want drugs?
Do you know anyone who has had their lives affected by drugs?
Have you/will you ever try drugs?

The drug problem where I lived was serious, people with potential threw it away with a single "try" And after the first statement it is obvious that I know lots of people who were once ok but now they're high assholes. I will nver try drugs due to the stance I have on the great value of the soul and how drugs destroy the soul and seem to destroy all it's good aspects. People want drugs to dull the pain of life, for excitement yada yada, well instead of being apathetic towards these people we should reshape society so that they have less reasons to be depressed, we should expound scientific goals humanity has so they can study and get excitement when they find a cure for AIDs a decade later ect, ect, drug related incidents are a large brood of tragedies, we let this happen instead of doing something proper about it.

Of course what the OP fails to realize is that his scheme would create a system far worse than the one he tries to eliminate.

Something about putting out a fire with gasoline...

Actually, screw gasoline, this is putting out a fire with napalm.

I'll keep my corruption if I have to give up my rights as a citizen, thanks.

So you care more about your rights than the welfare of the common man? How selfish of you! Fine hoard rights while people in the street lack the fundamental rights of man. You can all get the rights you want but once it causes someone else or maybe yourself to lose your fundamental rights the point of having rights defeats itself because you maybe free in one aspect but you are no longer free in the aspects that matter most. Corruption infringes on the right to opinion, the right to property and land and the right not be attacked or harrased. Corruption infringes on all of those. SWALLOW THAT!

You make me LOL. I'd disprove your point, but it's too funny to watch you flop around with your warmongering.



Nope, too tempting. Are you seriously trying to say, that if we never had war, our world leaders would be MORE stressed out? Think about what you just said there.

So if war just vanished this world would be a better place with nations pissing on each other but not being able to do anything about it?

Personally, I think that if someone wants to throw there life away, whether it's for drugs (not saying that drugs do cause this), apathy, or some chick at the hooters bar, they should be able too. Who am I to judge what someone else wants in there life?

Even if their decision will effect the rights of others?

So you care more about your rights than the welfare of the common man? How selfish of you!

You would seek to end a problem far more superficial than the one you would create by denying those rights.

Those right are ESSENTIAL to the welfare of the common man. No matter what you do, no matter what goal you accomplish, no matter what ends you seek, by dismantling basic human liberties you would create a situation infinitly worse than any problem you seek to eliminate.

The drug problem where I lived was serious, people with potential threw it away with a single "try" And after the first statement it is obvious that I know lots of people who were once ok but now they're high assholes. I will nver try drugs due to the stance I have on the great value of the soul and how drugs destroy the soul and seem to destroy all it's good aspects. People want drugs to dull the pain of life, for excitement yada yada, well instead of being apathetic towards these people we should reshape society so that they have less reasons to be depressed, we should expound scientific goals humanity has so they can study and get excitement when they find a cure for AIDs a decade later ect, ect, drug related incidents are a large brood of tragedies, we let this happen instead of doing something proper about it.
Personally, I think that if someone wants to throw there life away, whether it's for drugs (not saying that drugs do cause this), apathy, or some chick at the hooters bar, they should be able too. Who am I to judge what someone else wants in there life?

So you care more about your rights than the welfare of the common man? How selfish of you! Fine hoard rights while people in the street lack the fundamental rights of man. You can all get the rights you want but once it causes someone else or maybe yourself to lose your fundamental rights the point of having rights defeats itself because you maybe free in one aspect but you are no longer free in the aspects that matter most. Corruption infringes on the right to opinion, the right to property and land and the right not be attacked or harrased. Corruption infringes on all of those. SWALLOW THAT!

See above. I'm also not saying that corruption is a good thing. I'm saying that once I lose my rights for something like this, who says I won't lose it for something else, that's less of a cause?

Seriously, fucking dystopia. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Well in a war on gangs the objective of the war is to solve the problem so after the military retaliation I expect the situation would become flexible enough for the gang problem to be solved.

The sugar coating: If you are the age I think you are, you think a lot like I did when I was that age. I like you.

What I have to say: What you are proposing is completely unfeasible on many, many levels. Apart from economic destruction, the sort of grace the US military has with working with people (Mai Lai, Iraq, many other places), the unprecidented power it would grant the federal government (I know people who have been punished utterly too much by the tyrrany of the waste of my tax dollars called 'the war on drugs'.

I hate to say it, but you are a perfect example of what I think is wrong with much of the US today, in that you don't seem to understand the situation. Your proposal to execute addicts would, if implemented several years ago, have deprived me of someone in my family I am very close to. He has since recovered and runs a succesful business.

There exists a great disparity between those who determine how gangs are to be dealt with and those who live in areas afflicted with gang activity. A military strike against gangs without causing collateral damage would be like trying to destroy wisps of smoke using a hammer, in a room full of expensive china.

What it comes down to: Striking at gangs will only make it harder for those at the bottom to integrate into society. This is counterproductive.

So if war just vanished this world would be a better place with nations pissing on each other but not being able to do anything about it?

Um, yes. Yes it would. How are they, exactly, supposed to "piss" off another nation? War is not what you do when another country pisses you off, despite what your fascist masturbatory fantasies seem to think.

Even if their decision will effect the rights of others?

which rights, exactly? What rights are infringed upon?

Seriously, fucking dystopia. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The problem is, not only does the OP want this, he's so dillusional as to think it's a good idea.

which rights, exactly? What rights are infringed upon?

The fundamental rights of man are indirectly:

Right to property (people get robbed and mugged so junkies can get more)

Right to opinion (people are too afraid of criminals to speak out)

Right no not get harmed (*cough* muggings)

Um, yes. Yes it would. How are they, exactly, supposed to "piss" off another nation? War is not what you do when another country pisses you off, despite what your fascist masturbatory fantasies seem to think.

political insults, dumping waste on other nation's lands the list goes on, I bet if war was eliminated war would be rebirthed nations doing things to piss each other off (its part of human nature to piss people you hate off as Arthais would know)

And what makes my "fantasies" masturbatory? There is no sex involved in my ideals on this matter.

The fundamental rights of man are indirectly:

Right to property (people get robbed and mugged so junkies can get more)

Right to opinion (people are too afraid of criminals to speak out)

Right no not get harmed (*cough* muggings)

And I suppose it never occured to you that people have to steal for money to buy drugs is DIRECTLY a result of the fact that they are illegal, and if you made them legal, none of this would actually happen.

In other words, the only reason this happens is because they're illegal. When was the last time you heard of someone getting mugged so someone could buy cigarettes?

Hypothetical situation:

Let's say all members of every single gang has been idenitified and taken into custody.

Now what?

Hypothetical situation:

Let's say all members of every single gang has been idenitified and taken into custody.

Now what?

What else? Repair the damages done and prevent gang oppression from occurring again, which would be good because children would be better educated and drugs will be gone and people would do more to help the poor in fear of another gang incident from starting up.

The problem is, not only does the OP want this, he's so dillusional as to think it's a good idea.
Given his post record I do not know why anyone responds anymore...

The fundamental rights of man are indirectly:

Right to property (people get robbed and mugged so junkies can get more)

Right to opinion (people are too afraid of criminals to speak out)

Right no not get harmed (*cough* muggings)

So, from a, say, 5% chance of having these things happen to you, you want to change it to a 100% chance of having these rights violated? Great.

political insults

This is a reason for war? An insult? You honestly believe people should die over an insult?

And what makes my "fantasies" masturbatory? There is no sex involved in my ideals on this matter.

Mostly the fact that the image of people being tortured and dying seems to give you a hard-on

The problem is, not only does the OP want this, he's so dillusional as to think it's a good idea.

Give him a break. He's young.

And I suppose it never occured to you that people have to steal for money to buy drugs is DIRECTLY a result of the fact that they are illegal, and if you made them legal, none of this would actually happen.

In other words, the only reason this happens is because they're illegal. When was the last time you heard of someone getting mugged so someone could buy cigarettes?

People would still attack people for money whether it was legal or not. Cigarettes where I come from are considered drugs.

Give him a break. He's young.

Please don't insult the young. Not all young people are idiots and not all old people are smart.

This is a reason for war? An insult? You honestly believe people should die over an insult?

No, I stated a reason nations might go to war, people are fighting wars in the middle east due to insults to this very day. WWI and WWII were started by political insults, the alliances got pissed over a Serb getting assassinated and Hitler got pissed at lefties trying to conver Germany to communism which was a political insult to Hilter because he was conservative.

That post I quoted is proof that Artahis goes out of his way to demonise me. He asks me for a reason nations would want to go to war if war were suddenly eliminated and then when I state it he gets pissed and says I enjoy having people killed over it. Well get pissed at the leaders of old who started wars over insults (there are alot of them) not me. People like it or not declare or declared war over insults and if it was a main cause of war since the begining of civilization to now whats stopping it from happening again? I don't LIKE having people die over insults, they just do, and I nor Arthis has any power over it.

Mostly the fact that the image of people being tortured and dying seems to give you a hard-on

No, I just like the idea of having bad people destroyed is all.

People would still attack people for money whether it was legal or not.

bullshit. Answer my question, when was the last time someone robbed someone's home to get money for cigarettes?

Cigarettes where I come from are considered drugs.

Yes, legal ones.

Hypothetical situation:

Let's say all members of every single gang has been idenitified and taken into custody.

Now what?

Bored Roman Legions, Take II.

No, I stated a reason nations might go to war, people are fighting wars in the middle east due to insults to this very day. WWI and WWII were started by political insults, the alliances got pissed over a Serb getting assassinated and Hitler got pissed at lefties trying to conver Germany to communism which was a political insult to Hilter because he was conservative.

all I get out of this is, if there had been no armies, millions of people wouldn't have died.

and your knowledge of history is....lacking.

Give him a break. He's young.

no excuse.

What else? Repair the damages done and prevent gang oppression from occurring again, which would be good because children would be better educated and drugs will be gone and people would do more to help the poor in fear of another gang incident from starting up.

What about the currently existing demand for drugs? What about the incarcerated gang members?

And from all the training and education I've had on the matter, gangs are caused by poor education, not poor education by gangs.

all I get out of this is, if there had been no armies, millions of people wouldn't have died.

and your knowledge of history is....lacking.

Since you wine so much about proof and articles and such why don't you give me a link so I can compare my knowledge with that of the information in an article.

You lack of links further proves that you get a kick out of lowering and deomising me rather than helping me or pointing out my flaws.

What about the currently existing demand for drugs? What about the incarcerated gang members?

And from all the training and education I've had on the matter, gangs are caused by poor education, not poor education by gangs.

Give the children a good education and eliminate the reason for needing drugs.

I notice he still hasn't answered my question.

What are you going to do when one of these heavily armed police officers empowered to kill gang members on sight decides that you are a gang member and decides to kill you on sight?

I notice he still hasn't answered my question.

What are you going to do when one of these heavily armed police officers empowered to kill gang members on sight decides that you are a gang member and decides to kill you on sight?

Well thats why I wouldn't look or act suspicious.

When did you ask this?

I notice he still hasn't answered my question.

What are you going to do when one of these heavily armed police officers empowered to kill gang members on sight decides that you are a gang member and decides to kill you on sight?

His Teenie Atheist Ninja Mob is busy fighting their lunch recess war against the Jesus Teen Bible Brigade :rolleyes:

Busy men like that don't have time to answer Internet posts :rolleyes:

On illegal drugs or off prescription ones, what's your vote?

Another flaw: Lets say the gangs are completly eliminated. None left. Who sells the drugs and pimps the hoes?
I'm not advocating these things, (even though I do), I'm simply trying to get you to guess, on your own, who would take over the running of theses illegal activities.

I'll give you a hidden hint. It starts with a P, and rhymes with niece.

Meh. It'll probably start with an M and rhyme with berry... :rolleyes:

You lack of links further proves that you get a kick out of lowering and deomising me rather than helping me or pointing out my flaws.

I've done nothign BUT point out your flaws. As was said by NUMERIOUS people including me, this would violate SEVERAL constitutional amendments, be ENTIRELY illegally, and utterly, without any doubt, completely inadmissable.

Your argument is nothing BUT flaws. What more do you expect child?

His Teenie Atheist Ninja Mob is busy fighting their lunch recess war against the Jesus Teen Bible Brigade :rolleyes:

Busy men like that don't have time to answer Internet posts :rolleyes:

On illegal drugs or off prescription ones, what's your vote?

They're not atheists, you word twister they are normal Christians vs corrupt Christian Communists.

As I stated earlier I'm not on drugs.

New Granda twists the facts, words and seems more sussed on making his foes look bad rather than correcting them.

I think your one of the clique brigade members undercover...

Give the children a good education and eliminate the reason for needing drugs.

Then what do you do with the swollen prison population? And the millions of mothers/fathers/children/siblings who disagree with the governments seizure of their loved ones? No matter the family relationships, people will be quick to loathe the government.

Well thats why I wouldn't look or act suspicious.

That wasn't an answer. I asked you what you would do if that particular heavily armed cop decided that you were.

When did you ask this?

right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12508379&postcount=58)

No, I stated a reason nations might go to war, people are fighting wars in the middle east due to insults to this very day. WWI and WWII were started by political insults, the alliances got pissed over a Serb getting assassinated and Hitler got pissed at lefties trying to conver Germany to communism which was a political insult to Hilter because he was conservative.

An assassination is not quite a political insult and I'm sure to God that Hitler didn't start the holocaust on Jews because communists tried to take over.

Then what do you do with the swollen prison population? And the millions of mothers/fathers/children/siblings who disagree with the governments seizure of their loved ones? No matter the family relationships, people will be quick to loathe the government.

Well I personally don't like the idea of keeping the scum of society alive, scum should be destroyed not thrown back into the place it was polluting. So I have them massively executed for the safety of society. This is based on my hypothesis that people like that are beyond saving and trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of food, money and resources, on top of the danger of them getting released or escaping back into society which in most cases they harm again.

An assassination is not quite a political insult and I'm sure to God that Hitler didn't start the holocaust on Jews because communists tried to take over.

He did because:

1)Many commies in Germany were Soviets

2)his father was Jewish and he was born out of wedlock

3)the teachers that hated him in school were all Jewish

It all added up.

He hated commies nearly as much as he hated Jews.

Well I personally don't like the idea of keeping the scum of society alive, scum should be destroyed not thrown back into the place it was polluting. So I have them massively executed for the safety of society. This is based on my hypothesis that people like that are beyond saving and trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of food, money and resources, on top of the danger of them getting released or escaping back into society which in most cases they harm again.

and even if you are entirely right it is STILL absolutly unconstitutional.

Which it seems you have totally ignored. You HAVE heard of the constitution right?

That wasn't an answer. I asked you what you would do if that particular heavily armed cop decided that you were.



right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12508379&postcount=58)

Well since I suggested the idea they'd know I wasn't one.

I already stated how to tell them apart earlier.

Well I personally don't like the idea of keeping the scum of society alive, scum should be destroyed not thrown back into the place it was polluting. So I have them massively executed for the safety of society. This is based on my hypothesis that people like that are beyond saving and trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of food, money and resources, on top of the danger of them getting released or escaping back into society which in most cases they harm again.

So you kill them all, and you turn their families into the worst enemies you ever had.

Basically, this is the recipe for a home-grown insurgency. And these people will be much more dangerous than a bunch of skag-heads.

and even if you are entirely right it is STILL absolutly unconstitutional.

Which it seems you have totally ignored. You HAVE heard of the constitution right?

I have but I ignore it when forming ideal systems because the constitution that once protected oppressed farmers from red coats now protects parasitic criminals from the wrath of justice.

Well I personally don't like the idea of keeping the scum of society alive, scum should be destroyed not thrown back into the place it was polluting. So I have them massively executed for the safety of society. This is based on my hypothesis that people like that are beyond saving and trying to rehabilitate them is a waste of food, money and resources, on top of the danger of them getting released or escaping back into society which in most cases they harm again.

So you're just fucking crazy now?

Well since I suggested the idea they'd know I wasn't one.

I already stated how to tell them apart earlier.

and you still haven't answered my question.

What do you do when he doesn't? Just answer the question. What do you do when one of these heavily armed police officers decides you are a gang member.

Don't tell me he won't. Don't tell me it won't happen. Tell me what happens if he does.

So you kill them all, and you turn their families into the worst enemies you ever had.

Basically, this is the recipe for a home-grown insurgency. And these people will be much more dangerous than a bunch of skag-heads.

That's why I'd have my soldiers give them a "I'm sorry but it had to be done" letter. That states that they know their feelings, the government will repay them in any way necessary (and legally) and that it was better their family member die that have other countless hundred die.

2)his father was Jewish and he was born out of wedlock
As far as I know this is hardly fact, so prove it.

I have but I ignore

Good, then you admit your system is untennable.


it when forming ideal systems because the constitution that once protected oppressed farmers from red coats

Ummm, what red coats?

now protects parasitic criminals from the wrath of justice.

*sigh* it's just not even worth the effort.

I have but I ignore it when forming ideal systems because the constitution that once protected oppressed farmers from red coats now protects parasitic criminals from the wrath of justice.

The wrath of justice... OMG you make me giggle man. Let's just make America a dictatorship and have concentration camps for the lower class.

Gangs are caused by poor, uneducated teenagers who have nothing to do. In order to get rid of gangs, provide a better education with dedicated teachers whom kids can relate too and good/cool/fun afterschool activities to keep kids off the streets. Taking out all the gang members will cause widespread distrust of authority and the government, causing race/class riots and the like.

The wrath of justice... OMG you make me giggle man. Let's just make America a dictatorship and have concentration camps for the lower class.

seriously, I'm half expecting to say that we should start eatting babies.

So you're just fucking crazy now?

Putting the worst people in prison then having them return to society is stupid. I'ts like putting a terrorist in a terrible place for a while then letting him out saying "do any acts of terrorism and your back in here" It won't get through to him. And with all the food we waste on the scum of society we could feed entire third world countries.

That's why I'd have my soldiers give them a "I'm sorry but it had to be done" letter. That states that they know their feelings, the government will repay them in any way necessary (and legally) and that it was better their family member die that have other countless hundred die.

And the fact that you think this will do shit all demonstrates that you are well beyond hope.

I have but I ignore it when forming ideal systems because the constitution that once protected oppressed farmers from red coats now protects parasitic criminals from the wrath of justice.

I lol'd.
I'll see you at the bookburning.

The wrath of justice... OMG you make me giggle man. Let's just make America a dictatorship and have concentration camps for the lower class.

They already have concentration camps already that break the constitution I believe for terrorists. Gangsters are terrorists and domestic enemies to the nation.

Well there'd be MPs to police the police right?

MPs haven't been noted to be very successful stopping anything more than brawls by drunk soldiers. Usually, by the time they're on scene, it's too late.

Gangs are caused by poor, uneducated teenagers who have nothing to do. In order to get rid of gangs, provide a better education with dedicated teachers whom kids can relate too and good/cool/fun afterschool activities to keep kids off the streets. Taking out all the gang members will cause widespread distrust of authority and the government, causing race/class riots and the like.

Here's a good suggestion. But what about the gangs already in existence?

That's why I'd have my soldiers give them a "I'm sorry but it had to be done" letter. That states that they know their feelings, the government will repay them in any way necessary (and legally) and that it was better their family member die that have other countless hundred die.

Are you seriously saying families will forgive you for murdering their husbands, their fathers, their wives, their daughters, their siblings, their children, if you give them a fucking thank you note?

Oh, wait...yeah...you aren't seriously saying that. Forgot for a second.

Gangsters are citizens

Fixed for the relevant part.

Good, then you admit your system is untennable.




Ummm, what red coats?



*sigh* it's just not even worth the effort.

It's defensible by common sense to some people.

The constitution was made during the Revolutionary war wasn't it?

Precisely.

Fixed for the relevant part.

You are calling those terrorists citizens?

If I am half mad your probably worse off than I am lad...

It's defensible by common sense to some people.

Nothing you have said has even remotely approached common sense.

The constitution was made during the Revolutionary war wasn't it?

You fail at history, again. Seriously, what do they teach kids these days?

As a person that has spent 27 years working the streets as a police officer, medic and firefighter/officer:

When I was a police officer, we spent a rather large amount on overtime to do narcotics investigations, gather evidence, make buys, etc. Then, when the raid was set to go down, we would call all off duty officers at the last moment to man the raid (that way no one would know ahead of time about the bust). The problem was that every "major" bust we made was street level buyers. Hell, before we got thru the booking process, someone else was already on the street selling the shit. And what was accomplished? Other than spending a huge amount of tight dollars in overtime, buys, court appearances, etc; not a damned thing.

We need to look at drugs like the prohibition era in the US in the 1920's. Look what came out of prohibition...the gangs. A lot of people died because of prohibition, and a few people got very righ (Al Capone comes to mind). The US started to do alcohol raids, destroying stills, confiscating shipments, arresting local booze sellers; yet the problem never stopped. What finally brought a halt to the violence due to illegal alcohol sales and delivery was the end of prohibition. Once alcohol sales were legal again, that took the rather large market for alcohol away from the mobs. Unfortunately, it was too late, since the different mobs were already entrenched and established.

Carlos Santayana once said Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

We seem to have forgotten what happened during the prohibition years. Just changed it from alcohol to drugs. So we have created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), anti narcotics task forces out the ass, drug interdiction teams, yaddy, yaddy, yaddah.

Of course, the government will not give up the so called war on drugs. Too many politically connected persons are becoming rich from the drug trade, but law enforcement is not allowed to go after the big bosses. Just like the days of prohibition. Plus, too many agencies created, too many asset forfeiture laws that give confiscated money and property (without due process) to the agencies, etc.

So, my solution would be to get rid of all drug laws, and let the free market control it. But before you think that I lost my mind, look at it this way. The government has legalized and taxes the two drugs that are responsible for more lost lives and damages. And if you try to get a piece of that market, they will take you out. I am of course, talking about alcohol and tobacco. In 2006, over 13,000 persons died due to alcohol related traffic fatalities (http://www.madd.org/stats/11088). Compare that to the number of all homicides in the US, 16,611 as of 2004 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm).
Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 259,500 men and 178,000 women in the United States each year (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm)

The government will fight you at any costs to keep that tax revenue. They have even raided Indian Reservations, which are nations, because they will sell alcohol and tobacco to non reservation residents.

So, with those figures in mind, I don't see anything wrong with the government legalizing drugs and selling them the way they do alcohol and tobacco.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Vic

They already have concentration camps already that break the constitution I believe for terrorists. Gangsters are terrorists and domestic enemies to the nation.

There is a prison in Guantonamo Bay where it is believed that torture is possibly being used to extract information from terrorists, which is in no way equivalent to mass executions.

You are calling those terrorists citizens?

If I am half mad your probably worse off than I am lad...

Seriously, have you even ever read the constitution?

Nothing you have said has even remotely approached common sense.



You fail at history, again.

Well then how come people back where I live would agree with me.

NS doesn't represent the whole world.

There is a prison in Guantonamo Bay where it is believed that torture is possibly being used to extract information from terrorists,

Tell me, would you like some nice pictures of arabs being menaced with dogs? Maybe some accounts of prisoners being forced to urinate on themselves? Stacked up in big piles naked? How about having a feeding tube jammed down their throat? Maybe something else? What suits your delusional fancy, sir?

Obviously, I can't actually post any of those pictures, and frankly I don't want to find them.

Seriously, have you even ever read the constitution?

I've seen tons of bastards hide behind it to ovoid punishment so I thought I needn't bother.

Well then how come people back where I live would agree with me.

NS doesn't represent the whole world.

Neither does the opinion of teenagers in Bumblefuck, Washington.

I've seen tons of bastards hide behind it to ovoid punishment so I thought I needn't bother.

Then why should I, or anyone else, bother to listen to you when you haven't bothered to learn what the hell you're talking about?

You try to talk on something that you are intentionally ignorant on, you waste my time.

I've seen tons of bastards hide behind it to ovoid punishment so I thought I needn't bother.

I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of ovoid punishment. Just sentence the offender to a certain number of years to be spent as an oval.

Neither does the opinion of tweenagers in Bumblefuck, Washington.

Fixed.

I'm surprised no one has advocated killing poor people yet...

maybe we should just kill all the poor and homeless?? any one??

maybe we should just kill all the poor and homeless?? any one??

DEAD KENNEDYS JAM SESSION TIME!!!

I dunno. I'm bored.

I don't know about you, but I'm in favor of ovoid punishment. Just sentence the offender to a certain number of years to be spent as an oval.

So your not in favor of having culprits punished when they commit horrendous crimes?

I've seen tons of bastards hide behind it to ovoid punishment so I thought I needn't bother.

Then you sir, are Anti-American.

Then why should I, or anyone else, bother to listen to you when you haven't bothered to learn what the hell you're talking about?

You try to talk on something that you are intentionally ignorant on, you waste my time.

ORLY? I think you like my posts or you wouldn't respond to them. And I was trying to talk about dealing with gangs in ALL nations meaning that the constitution has barely anything to do with this. America just got mentioned because it is the worst when it comes to gang related violence.

Then you sir, are Anti-American.

Not so, I am not willing to attack America or commit acts against America. I plan on moving to a reasonable country that can tell friend from foe.

Tell me, would you like some nice pictures of arabs being menaced with dogs? Maybe some accounts of prisoners being forced to urinate on themselves? Stacked up in big piles naked? How about having a feeding tube jammed down their throat? Maybe something else? What suits your delusional fancy, sir?

Obviously, I can't actually post any of those pictures, and frankly I don't want to find them.

Fool. Maybe you should redirct that attention to the limitless pictures of the Nazi holocaust and the concentration camps. Then tell me if being menaced with dogs or urinating yourself is worse than having to bury the person on front of you who was just shot, then getting shot yourself so th person behind you can lay you in your grave.

Nothing you have said has even remotely approached common sense.



You fail at history, again. Seriously, what do they teach kids these days?

Well then I guess its obvious that education needs to improve to deter gang formation. That has been mentioned earlier.

Well then I guess its obvious that education needs to improve to deter gang formation. That has been mentioned earlier.

I think this is the first time a poster has used his OWN IGNORANCE as an argument for something.

It's like a catch-22 for the internet era.

I think this is the first time a poster has used his OWN IGNORANCE as an argument for something.

It's like a catch-22 for the internet era.

I don't like being an idiot and I don't like having it poked at by psychotic cyber bullies. You still haven't responded to me pointing out how you seem more focused on exaggerating my flaws and demonising me. (even if it means twisting words and purposefully making false interpretations)

Admit that you don't care whatsoever for debate, your just a smeghead capitalist who wants some quarry so that when he beats them down he'll feel good about himself.

There were at least three times i pointed out his behavior on this thread, I trust you have more then enough intelligence to find them.

For example the post in which you accused me of "liking" the idea of people dying from insults even though I was merely stating that they did.

Not providing articles to prove my historical knowledge was as inept as you stated even though you constantly cry and wine for sources when I post.

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!!
Ugh, why am I even surprised? From your 'Knights in Shining Armour' thread to this...you really have a hard on for other people doing violence to other people, don't you?

All in the name of 'what is right and true according to South Lizasauria'. Self-aggrandize much?

The trolls these days aren't even amusing anymore.

I don't like being an idiot Hahahha...the first step is admitting you have a problem, after all:D

I don't like being an idiot
Then why make every conceivable effort to be perceived as one?

*cuts up OP and burns in a frisbee*

How come it is topics like these that reach so many pages, yet are so poorly started off?

Is it because beneath all the Caps lock and behind the wall of gun toting smilies there is actually an idea worth considering? Or is it that we are drawn to flames like moths to a lamp?

Then why make every conceivable effort to be perceived as one?

Ok just answer this, would my idea work in any countries not under the constitution.

Ok just answer this, would my idea work in any countries not under the constitution.

Define 'work'.

Admit that you don't care whatsoever for debate, your just a smeghead capitalist who wants some quarry so that when he beats them down he'll feel good about himself.

I enjoy debate a great deal, I'm still waiting for you to provide me with one.

For example the post in which you accused me of "liking" the idea of people dying from insults even though I was merely stating that they did.

After you asked how nations would respond to such if they had no armies, begging the question WHY they needed to at all. You were asked WHY countries needed militaries, you came up with "insults", as if this justified military action.

Not providing articles to prove my historical knowledge was as inept as you stated even though you constantly cry and wine for sources when I post.

YOU want ME to go through effort to demonstrate why YOU are wrong after YOU admit your own ignorance?

no, do your own homework.

How come it is topics like these that reach so many pages, yet are so poorly started off?

Is it because beneath all the Caps lock and behind the wall of gun toting smilies there is actually an idea worth considering? Or is it that we are drawn to flames like moths to a lamp?

The second.

I enjoy debate a great deal, I'm still waiting for you to provide me with one.



After you asked how nations would respond to such if they had no armies, begging the question WHY they needed to at all. You were asked WHY countries needed militaries, you came up with "insults", as if this justified military action.



YOU want ME to go through effort to demonstrate why YOU are wrong after YOU admit your own ignorance?

no, do your own homework.

It is a justified answer because if war is stopped I bet that insults between leaders would probably bring war back into the world. It justifies military actions in some regions or there'd be a lot less war.

Before I admitted it.

Gangs arise a means of survival if the government cannot provide suitable living conditions. They thrive in illegal activities because what do you expect them to do? Sell lemonade?

Why yes gangs are a great threat to internal security the only feasible means is to improve the conditions from the areas in which gangs arise. Also make illegal drugs, *gasp* legal, and then big business will starve them out of their primary income. Without funds they will become disorginized and detriorate into small collections of regional people.

Just declaring 'war' on gangs will do nothing but put fuel on the fire. They will go from a passive parasite to an aggressive one, and if you thought an insurgency in Iraq was bad..America's will be much much worse.

From their the nation will crumble into Marshal Law, and the standard of American becomes that of Iraq itself.

Good plan...

Gangs arise a means of survival if the government cannot provide suitable living conditions. They thrive in illegal activities because what do you expect them to do? Sell lemonade?

Why yes gangs are a great threat to internal security the only feasible means is to improve the conditions from the areas in which gangs arise. Also make illegal drugs, *gasp* legal, and then big business will starve them out of their primary income. Without funds they will become disorginized and detriorate into small collections of regional people.

Just declaring 'war' on gangs will do nothing but put fuel on the fire. They will go from a passive parasite to an aggressive one, and if you thought an insurgency in Iraq was bad..America's will be much much worse.

From their the nation will crumble into Marshal Law, and the standard of American becomes that of Iraq itself.

Good plan...

Well I believe that America should raise the living standard for it's people considerably. Its government has a 'meh' attitude. I should have seen the non-violent solution earlier sorry guys. I kinda have the "RAWR WE ARE EBIL THEBES WHO'LL STOP AT NOTHING TO HURT PEOPLE" image of them. So if the US starts actually giving more of a damn about its people, the heavily unfortunate won't lash out and there will no longer be a reason to have gangs then problem solved.

Well I believe that America should raise the living standard for it's people considerably. Its government has a 'meh' attitude. I should have seen the non-violent solution earlier sorry guys. I kinda have the "RAWR WE ARE EBIL THEBES WHO'LL STOP AT NOTHING TO HURT PEOPLE" image of them. So if the US starts actually giving more of a damn about its people, the heavily unfortunate won't lash out and there will no longer be a reason to have gangs then problem solved.

There will always be criminals, and theoretically killing off all of them would be perfect. Only thing is our definition of 'criminal' is a tad grey.

Also killing people is bad me believes *nods*

There will always be criminals, and theoretically killing off all of them would be perfect. Only thing is our definition of 'criminal' is a tad grey.

Also killing people is bad me believes *nods*


Yes but theoretically with the gangs breaking up there'll be considerably less crime and there'll be less organized crimes like planned robberies and such.

And killing bad people so they don't harm/kill others is a more moral decision methinks.

Not so, I am not willing to attack America or commit acts against America. I plan on moving to a reasonable country that can tell friend from foe.

America is essentially the principles numerated in its constitution, specifically the bill of rights. If if were to completely abandon them, it would be worthless as a nation. It isn't worth defending just because it exists. When you seek to destroy the principles that define this nation, you are attacking its very soul.

Without freedom, America is nothing. It is frustrating that our leaders often forget that. It is our right to say anything, to worship anything, to fair trials, etc. that make this country. They are not bonus features.

If you would seek to violate the rights that make this nation worth something, then yes, you are America's foe.

That's why I'd have my soldiers give them a "I'm sorry but it had to be done" letter. That states that they know their feelings, the government will repay them in any way necessary (and legally) and that it was better their family member die that have other countless hundred die.


That worked very well the last time we tried something like that.

Click me! (http://www.edelmangallery.com/killer1.jpg)

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. :eek: GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!! :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

No. You should conscript them. They're already used to defending territory with firearms, and scavenging the materials they need for their warfare. They're also well trained in urban combat, a necessity in today's modern theatres of war. :D

The constitution was made during the Revolutionary war wasn't it?


No. Not even fucking close. Jesus.

Whats so immoral about stopping an immoral force that oppresses the bad part of town after knowing of course they're a main reason that part of town is bad in the first place?

How come no one wants to end corruption in places notorious for corruption, we sit here letting atrocities occur and when someone says "we must stop it with martial law" you all holler "your immoral!"

But if trying to get rid of people that kill people is your aim, and you do it by killing people, that doesn't set a very good precedent for their families. As in, killing people that kill people =/= good example.

Not to mention all the angry family members that would immediately pick up guns if these mass cullings went through. There would be grenades coming through the window as soon as you got in your seat.

So, bad idea.

Here's a good suggestion. But what about the gangs already in existence?

Gangs need to recruit new members. The majority of gang member's are small-time thugs. They get an incredibly tiny share of the overall gang's profit, yet carry out all of the dirty work. If the number of available new recruits dropped drastically, due to young, inner-city kids getting a proper education and seeing other oppurtunities to succeed other than in gangs, the effectiveness of current gangs will disappear.

GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS!REALLY?! THEN LET'S ALL JOIN GANGS TO DAY AND GET RID OF THESE FUCKING SILLY NATIONS!!! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

REALLY?! THEN LET'S ALL JOIN GANGS TO DAY AND GET RID OF THESE FUCKING SILLY NATIONS!!! :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

LOLS! Lets RP that. :D

OPENLY DECLARE WAR ON GANGS!!!

All they do is terrorize civilians and cause problems for the government, and on top of that gangs try to take/destroy what the government has tried so hard (with tax money) to build and territorize. GANGS WAGE WAR ON NATIONS! NATIONS SHOULD RETALIATE WITH MILITARY ACTION!!!!

LOL

Wasn't being PWNed on this the last time you suggested something similar enough for you?

Hey we're overpopulated

*orders South Lizasaurian troops to start dumping biotoxins into a stream going into a nation we hate*

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!~! DIE! DIE!!!! :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

Ok just answer this, would my idea work in any countries not under the constitution.
Would gassing everyone in the country lower the crime rate? Yes, it certainly would. In that context, it would work. It's a question of using abhorrent means to achieve questionable ends.

SL, didn't you get worked up a while ago because you thought the government was reading your history paper or something like that? I remember you had a thread about it.

Gangs need to recruit new members. The majority of gang member's are small-time thugs. They get an incredibly tiny share of the overall gang's profit, yet carry out all of the dirty work. If the number of available new recruits dropped drastically, due to young, inner-city kids getting a proper education and seeing other oppurtunities to succeed other than in gangs, the effectiveness of current gangs will disappear.

It's not that simple. Gangs work to take kids out of schools so they do not get a proper education. You can't get the kids a proper education without getting rid of the gangs. You can't get rid of the gangs without kids getting a proper education. And there is the problem. The solution for right now is to combat the gangs as they are now and to make the streets safer and therefore negate much of the propaganda ammunition that gangs use to make kids feel as they need to join them in order to be safe.

It's not that simple. Gangs work to take kids out of schools so they do not get a proper education. You can't get the kids a proper education without getting rid of the gangs. You can't get rid of the gangs without kids getting a proper education. And there is the problem. The solution for right now is to combat the gangs as they are now and to make the streets safer and therefore negate much of the propaganda ammunition that gangs use to make kids feel as they need to join them in order to be safe.

So raising the living standard and making life easier for the unfortunate is half the battle, the existing gangs must still be dealt with. I say make constructive jobs more promising than gangs. The rest can be weeded out by a police army. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

So raising the living standard and making life easier for the unfortunate is half the battle, the existing gangs must still be dealt with. I say make constructive jobs more promising than gangs. The rest can be weeded out by a police army.

*nods*

Gang members are either arrested, killed, or quit by the age of 28. A gang absolutely relies on recruiting, which improvement in living conditions and job opportunities would eliminate all together.

*nods*

Gang members are either arrested, killed, or quit by the age of 28. A gang absolutely relies on recruiting, which improvement in living conditions and job opportunities would eliminate all together.

How do you explain gangs in middle to upper class suburban areas?

Yes, because that war on drugs is such a success.

lol qft

And Nypol those are just bored rich kids who think they know what it's like to live in the "Ghetto" and think its cool for some stupid, strang reason.

So those kids are sociopaths with power and money. Sociopaths and power/money don't mix, for the upper class suburban cases my all out war suggestion is equally as stupid.

Fixed. Why do you still insist on believing that this is even SLIGHTLY possible?

lol qft

And Nypol those are just bored rich kids who think they know what it's like to live in the "Ghetto" and think its cool for some stupid, strang reason.

So those kids are sociopaths with power and money. Sociopaths and power/money don't mix, for the upper class suburban cases my all out war suggestion is necessary.

How do you explain gangs in middle to upper class suburban areas?

Gangs in upper class areas are nowhere near as frequent as those in say Atlantic City, Newark, New York City, etc. Gangs are always prevelent in anytime of condition as humans are social beings and will always seek out group acceptance.

Those gangs commit almost no violent crimes.

Fixed. Why do you still insist on believing that this is even SLIGHTLY possible?

So how would you deal with the upper class suburban gangs then? If they are lead by bastards who will stop at nothing to cause human misery,cause harm to society and only knows the language of violence?

When someone wants to fight you you fight them, you don't just stand there. Gangs lead by crazes sociopaths WANT to fight and attack society, society has to fight back and beat them.

Just a quick question, are you talking about a war on international, national, regional or local gangs?

Gangs in upper class areas are nowhere near as frequent as those in say Atlantic City, Newark, New York City, etc. Gangs are always prevelent in anytime of condition as humans are social beings and will always seek out group acceptance.

Those gangs commit almost no violent crimes.

Well why don't they become one with the nation, motivated citizens make a strong nation especially in a democracy.

Just a quick question, are you talking about a war on international, national, regional or local gangs?

The violent criminal ones.

So how would you deal with the upper class suburban gangs then?

Gather evidence, charge them, put them on trial, demonstrate their guilt, and have them convicted

When someone wants to fight you you fight them, you don't just stand there. Gangs lead by crazes sociopaths WANT to fight and attack society, society has to fight back and beat them.

Correct. By gathering evidence, charging them, putting them on trial, demonstrating their guilt, and having them convicted.

Well why don't they become one with the nation, motivated citizens make a strong nation especially in a democracy.

Some cannot relate to the nation as much as they can their immediate peers. Also it's a typical thing for youth to feel forgotten or discriminated by figureheads: government, parents, etc.

Eventually they grow out of this and do become highly motivated citizens, ever see the voting rate of the elderly?

Gather evidence, charge them, put them on trial, demonstrate their guilt, and have them convicted



Correct. By gathering evidence, charging them, putting them on trial, demonstrating their guilt, and having them convicted.

But they won't play by the rules? How do you keep them from pulling a dirty trick and attempt your life or better yet, stop them from destroying evidence or corrupting the justice system?

Gangs in upper class areas are nowhere near as frequent as those in say Atlantic City, Newark, New York City, etc. Gangs are always prevelent in anytime of condition as humans are social beings and will always seek out group acceptance.

Those gangs commit almost no violent crimes.

I'm in the NYPD right now but I used to work in a small town. We had a chinese gang in the local school districts high schools. There were muggings and fights a plenty. More on the fighting part though.

But they won't play by the rules?

Yes, that would be the definition of criminal.

Personally I hold my government to a higher standard than I do a criminal.

I'm in the NYPD right now but I used to work in a small town. We had a chinese gang in the local school districts high schools. There were muggings and fights a plenty. More on the fighting part though.

Nothing major though I trust.

Gangs like that usually don't organize on the same level as the MS 13s, Bloods, etc. I assume kids from better off backgrounds tend to be raised a little racist from their parents.

It's not that simple. Gangs work to take kids out of schools so they do not get a proper education. You can't get the kids a proper education without getting rid of the gangs. You can't get rid of the gangs without kids getting a proper education. And there is the problem. The solution for right now is to combat the gangs as they are now and to make the streets safer and therefore negate much of the propaganda ammunition that gangs use to make kids feel as they need to join them in order to be safe.

I think that one big reason for gangs, not the only one, for sure, is that the "successful" and relatable male influence/role model for a lot of inner city kids is a gang member. If there were dedicated, easy to relate to male teachers from elementary school up, to be role models for the boys that might otherwise stray to gang life, the number of gang recruits would drop pretty drastically. Of course you need to keep police combatting gangs and gang violence, much as they do now. On the other hand, if the police does anything that the public might view as racist or classist, the perception of the police, and therefore any "oppressors" will fall, resulting in more hostility towards police, and higher recruits for gangs.



I don't know anything about suburban gangs at all.

Nothing major though I trust.

Gangs like that usually don't organize on the same level as the MS 13s, Bloods, etc. I assume kids from better off backgrounds tend to be raised a little racist from their parents.

Oh no. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was comparing the two types at all. They are completely different and are on two completely different levels. I was just trying to show the OP that he's an idiot. That the term gang is so generic and a "war on gangs" is a ridiculous idea.

Oh no. I didn't mean for it to sound like I was comparing the two types at all. They are completely different and are on two completely different levels. I was just trying to show the OP that he's an idiot. That the term gang is so generic and a "war on gangs" is a ridiculous idea.

I agree and think he realized how infeasible it really is.

Hell when I was little I 'rolled' with a 'gang' that consisted of six of my best friends. We never faught anyone, but it's just what we did. Avalanche represent :p

I think that one big reason for gangs, not the only one, for sure, is that the "successful" and relatable male influences/role models for a lot of inner city kids is a gang member. If there were dedicated, easy to relate to male teachers from elementary school up, to be role models for the boys that might otherwise stray to gang life, the number of gang recruits would drop pretty drastically. Of course you need to keep police combatting gangs and gang violence, much as they do now. On the other hand, if the police does anything that the public might view as racist or classist, the perception of the police, and therefore any "oppressors" will fall, resulting in more hostility towards police, and higher recruits for gangs.



I don't know anything about suburban gangs at all.

In my experience, most active gang members are younger. The older ones are either in jail, dead or have moved on and tried to make something out of themselves. So I'm sure that it is a problem but they will not see much of their older male role models actively participating in gangs. They will however, see older siblings and can easily be caught under their sway. I'm not sure that a teacher can relate to a kid the same way that a protective sibling can but it's worth a shot.

Off to work but I wanna keep talking tomorrow.

In my experience, most active gang members are younger. The older ones are either in jail, dead or have moved on and tried to make something out of themselves. So I'm sure that it is a problem but they will not see much of their older male role models actively participating in gangs. They will however, see older siblings and can easily be caught under their sway. I'm not sure that a teacher can relate to a kid the same way that a protective sibling can but it's worth a shot.

Off to work but I wanna keep talking tomorrow.

The lack of male teachers is, looking back, one of the reasons, I think, that boys from my elementary school eventually grew up to become members of gangs. Exposure to a successful male person who does not go through route of gangs will help a kid's development and help him stay away from gang life. Whether that is a brother, father, teacher, or anything, it will help. And the teacher is the only one that the government can provide and make sure of, so the teacher is the position that the government should take care of.

On a side note, the book "Freakonomics" compared the structure of gangs and the company McDonalds. The figures that they found showed that the profits were split very similarly, with the heads of gangs earning proportionally the same amount as the head of McDonalds. I think you can take the comparison further. In inner city life, it's common and even standard for teenagers to "work" in a gang. It's a place to start off and earn some money for yourself. All the people around you start off working in gangs/McDonalds, it's natural that you do too. If there were people like you, but became successful doing other things, like working hard at school and staying in school, you might not drop out of high school and get a job for the gangs/McDonalds. Of course, the difference is that gangs directly harm other people, and that people who work in McDonalds presumably aren't committing felonies.

And with that semi-rant, I'm off to bed.

So how would you deal with the upper class suburban gangs then? If they are lead by bastards who will stop at nothing to cause human misery,cause harm to society and only knows the language of violence?

When someone wants to fight you you fight them, you don't just stand there. Gangs lead by crazes sociopaths WANT to fight and attack society, society has to fight back and beat them.

No, fighting and attacking society is a by product of how they view the best way to make a living. Which is, selling drugs mainly, which requires defending their drug-selling turf. It's capitalism, really.

The only way gangs will ever stop is if the kids in poor areas see a better profession than a life of crime. Currently, selling crack is one of the most profitable careers in the eyes of a 13 year old resident of East Oakland or Richmond.