[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

I agree, and whilst I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul, I will wholeheartedly applaud his filibuster of the PATRIOT act renewal. Of course, the USA Freedom Act has since come in which could be seen as PATRIOT lite, but it was a good effort nevertheless. The problem with something like the PATRIOT act and the 'War on Terror' is that civilian surveillence can actually be used to prevent terrorism, but at what cost? Do we take the risk of another mass terrorist strike on the scale of 9/11 while keeping the government out of our private lives, or accept the intrusion for our safety?
It's not an easy question to answer, Ben Franklin did say that those who would sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of a little safety deserve neither, but who could have foreseen in his era the deaths of nearly 3000 civilians in one horrific day?

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

That touches on another massive question which is, like race relations, not solely an American problem, and that's the relationship between the public and the police, and the gradual erosion of trust between the two. I think as the public have become more aware of some of the abuses perpatrated by the police they are often focused on these issues rather than the good. Perhaps this is also a part of the race relations problem in that people get focused on the negative aspects of it more than the positive ones. Media plays a heavy part in this, but equally we cannot solely blame media for it only parrots to us what we want to see from it, otherwise it would not profit from its demographically targetted audience.
In that way you can also see why politicians lie, because who would vote in a politician that told hard hitting truths?

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

Very true indeed, and I think that the internet is both a cure and a problem with this. The internet has opened our horizons to thousands of different opinions, but we as a species tend to flock towards those who share the same viewpoints, Roof most likely was partially radicalised by the internet, instead of opening his mind to the opposite viewpoint of his beliefs, he chose as many do, to embrace and cement what he already believed in and to dig deeper into that, to radicalise to the extent that he believed that he had a mission to save America from the blacks.
Of course, that is speculation at the moment, but I doubt he would be the first to walk that road, sadly.