Rykk wrote:

> >>> If we were allowed to know the truth, innocent people wouldn't need
> >>> to be accused.
> >>
> >> How do you propose that "WE" be allowed to know the truth?
> >
> > We in the general sense. I refer to law enforcement.
>
> Then they are.

How is law enforcement allowed to know the truth, when they are not allowed to
find it?

> >> I'll also remind you that a witness in the US is not required to purjur
> themselves.
> >
> > So don't. Anybody involved can sit on the sidelines and shut up. Let the
> police find the evidence for themselves.
>
> Implanting surveilance items would be the equivilant.

What do you want to say here? That surveillance like wiretaps should be used
in investigation?

> > Let's try.
>
> Look.  Once a system such as you speak of gets in place it will destroy
> everything.

How?

> You MUST perserve peoples right to privacy. Because some CRIMES are not.

Some crimes are not what?

> Sooner or later, whatever country you live in, however benign the goverment
> is now, the goverment will turn on the people.

Why?

> It is imperative that the goverment not be given such extreme control.

Why?

> Citizens need guns,

Should they have background checks first?

> citizens need privacy. That way if some group gains control and decides that
> your groups needs to be eliminated.  You can fight back or at least hide in
> a hole until the goverment changes again.

Are you condoning armed resistance to or attacks on the government? Are
Al-Qaeda and other groups entitled to "defend" themselves the way you
describe?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I
can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"