Because bribery creates a bond between two parties. They're both in trouble if it comes to light. We need to make it legal to accept bribes, and illegal to give them. That way you can take someone's cash and then turn around and call the cops.
The legal gun owners here have no problem with guns.
Stands to reason, the people who like guns like guns. Having a problem and being a problem are very different. Gun culture wouldn't seem like a problem if you were part of it.
More people are killed by doctors than guns
But the purpose of doctors is not to kill people, I imagine we would be screaming for "doctor control" if it was. Guns are tools for killing things. Yes, there are responsible users but there are too many accidents, impulsive responses and loopholes not addressed by current laws.
I don't think these laws really are all that complicated and unintelligible. It's the loopholes and secret rulings and rationalizations they've had to do so they could (not?) violate the law that are hard to understand.
The NSA doesn't spy on citizens. Boom, simple. Except that they have been, and since the Government "can't" break the law there must be some way that somehow that was "allowed".
I'll tell you how to rectify the conflict. The Government didn't break the law, but people did. Throw them in jail.
You know how some people associate Muslims with terrorism, or black people with violence... AND HOW THAT'S TOTALLY NOT OKAY? Same principal applies to racists. They should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed by the government to express themselves freely.
But the rest of us don't have to put up with that crap. You shut your hole and go sit in the time-out corner.
I was actually on a jury that was presented with lyrics written by the defendant. I not only thought it was unrelated and a waste of time, but was offended that the prosecution thought it would color my view of the defendant's character. They obviously wanted a knee-jerk reaction about how vulgar, violent and offensive he must be. I thought it weakened their position, though I don't know how it affected the other jurors.
I like to think of this as Schrödinger's Police Action. There is a search which may be either legal or illegal, but we have no way of knowing which until we challenge said search. If we challenge and it was illegal then no-harm, no-foul; however if it indeed was legal we are prosecuted for obstruction/treason/terrorism.
We therefore live in a Superposition of being simultaneously violated and detained. And they wonder why some people have "fear of authority" even if they've done nothing wrong.
Okay, so I can just close one lane of a local road and funnel traffic into a holding area to offer them a chance to buy girl scout cookies?
The problem isn't with other drivers or merging traffic (I too resent late mergers) its with the government using police powers to seize vehicles and citizens, and later claim that compliance was voluntary.
Seems like Christopher interpreted Paul's argument as a personal attack and chose to return ad hominem. I don't think Paul intended anything of the sort and Christopher's response (depending on his occupation) could serve as an example of the "Us vs Them" attitude we're discussing.
Seems a lot like the shell companies set up in Hollywood to make movies look unprofitable. They collected a bunch of money, and it went somewhere. Now the cashflow is down so they're abandoning this shell rather than have to re-inject money to pay their debts.