fear the most, terrorist or our government.


PDA






wingman
December 23, 2003, 03:04 PM
Would like some feedback on what board members think on this, which do you
fear more, terrorist or our government. Perhaps fear is the wrong word, maybe
concerned./?

As a senior citizen watching news and reports of the color code change, police
carrying m16's walking the streets in large cities and the government tells us they are working day and nite to protect us gives me an uneasy feeling.
Sometimes believe I would rather have my freedom and face a bad guy
coming at me with an ak47 then to see this in our country and sad to say
I feel it will only get worse.:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "fear the most, terrorist or our government." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Pheonix
December 23, 2003, 03:07 PM
In the long run, the government will do more damadge to the American way of life than terrorists will.

manwithoutahome
December 23, 2003, 03:08 PM
The government.

M

clubsoda22
December 23, 2003, 03:21 PM
government. We're going the way of the romans.

Leatherneck
December 23, 2003, 03:31 PM
In the real world, obviously terrs. But I too am getting real concerned about the slow erosion of our liberties. Despite the fact that the .gov types are well-intentioned, such erosion has proven historically to be irreversible.:uhoh:

TC
TFL Survivor

rock jock
December 23, 2003, 03:33 PM
Right now, the terrorists. We have a great deal more control over our govt. than many on THR would give us credit for. It is generally easier to complain about the tyrannical state of our nation than to either take action through the courts and voting arena or to objectively compare ourselves to a true state of tyranny. The fact that we can even post comments like these reflects the fact that we still enjoy freedom that is the envy of the world. The terrorists, OTOH, want to not only kill you but if possible destroy our way of life, our freedom. They actively pursue that goal on a daily basis.

Actually, if the truth be told, I really don't experience a visceral fear of either. They are both to be watched carefully, and dealt with accordingly if and when necessary, but I truly feel sory for anyone who wakes up each day in America obsessed with hatred or fear of anything.

TallPine
December 23, 2003, 03:38 PM
Government, for sure.

Besides, there ain't nothin' around here worth blowin' up.

DaveB
December 23, 2003, 03:58 PM
The government will do only as much damage as we allow.

I fear the people, right and left, who are too busy to even stay awake while their own government eviserates the Constitution.

db

tn 1911
December 23, 2003, 04:03 PM
I fear our government the most. If a terrorist attacks we know it is because they hate us and our way of life. Since they can't simply control us, killing us is their only option. Our government is slowly rendering us powerless, unarmed, totally dependent sheep. Sadly, instead of saluting the stars and stripes, we'll soon salute whatever flag they offer. For our own good of course.

Michael

HBK
December 23, 2003, 04:10 PM
Our government...to a point. I think the current establishment will pass some restrictive laws with the best of intentions. Then in the future, another establishment, of the liberal persuasion, will abuse the hell out of them.

HBK
December 23, 2003, 04:12 PM
Also, we should fear any government that wants to take away our right of self defense. The intentions of a government can be seen in a look at how they treat the population, as citizens or subjects.

Ian
December 23, 2003, 04:35 PM
I like to exercise civil rights, so definitely the government. Terrorists just hurt or kill you if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. Governments actively hunt individuals and lock them in boxes.

mercedesrules
December 23, 2003, 05:37 PM
The government...whose actions provoke the terrorists.

Norton
December 23, 2003, 07:15 PM
The government....it appears they are using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to erode our rights guaranteed under the constitution.

It's the case of the frog in the pot being brought up to boil too slowly to notice....whereas a terrorist attack is more akin to being thrown into already boiling water.

rock jock
December 23, 2003, 07:24 PM
The government...whose actions provoke the terrorists.
There you go - blame the victim.

JohnBT
December 23, 2003, 07:37 PM
Neither.

The crackheads and junkies are a bigger problem.

John

Bob Locke
December 23, 2003, 09:28 PM
The government. It isn't even close, IMO, for this reason:

The government can wrap itself in the color of law while it slowly drains the life out of the Constitution. Terrorists are much more visibly evil in nature, and cannot get away with nearly as much over the long haul.

AZTOY
December 23, 2003, 10:13 PM
The government

The thing is, i'm working for the government (Army) for the next 4 years.:scrutiny:

Waitone
December 23, 2003, 10:27 PM
Terrorists
--chances of being struck by lightening are much higher.

Government
--100% certainty of confiscatory taxation
--100% certainty of abuses of the Patriots Act
--100% certainty of infringement of political free speech in the next election
--100% certainty of 2.8 l / flush in Algore's toilet
--100% certainty of increased gas prices because of boutique blending
--100% certainty of increased prices because litigation threat
--100% certainty of the collapse of social security
--100% certainty of unconstitutional restrictions on the second amendment

Just off hand I'd say the chances of being harmed by the government are a little higher than being harmed by a terrorist.

Lennyjoe
December 24, 2003, 12:56 PM
Hillary:what:

MicroBalrog
December 24, 2003, 12:58 PM
Government.

Master Blaster
December 24, 2003, 03:33 PM
Terrorists are much less of a daily threat to the safety of my family than idiot drivers on the road.

I fear my fellow americans who will vote for those who promise to make it all better (the big nanny state) and allow the givernment to choke the life out of everything that makes America great.

Chris Rhines
December 24, 2003, 07:22 PM
You imply that there's a difference between the two.

- Chris

Malone LaVeigh
December 24, 2003, 09:00 PM
I am the government.

At least a very small piece of it.

It doesn't make any sense to fear "the government", because it isn't a monolithic entity. I fear elements of our security, military, and police establishment that care more about power than about protecting us, their bosses. They get wrapped up in institutional cultures and organizational hierarchies that take over from the only real hierarchy, that they are supposed to serve us.

Atticus
December 24, 2003, 09:54 PM
Neither really....but it is certainly prudent to keep our eyes on one of them, while they keep their eyes on the other.

Edward429451
December 24, 2003, 09:57 PM
The terrorists don't hate us for our way of life. They hate us for our government's foreign policy. It dances around the globe inflicting freedom on others in 2000 pound doses. Who made US the global cop? We'd be much safer if we came home and concentrated our efforts in support of the people. They do indeed provoke terrorists and any more preservation of 'our way of life' (restrictions) will get blamed on the terr's also. The .gov is a seriously bigger threat than any terrorist.

You've got to be suspicious of a government that says "We're under attack! Quick, take everybody's weapons and liberties!!":scrutiny:

Ryder
December 24, 2003, 10:42 PM
The fact that we can even post comments like these reflects the fact that we still enjoy freedom that is the envy of the world.

This freedom will become a privilege once the government begins taxing it. It will happen soon I think.

I don't fear terrorism. We are too big, they are small and distant. Does the elephant fear the mosquito?

kcslim
December 24, 2003, 11:55 PM
I have not posted much on this forum,but I would like to try and add to this post by saying The goal of the islamic terrorist is to place the whole world under sharia that is the name for islamic law. If they have their way (which they wont) we would be governed by a taliban style government. Personaly I would take our govenrment now over any form of this Sharia crap. Please check out http://www.itshappening.com/

Freedspeak
December 25, 2003, 12:06 AM
From what I see the government is doing the terrorists' job for them, they claimed they were going to destroy the American way of life, and the gov.is doing it for them!

Freedoms restricted, rights curtailed, this or that for your own/society's good.

Sounds reminiscent of the warnings from Jefferson and Franklin!:what: :cuss:

Atticus
December 25, 2003, 01:11 AM
I agree that our foreign policy is pretty bad at times, but I can't help but believe that :

The 911 attacks don't happen = we don't invade Afghanistan.

Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait - we leave Iraq alone and Saddam does not start his covert war against the US (including an assassination plot against President Bush Sr.).

Serbians don't murder Muslims en masse, and invade neighbors- we are not in Kosovo.

Long term solutions often result in painfull short term consequences....
and the duration of those terms is the real issue. However, the beauty of our system is that we can always vote for change.

stevelyn
December 25, 2003, 01:16 AM
The government for certain. If the terrs attack at least most of the people will be outraged enough to support retaliatory strikes. If the govt. attacks most people will go along with it and buy the govt's story. Look at Ruby Ridge and Waco, then look at what USA PATRIOT sets us up for if you think I'm wrong on this one.

DigitalWarrior
December 25, 2003, 01:54 AM
It is in the risk analysis

Terrorism: small region affected, limited duration fo attack. Worst possible result is being severly maimed. Death is not so much an issue. Attacks do not affect my way of life, nor my posterity.

Government: Whole US affected, duration limited only by the laws of man and nature. Worst possible result: Slavery, starvation, censorship fear and death for me and my progeny for the next 200 years.

As far as likeyhoods are concerned, I think that they are equally certain over time.

Terrorists will attack again. They will kill a whole bunch of people.

The voters are concerned with being protected. They will give consent for the gov to increase it's powers.

omega5
December 25, 2003, 09:56 PM
Over a 170 million civillians killed by their own government in the last century. I know who I fear the most.
:(

longeyes
December 25, 2003, 10:14 PM
Both. Excess begets excess.

Both have the power to lay waste to everything most of us here value and would fight to the death to protect.

As for elephants and mosquitos, elephants are a shrinking, endangered species and mosquitos have destroyed millions at last count.

lee n. field
December 25, 2003, 10:48 PM
Government.

rdbrowning
December 25, 2003, 11:11 PM
When the terrorists attack it seems to bring out the best in the people of America, ironically it makes us take pride in our strength and we act strong again.

It's not the government per se that I fear, it is those that have taken it over to further their ideas of right and wrong. Remember that we were founded as a republic and not a democracy, but you never hear that mentioned, we are always refered to as a democracy. It sounds like a case of semantics, but the differences are important. The best description that I have heard is that in a democracy, 50%+1 determines right from wrong. In a republic there is an absolute set of rules defining what is right and wrong. Ever since the 60's we have heard the never ending chant "there are no absolutes, everything is relative". Our founding fathers did not feel this way. They used terms such as "We hold these truths to be self evident...", "the right... shall not be infringed".

I'm afraid that it is not the outsiders that is destroying us, it is the insiders that, under the disguise of freedom, will remove everyons freedom by removing the infra structure that supports it, the sense of right and wrong and the sense of personall responsibility.

longeyes
December 26, 2003, 12:12 PM
It's not an either-or. The socialist types have been working for decades to undermine Constitutional values here. That doesn't mean outside terrorists aren't also a serious threat, on a different front. If you think your culture can't be crippled, perhaps terminally, by terrorists with access to modern weapons, you are naive. What these two groups have in common is their collectivist bent. Socialism, Sharia meet in collective priorities and mind-control.

berto
December 26, 2003, 12:32 PM
The Government,incrementalism.

CMichael
December 26, 2003, 02:25 PM
Terrorists. Frankly, I think the government has done a great job handling this war.

71Commander
December 27, 2003, 08:40 AM
Government

#1 reason: Ashcroft

artherd
December 27, 2003, 09:09 AM
The same government that says I can't own an AR-15 to defend my home.

NC Shooter
December 27, 2003, 09:47 AM
In the long run, our Government. The Constitution is being eroded bit by bit by both parties. We are losing our freedoms and most Americans don't seem to care. Sad.

Hopefully, there will be a great awakening in this country before it is too late. May the rebellion be peaceful.

DaveB
December 27, 2003, 01:45 PM
Just you wait...
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW12-17-03.gif

db

seeker_two
December 27, 2003, 04:15 PM
Without a doubt--Government.

The terrorists can only kill a relatively small number of people at a time.

They can't suspend habeas corpus...
They can't suspend the Bill of Rights--fully or piecemeal...
They can't disarm the populace...
They can't investigate & prosecute the "unpatriotic"...
They can't keep the southern borders open & unprotected...
They can't use the courts to chip away at our most sacred traditions...

...only Government [B]has done so.[B]

After the '00 Elections showed the deep division, we're heading for a future not unlike modern-day Northern Ireland. A future where the two sides (the Constitutionalists & the Federalists) will fight each other in the streets w/ bullet & bomb. And our government will come down hard against the Constitutionalists. This one won't be like the last Civil War w/ two distinct uniformed armies. This one will be guerrilla warfare pure and simple--a war of Unintended Consequences and Enemies Foreign & Domestic.

And I mourn the day that it finally comes...:(

jimpeel
December 27, 2003, 05:20 PM
The government, of course. They can hurt us under color of law, and for our own good, while claiming a "higher moral purpose".

Remember, the Nazis did what they did for "the greater good".

rage
December 27, 2003, 05:33 PM
the government!


I'm very concerned that the slow erosion of our rights has shifted into a faster gear with Patriot II.

feedthehogs
December 27, 2003, 05:49 PM
Main Entry: fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
Function: verb
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
intransitive senses : to be afraid or apprehensive
- fear·er noun

If we use the definition of fear, then by all means its the US Government.

While the deaths of 9/11 by terrorists are tragic, the deaths of 100 times that amount from the goverment limiting your ability to defend yourself against criminal attact becomes more important.

If the US government would allow firearms carry on airlines, the 4 planes would have never been hijacked. Deaths maybe would have occured, but not to the extent it happened.
All the state and local governments are just extensions of the federal government in their ability to limit personal protection.

The US is still by far the best place in the world to live and I love it, but according to our founding documents we have back slided quite a bit.

Those who don't think so need to study those documents and the letters and writings of the founders.
Just because we have some freedoms, doesn't mean its right.

We also need to quit playing dodge ball with those terrorists. They kill one of ours, we kill 1000 of theirs.
Don't cry if we do, we'll be just like them.
They brought the fight to us and made the rules. Its time we played the same game.

Growing up in south Philly I took boxing lessons as a kid. First time I was jumped by 4 kids I tried playing by the proper boxing rules right before I got a club to the back of the head.
Since then, anything goes...............................

longeyes
December 27, 2003, 08:29 PM
"The terrorists can only kill a relatively small number of people at a time."

I'm sorry but that is blatantly delusionary. Not only can the terrorists cause enormous casualties if and when they get large-scale weapons, something that is hardly implausible, but they can cripple our infrastructure, and hence our economy, with relatively conventional weapons. They can also do grave damage to our cultural legacy, something not to be underestimated. I find the complacency in this area a bit shocking and can only ascribe it to the fact that a lot of people on this board live far from major urban centers and somehow consider themselves invulnerable. Well, how invulnerable will you be if, for example, one or more major interstate highways are taken out of commission for several months?

That said I share the general distrust and concern about our own Government. But can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?

Jim Diver
December 27, 2003, 08:50 PM
The gov of course.

They even control how I order my burgers at the local restuant... for my own good of course.


I fear what the gov will do to protect me from the terrorists... in stead of letting me defend myself.

jojo
December 27, 2003, 08:56 PM
The government, without hesitation.

DaveB did make a very good point when he said "I fear the people, right and left, who are too busy to even stay awake while their own government eviserates the Constitution."

jojo

johnr
December 27, 2003, 09:26 PM
I can deal with terrs better than the government. FWIW.

feedthehogs
December 28, 2003, 08:53 AM
and can only ascribe it to the fact that a lot of people on this board live far from major urban centers and somehow consider themselves invulnerable


Invulnerable is not the correct term. Self sufficient would be better.
Those that continue to tie themselves and the welfare of their families into the economic structure of the world and depend on that weekly paycheck to survive will fall even in light economic down turns.

The trend of thirty something kids moving back in with their parents is proof of this because they can't survive on their own.

Owing the bank for everything only limits your ability to survive economic down turns.

I built a business from scratch, no borrowed money, only money saved from working 3 jobs as a young guy, in the recreational industry.
First economic down turn and the money comming in dried up and competitors were dropping like flies. Me, I took most of those tight 8 months off and went fishing. Why? Because I had the fore sight to understand those times and not become a victim of them.

Since 9/11 alot of people in my industry have gone under or suffered major cash flow problems. I have grown.

If the world came to a crashing halt today, my family would survive for a fairly long time.
A small farm for food, precious metals for bartering and plenty of arms and ammo for protection.
I pray to God it never happens, but like keeping a fire extinguisher handy even though I've never had a fire, you prepare for the worst.

I also live with in 60 miles of a nuke plant and major city and long ago developed an evacuation plan if the nuke plant blew and the dust was heading our way.
I guess this thinking is also part of having lived in Tornado alley and now live in Hurricane alley.

After seeing what Andrew did to Miami, man made disasters don't hold a candle to old mother nature.

Solinvictus70
December 28, 2003, 10:25 AM
There are certain elements in power who benefit from terrorism and the threat of future actions. Right now, the Bushistas have quietly passed parts of Patriot 2:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/94248.php

Now, that being said, who's a greater threat to Americans; a group of Arabs who it seems have already hit us with their best or a group of power hungry corporate stooges who will stop at nothing to stay in power? This goes for both sides of the aisle because ironically enough, the only resistance I've seen to the Patriot acts and the carte blanche given to Bush has come from two men I strongly dislike; Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Contrary to several who said they fear Hillary Clinton, she has walked in lockstep with Bush's agenda and offered no opposition to any of his destructive policies. Why? Because the current batch of Democrats care more for their position than the American people. Bob Barr, an arch conservative, has been the most vociferous in his opposition to this power grab. Wait until the government starts shutting down websites and message boards in the name of security. I really hope that I'm wrong, but I believe we're heading for dictatorship. All the warning signs are there.

TallPine
December 28, 2003, 12:31 PM
[QUOTE[Hillary Clinton, she has walked in lockstep with Bush's agenda and offered no opposition to any of his destructive policies[/QUOTE]
And I bet she can't wait to get into the White House and exercise all of the new Patriot Act powers.

Actually, she might not mind waiting, because the longer Bush is in office, the more absolute power the next president will have.

Il Duce
December 28, 2003, 02:19 PM
I can't believe what I'm reading on this thread...:eek:

To think our gov't poses more of a threat than Islamic extremists flying planes into our buildings, killing thousands of people and throwing our economy into disarray in one fell swoop is absolutely moronic. :fire:

We're still the most free country in the world. We still have the power to change the direction gov't takes. We have only ourselves to blame for anything the gov't does. If we want to piss and moan about how far gov't extends its power, we better darn well be doing something about it...perhaps educating those people to your right and left who are having trouble waking up.:cuss:

And as for that AR-15 you're not allowed to have...I'll be the first to say you have the right to own one, but an AR-15 isn't going to do diddley against the guy behind you in line who decides to make himself a walking landmine.:scrutiny:

That said, the terrorist threat is far more of a danger than the gov't...heck, and I'm a libertarian for cryin' out loud...:uhoh: We'll deal with the gov't in due time. Meanwhile, how about we gain some perspective on this whole issue.

longeyes
December 28, 2003, 04:40 PM
I've already posted my view that too many on this board greatly underestimate the terrorist threat. I like the idea of self-sufficiency as well as the next guy--it's part of my future plan--but I'm also aware that self-sufficiency is a relative thing and means more in a nation that is in a normal and prosperous state. That is to say, it is one thing to resist economic downturns through comparative self-sufficiency; it is quite another to believe that because you live on a farm you are going to ride out any kind of massive civil disturbances because you can grow food and have plenty of ammo. For a while maybe, and then...?

Let's hope we never get to that point. Let's hope we find the will to use whatever force we need to in order to neutralize the sources of foreign terror. Let's hope that this Government comes to its senses about the need for border controls before the people themselves are forced to handle that matter.

pax
December 28, 2003, 05:04 PM
longeyes,

I think it's safe to say that too many people in America greatly underestimate the dangers of out of control government, and overestimate the danger of terrorism.

On one end of the scales, we can put 160,000,000 lives -- people snuffed out by their own governments in just this past century alone.

On the other end of the scales, we can put the 3,000 people killed in one day on American soil, by fanatics who plotted the attack for years and who (because they had no government to back them up) had to steal even the planes to manage it. That was the largest and most effective attack any terrorist has yet managed to do; previously they had managed a few hundred (the Marine barracks, the flight over Lockerbie in Scotland) at a time, and more often just a mere handful at once (suicide bombers, for example).

Assuming that terrorists could manage a feat similar in proportion to their most effective attack every single day for 100 years, the final toll at the end of the century would be around 109,575,000.

109,575,000 < 160,000,000+

Those numbers show us that in the past, tyranny has reliably been far more deadly than terrorism.

Will it continue to be so in the future? If terrorised Americans continue to build a tyranny upon the remains of this formerly great republic, I think our grandchildren will be able to answer that.

pax

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham

Black Snowman
December 28, 2003, 05:06 PM
Well, for now if I'm attacked by terrorists I can try and protect myself and be done with it. If I'm attacked by the government there's not anything I can do to win . . . the government is far more threatening to my life and liberty than EVERY terrorist combined.

But that's how terrorism works. It undermines it's enemies not through the damage it's attacks do but the resulting damage it does as the society tries to protect itself from a relatively minor threat. What massively disproportionate amount of resources have we employed in the war on terror after a single major state-side attack? Probably more that Israel has since it's creation.

These wounds fester into opportunities for those who would take our rights and control our lives to plant the seeds of control. People will give up a lot in an attempt to feel protected regardless of how paper thin that protection is.

We may have "won" the cold war but the war on tyranny is eternal and many don't wish to take a little risk now but would instead sacrifice their descendants in the inevitable revolt to regain what was given away. :cuss: WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! :banghead:

Tim Currie
December 28, 2003, 07:18 PM
The government will do only as much damage as we allow.

I fear the people, right and left, who are too busy to even stay awake while their own government eviserates the Constitution.

Yup.

longeyes
December 28, 2003, 09:39 PM
Pax,

You don't have to convince me that government tyranny is a clear and present danger and has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. I am aware of that; I conceded the need to be ever vigilant when it comes to governmental oppression. I put liberty as priority one. Better the random violence of individual crime as a cost of liberty than the "peaceful" oppression, and maybe outright extinction, of millions from collectivist autocracy.

However, your arithmetical example is specious. At some point terrorists will get hold of weapons beyond fuel-laden 747s. We can hope that they don't but we can expect that they will, despite our best intentions. Modern weapons have the ability to kill not only seven at one blow but seven million or seven times that. Want to wrap your mind around a smallpox attack? Or a series of "small" nukes? The genie is out of the bottle, and before this is done we will all be not only revising our mathematical projections but recasting our moral assumptions about what is and isn't "permissible."

444
December 28, 2003, 10:00 PM
Hands down, the government. No quesiton about it.
I see terrorism as something that can't really happen to me. I have never actually witnessed what I would call an act of terrorism. I think the chances of me being a direct victim of terrorism is remote.
I see the government as being totally out of control. I see them impact every aspect of my life in a negative way. I am well aware of how they can completely ruin my life at the drop of a hat. I know this is a lot stronger possibility than a real act of terorism.
Call me paranoid, but I don't think it is completely safe to make a post like this in an open forum like this.

Baba Louie
December 29, 2003, 11:52 AM
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself —nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days. FDR's Inaugural Address

We ARE the government. We vote for our representatives every 2, 4 and 6 years. On the whole, they've done a pretty good job, with an occasional slip-up now and then.

Those who would terrorize this nation and its people seem to respond to actions of our government for the most part.

You may disagree, but I thought that one of our basic tenents was to help others in this quest for freedom. (Why should we be the only miserable ones?)
Presently, certain Islamic jihadist groups, who disdain any form of governing bodies but their religious leaders, have declared open warfare on US; masking their actions by calling it Bush's war for Oil or Big Business or helping Israel or liberating Saudi Arabia from US presence.

Should we FEAR them? No

Should we fear our own government who pretty much while being THE bull in the china shop, gives aid (in way of our monies) to just about anyone in the world who wants/needs it? Who is almost always first to offer help, or in the case of backing 17 worthless U.N. resolutions against Iraq to put some actual muscle where the UN's mouth is...?

We should FEAR that? No

We should, and do, I believe, be proud of that...

Maybe I was brainwashed as a young Boy Scout, maybe my parents didn't raise me right, maybe I live in a country where people actually DON'T WANT to escape from their own form of government to for a reason...

Or maybe, "The only thing we have to FEAR, is FEAR itself"

longeyes
December 29, 2003, 12:25 PM
Only the dead are fearless. Human beings fear; the brave ones control that fear. A rational assessment of danger is part of a warrior mentality as far as I'm concerned.

FDR's job was to inspire, and he did that well. But he wasn't on the battlefield.

TallPine
December 29, 2003, 07:23 PM
Yeah right, FDR is the one that started this country on the road to socialism..

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 01:36 AM
444 states "Hands down, the government. No quesiton about it.
I see terrorism as something that can't really happen to me."

You must have forgotten the 9-11 incident already to make that statement. 3000k+ in one swoop.

Now match that figure for me by our government please.

I'm waiting---------------------------------

Brownie

Tag
December 30, 2003, 01:55 AM
brownie,

how many people have had their lives destroyed by the state for what amount to either victimless crimes or the exercise of rights guarenteed in writing yet not recognized? I'll bet it's alot more than 3000.

the prison population has dubled since 1985 IIRC.

now that might not equate the the senseless slaughter of innocents IE. 9/11, but this :cuss: happens every day.

spartacus2002
December 30, 2003, 09:19 AM
Hmmm, let's see, there were those Tuskegee syphilis tests, and there were the Japanese internments during WWII, and the burning of Atlanta, plus those pesky 10s of 1000s of Indians in the 1800s, and Waco, and Mrs. Weaver... You're right, Brownie, our govt has never committed an atrocity.

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 10:24 AM
Internments were not killed.

Soldiers are not citizens, they belong to uncle, remember?

The burning of Atlanta during a war, again not the gov, it was one mans idea of winning.

Yes, and poor Mrs. Weaver and the Waco crew, they don't equal 3000k+, not even close.

And lets not forget our own countrymen and fellow citizens when they take hostages during the commission of crimes, they are terrorizing the populace as well on a daily basis.

And lets not forget our own countrymen who perform home invasions, think they are not terrorizing others with their actions?

Or how about armed robberies in public, they are terrorizing the populace as well. Lets not forget our own citizens who pray on others in this country are are terrorizing the populace daily on the streets.

The jails? Please, I'm suppose to believe that they are all innocents sent to prison for a victimless crime? Yes, ask anyone of them, they'll tell you they are innocent.

Anyone else want to come up with numbers the gov has killed vs. the terrs?

I'm still waiting--------------------------

Brownie

Teufelhunden
December 30, 2003, 10:36 AM
I fear terrorists; I don't trust the government.

I've been saying for a while now that I trust the .gov to only work in the best interests of the .gov

-Teuf

dischord
December 30, 2003, 10:50 AM
We all had been sinking slowly in this quicksand for quite some time, and then these rattlesnakes jumped in and made us all thrash around and sink faster. I cannot really say whether I fear the rattlesnakes or the quicksand more.

Master Blaster
December 30, 2003, 11:07 AM
OK Brownie I'll bite,

Vietnam 52,000 young men sent to their deaths for ????????.

No offense to any vietnam veterans you served bravely.

The point is that our government is not yet a military dictatorship, but it seems that some are heading that way.

spartacus2002
December 30, 2003, 11:12 AM
And lets not forget our own countrymen who perform home invasions, think they are not terrorizing others with their actions?

Ah, thanks for reminding me about the DEA and ATF; in how many wrong houses have they caused heart attacks or "lead poisoning" ?

stevelyn
December 30, 2003, 11:21 AM
Yes and poor Mrs. Weaver and the Waco crew, they don't equal 3,000+, not even close.

At least when the terrs took our 3,000+ we struck back at two countries responsible or indirectly responsible in the pursuit of justice.
I don't recall any of the JBT govt thugs responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge ever being held accountable for those acts of terrorism.
I DO recall a black-robed govt jacka$$ judge rubber stamping the govt's version of the Waco terror attack forever robbing those victims of the justice they deserved.:banghead: :fire:

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 11:28 AM
Master Blaster:

As a wounded combat veteran of that war, I do not share those feeling that you express about the gov sending us to our deaths. I would guess the majority of combat vets also do not share that view as stated. Nor do most share that view about being in Iraq or Afgannie at this time.

Good men tried and died, for the rights you have to make such statements about the wars soldiers have died in like they were facts when it's really just an opinion you have.

If you are going to go that route, lets not forget ww1 and ww11, then Korea as well. Ya, our citizens were sent to their deaths by the gov for no reason other than to get them killed right? Hardly-----sounds like a liberal point of view to me.

And lest we forget, of the 52,000+ who died there, many enlisted of their own free will. From your statement, if one didn't know any better, one might get the idea that they were forced into serving, some were, many were not. How is one who enlisted [ like myself ] sent to thier deaths by the gov?

As to entering wrong houses, causing heart attacks and killing innocents, those were done with forethought and malice? --No, they were mistakes, ???? happens, get over it. You'd think everyone was perfect and never made mistakes, the way you write it here, they were intentionally killing the wrong people. Nice try----doesn't wash----------

And lest we forget this little fact on that subject, the gov types save many more hostages and innocents from harm than they mistakenly injure. Oh, I'm not supposed to mention the good outweighing the bad, that doesn't make your case right?

I'm still waiting------------------------

Brownie

DigitalWarrior
December 30, 2003, 11:58 AM
brownie0486,
And lets not forget our own countrymen and fellow citizens when they take hostages during the commission of crimes, they are terrorizing the populace as well on a daily basis.
You scare the hell out of me sir. If we permit the expansion of the label "terrorist" even one whit, we are all truly screwed. You see all of those insane laws that are only applied to people "suspected of terrorism". They would now mean the guy who drives badly and too fast inspiring terror in older and wiser drivers.

I do not believe this government has killed 3,000 of it's own people yet. DO NOT CONFUSE THAT WITH AN INABILITY OR EVEN A DISINCLINATION TO DO SO Mao's cultural revolution hadn't killed anyone, until it did.

However, keep in mind that we ruin thousands of lives a year over victimless crimes. Anytime any government supresses a freedom, they make the exercise therof a crime. We jail people for crimes.

I stick by my assertion that terrorists concern me little. They can kill me. They cannot make me a slave. What happens when 51%of people say that we need to bypass the legislative and judicial gridlock until the war on terror is won?

I fear driving driving WAY WAY WAY more than terrorists

Edited to add:
Actually I think that is a great way to look at it. Terrorists, in their wildest dreams, are about as evil as the auto industry. If terrorists could kill as many people as cars, they would view themselves as amazingly successful.

Master Blaster
December 30, 2003, 11:59 AM
:rolleyes:

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 12:44 PM
DigitalWarrior:

I don't mind scaring people, it happens.

The thread didn't state "classic terrorist", just terrorist vs. the gov.

Ask anyone who faced the gunmans will with a rifle in that Texas tower, think the people on the ground were not terroized by the hundreds?

How about the two LA thugs and that debacle. Think there were any people terrorized in the streets by their actions?

Our own citizens terrorize neighborhoods to the point normal folks are afraid to leave their dwellings 24/7.

These are all forms of terrorism on the populace.

I'm just a little more concerned about the gangbanger on the street attempting terroize me and mine than the boggeyman .govs.

Brownie

spartacus2002
December 30, 2003, 12:51 PM
And brownie's thread illustrates the EXACT problem with the War on Terror.... the slipping definition of terrorism to suit govt's needs.

Terrorism is NOT whatever makes people feel terror. Terrorism is the application of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve clearly defined political goals.

How about I expand the definition of "police" to mean any honest law-abiding armed person?

longeyes
December 30, 2003, 01:20 PM
This is an amazing thread. I wish I could be as unworried about terrorist attacks as most of the people here. Maybe you know something I don't know.

"Terrorism is the application
of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve clearly defined political goals."

Baloney. Non-state actors? The Al-Qaeda? Who is kidding whom? More likely TRANS-state and pan-cultural. The Moslem world is responsible for its delinquents. Sooner or later that will be factored in to our response, if not by Bush, who wants to make sure the world is kept safe for global markets, then by his successor.

I too worry about our Government, but our Government is reflecting many other institutional forces in this society.

fix
December 30, 2003, 01:21 PM
No reason to fear either independently. I am concerned that the combination of the two could lead to a situation where I would fear my fellow citizens. Terrorist murderers+kneejerk politicians+quivering masses=trouble.

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 01:28 PM
Now match that figure for me by our government please.

Two words: Civil War. How many died so that Lincoln could "preserve the Union" while sacrificing the states' rights and personal rights? (Of course, it was never declared as a war b/c that would have given legitimacy to the right of secession...:rolleyes: )

As a LEO (currently retired, IIRC), you were a representative of government. And the prevalence of attitudes like yours in our governmental agencies is the reason why I fear the government far more than any terrorist...:fire:

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 01:48 PM
spartacus2002 stated "Terrorism is NOT whatever makes people feel terror.

Here's one of the definitions of terrorism, guess that throws your statement out the window.

[ terrorist:

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation;]

Think the gang bangers don't use intimidation of others to get what they want?

The civil war was just that, a war. Haven't you ever heard of "alls fair in love and war"?

People seem to try to keep bringing up some war that the gov was involved with as examples to be able to use the numbers of people killed in those wars as more than the terrorists have committed upon the US and it's citizens.

If you folks that fear the gov more than the standard bearer terrorist overseas, perhaps it would be wise to live in their back yard and not here.
I'm sure they would take you in with open arms just because you are an American.

I've not stated the gov has no faults, doesn't make mistakes, doesn't at at times overstep their boundaries upon the citizens. What always amazes me are the amount of people who post here that purport to be in fear of the gov types to the point paranoia sets in and they then make statements that the gov has killed more of our own than the terrorists. Not hardly, and by a long margin.

Using wars as examples is not relevant to abuses and deaths upon the citizens of this country as much as some would like that thoght process to be established here. I see no one has bothered to continue that discussion here after I replied to anothers thinking citizens were enslaved to fight in VN or any other war. Their called patriots, not slaves "sent to their deaths" by the gov.

I'm still waiting-------------------

What, no one, not one of you can give me an real example of the gov killing more citizens intentionally than the terrs in this country?

I'm waiting--------------------

Brownie

444
December 30, 2003, 02:04 PM
brownie0486
My statement was in reference only to how I personally view things and their impact on my life. Again, I may be naive, but I consider the possibility of my being a victim of real terrorism (my definition of terrorism) to be remote. Thus far the only impact it has had directly on MY life is the increasing erosion of my personal freedom and privacy which is the direct result of the US Government's response to the terrorist threat.
This becomes all the more acute with my being a gun owner. I realize all too well how easy it would be to make me out to be something I am not because I own guns, have fair quantities of ammunition, reloading powder etc. in my home. Maybe a few books out of the mainstream in my library. Or maybe a website I clicked on once to see what it was all about.
I can easily see how a story could be concocted and aired on the nightly news that would make me out to be a monster. And it wouldn't really have to deviate from the facts a whole lot, it would just have to be spun the right way.
Another victory in the war on terror.

The question seemed to me to be how I view the situation in my life and not how it has impacted the Amercian populace as a whole.

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 02:30 PM
444:

Understood. Please realize that there is a cause and affect going on here as well.

The tightening of security since 9-11 across the board which will or has affected you and others is a direct result of the terrorists and their actions against the people of this country.

You feel the effects of the responses the govs have had to make in order to better preserve our way of life. There will always be a plus and minus to all actions. To gain something, you give somethign up.

Many are not willing to give up anything in lieu of better controlling the threats from abraod and inside this country by terrs.

They are likely the same people who cry about what they perceive as the gov initiating measures indiscriminately after 9-11. "No, you can't do that to me, I don't care that it makes it harder on the terrs, I'm only interested in myself" attitudes.

Because the gov might do something like raid the wrong house, they would ban all raids to thrwart the druggies, hostage takers. Hell, innocents might get injured in the process, can't have that now can we. Where's the sense in that logic? Are we to just let the gangers have their way with us and never assault them in their lairs for fear an innocent may be injured in the process?

Fearing their mistakes is one thing, fearing them as you believe that they are "out to get you at every turn" borders on the paranoid where perception becomes a reality for these people, hence their outcries and unfounded fears the gov is out to get them at any moment.

I'm still waiting on someone to show me I need to fear the gov more than the terrs of the world and can prove the gov [ through examples ] has killed indiscriminately more people than the terrs.

I'm still waiting--------------------

Come on folks, you that fear the gov more than terrs, lets here some real numbers that equate to the 9-11 numbers. You make the claim you fear the gov more than terrs based on what numbers? If you can't produce any real numbers I guess I'll have to fear the terrs more than the gov types.

After all, the terrs take your freedoms away by their actions which the govs are reacting to make it safer to move about the country. It's cause and effect. Not one person has been able to give me any real life stories of the govs killing indiscriminately more people or that they pose a direct threat of doing so in the future like the terrs will do if they can.

As it is a given the mission statement of the terrs is to destroy our way of life and us with it, you people think the gov has the same mission with it's citizenry? Please-----------------

I'm still waiting--------------------

Brownie

444
December 30, 2003, 02:40 PM
There are a lot more things to fear than death.

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 02:42 PM
Funny thing about death.

Once it has ocurred, you no longer have to worry about anything else.

Brownie

444
December 30, 2003, 02:52 PM
But, in the mean time......................

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 03:08 PM
The civil war was just that, a war. Haven't you ever heard of "alls fair in love and war"?

brownie: Care to show me where in the Congressional Record that the United States officially declared war on the Confederate States of America?

Care to show me where the US officially declared the Confederates NOT to be American citizens--due the same rights and processes afforded to every American?

Care to show me where the Constitution it says that--in times of crisis declared by our President--that the Constitution and the BOR can be thrown to the wayside and freedoms can be curtailed?

Can you show me that the United States government did NOT order the deaths of thousands of Southerners in order to "preserve the Union"?

In a nutshell, I fear YOU. I fear your like-minded bretheren who hold governmental positions from the Presidency, the Attorney-General, Congress, and positions all the way down to your local LEO. I fear people that have no qualms about abolishing the freedoms that our forefathers fought and died to protect. And I fear those that will ridicule, coerce, and silence those who oppose them. And today, that IS our government.

I'm still waiting--------------------

Me too....for what we'll lose next...:uhoh:

Obiwan
December 30, 2003, 05:22 PM
I fear "the people"

They (WE) get the government that they (WE) deserve....

I heard the more people voted for "American Idol" than in the last election.

The government gets its power FROM the people....

And a good share of the more crazy ideas!

brownie0486
December 30, 2003, 08:35 PM
seeker_two:

I could say the same thing about VN, just a police action right?

Wrong, it was war, how do I know? I was there.

Brothers died in that war, and it was a war, call it anything you like or dislike to.

Doesn't change the fact men died in a war against ideological differences.

Brownie

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 11:29 PM
And how many of the Viet Cong were American citizens?

And how was action against the Viet Cong or the NVA an abregation of civil rights?

And how come you haven't addressed the questions of my last post?


I'm still waiting--------------------

Me too...:rolleyes:

brownie0486
December 31, 2003, 12:24 AM
I answered your question. The civil war was a war, whether congress assigned that title to the action or not.

I think the boys who fough it would tell you it certainly was a war, just like VN was a war.

Why it happened is history. How it happened is history, are we now to assume the powers that were back then are still the threat everyone seems to make them out as now? Two different time frames. And don't forget, there were volunteers on both sides not just conscripts being 'sent to their deaths" as another postured here.

So, back to the question, lets here about the thousands the govs have killed maliciously. I've seen a lot of people posture their ideas with no valid numbers reaching the one event of terr on 9-11 yet. Lots of folks, looking for numbers reverting to a war story to get their numbers up, that doesn't wash.

Then there are types who'll post about civil rights violations, rights being restricted, etc etc ad naseum. Thats not the subject here. Numbers of those killed maliciously by terrs far outnumber anything the gov has done to it's own people here in the US.

And in the future, I hope those numbers do not increase, but they surely will.

Posts like the po po who make mistakes and injure or kill innocents is just a little off topic here, but people seem to like to rag on the LE a lot here. When the reality of it is, if you don't like the laws, you need to address the issues and get the laws changed so the LEO's don't have to uphold stupid laws.

So lets stay on topic, lets see the numbers that everyone conjuers out fo thin air here. I haven't seen them yet, and until I do, I'll feel the terrs are the bigger threat to this way of life.

Oh yes, is there another country you prefer to the US? If you are that repressed and fear the gov will attempt to kill you, hell I'd suggest they move to Sweden, perhaps Switzerland. Theres a reason people beg, borrow and steal to get into this country, if one can't figure out why, go live in another country for awhile and let me know how well you have it there.

Brownie

TallPine
December 31, 2003, 12:45 AM
is there another country you prefer to the US?
No, and that is all the more reason to be concerned about what we have(had) here. There is no place left to go.

Terrorists can kill some people.

Governments can enslave everyone.

brownie0486
December 31, 2003, 02:30 AM
Because govs can enslave doesn't mean they will. There are other countries to go to that don't enslave as well. Hope thats not where all the paranoia exudes from here.

I could get hit by a car tomorrow, doesn't mean I should fear crossing the street, I hope.

Does anyone feel enslaved here in the US? If so, perhaps a reality check by heading to some real nice countries with histories of these abuses would make one see they really aren't being enslaved here.

Again, there have been and will always be abuses through design, negligence or mistakes. Never said it hasn't happened, just that the numbers do not support to decision to fear uncle as much as the terrs. Afterall, they have a mission statement and are training their children to carry the torch for decades to come.

Brownie

jungleman
December 31, 2003, 03:21 AM
Government

BB93YJ
December 31, 2003, 03:28 AM
Some good points on both sides. Oh, and Brownie, thanks for your service and blood spilled. I am sure you served with honor sir. Well done!

I love the United States. It is without doubt the greatest country this world has ever seen. Warts and all. Not perfect, but assuredly "A more perfect Union" than any before, or since.

However, that being said, it cannot be argued that our liberty isn't slowly being eroded bit by bit. That scares me. I am fifty years old, and I can easily think back to when things weren't so regulated by our political machine called government. (But hey, it's for our own good.)

I'm sure there are a lot of people on this board that can recall being able to purchase firearms through the mail up intil 1968, for one example, or you could go down to the hardware store and buy whatever pistol you wanted, as long as it was an S&W, Colt, or Ruger, or a surplus Luger or P38 maybe, or one of the $18 Mauser 98's in the wooden crates with the swastikas marked out. No paper work to fill out, just hand the clerk the money and it's yours.

In Israel, people still get on busses, in spite of the fact that the bus they ride that day may have a wacko walking explosive Arab boarding with them. Same here in the U.S. as far as the chance of a terrorist, of the Al Queda kind, punching my ticket, I'll take my chances with them.

The absolute power that our government has scares me. Yes, we elect them every 2, 4, or 6 years. However, things still seem to be getting worse as far as our liberties go. I am alarmed at the lack of courage our courts, (especially the Supreme Court), have shown in backing the Constitution in matters of law. You read this board as much as I do, so you know what I am referring to. The "Patriot" Act? Good God, Patrick Henry would turn over in his grave if he knew this abomination was passed by the very government for which he had fought to establish.

We, (all Americans), are the government, through our elected officials, (disregarding another abomination called "McCain-Feingold"), but how many of us Americans truly know what the Constitution and B.O.R. say, and/or how they apply to us and our liberties? My answer would be, very few. As long as it doesn't interrupt the average persons' comfortable little life, what do they care, until it is too late? (The frog in the water syndrome)

Go out and ask 10 people on the street what the AWB actually bans and see if they know. I'd bet most of them would reply that it bans machine guns. They won't take the time to find out. Too busy just living their lives. Why would anyone need one of those things? Besides, there's no real sporting purpose for an AR15 anyway, is there? (I don't own one purely for the purpose of punching holes in paper, it is used for that, but is also partly, as one 9th District Court judge referred to, somewhat of a 'doomsday' piece of equipment. He was of course referring to the 2nd Ammendment.)

Those in power know this is the status quo out on Main Street, Anytown, USA.
They are in a much better position to exploit this than the terrorist of the Muslim persuasion.

If the government can acquire a power, they will. Have you seen any instances of where, once they have it, they give it back?

That scares me.

DigitalWarrior
December 31, 2003, 04:40 AM
Brownie:

Risk assesment is (Potential Damage) x (Likelyhood) = (Total Risk)
Are you the type of man who does not think his house can catch fire because it hasn't?

I do have other points:
1. Not counting innocent prisoners (victimless crimes) is insane, because the government can pass a law by giving it a nifty name like "The Patriot Act". It is easy to be a criminal if freedom is illegal.

2. Calling any action where Americans died a War is insane, because war is a power held by congress. Not the President. The most important part is that you know when a War is over. When did Korea end?

3. Saying that freedoms are lost because of terrorists is insane, because last I checked terrorists can't make laws to curtail freedoms.

4. No government has ever called it's victims innocents.

Because govs can enslave doesn't mean they will.
Do not mistake that to mean that they will not.

Things my argument is not:
1: America is the least free country.
2: Everyone in America is a slave
3: Terrorists are not a problem
4: All prisoners are innocent
5: People who died in Vietnam did not die honorably

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 12:03 PM
brownie: First, thank you for your efforts in Vietnam. They are appreciated, and I'm glad you made it back.

DigitalWarrior & BB93YJ pretty much summed up my arguement. I will add a few points....

Afterall, they have a mission statement and are training their children to carry the torch for decades to come.

Terrorists are training THEIR children. But the government is training OUR children to give up certain rights (refusal of search, private property, gun ownership, etc.). If you want sources, just do a search of THR for all the topics relating to schools that we've discussed. Most schools receive federal & state funds; and, in order to keep those funds, they have to teach certain curriculum. And those topics will show just what the government is wanting our children to learn...:fire:

When the reality of it is, if you don't like the laws, you need to address the issues and get the laws changed so the LEO's don't have to uphold stupid laws.

I find that statement insulting to the many LEO's I know who actually use their brains to think. Just because a law is a law doesn't mean that it is morally or constitutionally right, and I know many LEO's who won't enforce them for that reason. Look at how many LEO's are refusing to help the Feds enforce Patriot Act statutes. I'm afraid that "just following orders" is as much of an excuse now as it was at Nuremberg. :banghead:

Oh yes, is there another country you prefer to the US?

Yes. The United States of decades ago when the phrase "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" meant more to our elected officials than just an ancient ceremonial phrase one said before going to the office & passing oppressive legislation that would have made King George & Josef Stalin proud.

Let me ask you a question, brownie. Which type of lawman do you prefer?: Marshall Dillon (Gunsmoke), Sheriff Andy Taylor (Andy Griffith Show), or Samuel L. Jackson's character in SWAT? :scrutiny:

brownie0486
December 31, 2003, 01:45 PM
Well, it would not be Andy Taylor, he didn't carry a gun.
I'm not familiar the Jackson character you mention.
I'd have to say Dillon here.
Reasoning from my memory of the show---------he enforced the law objectively.
When one he was after actually helped save his life in several episodes, he still took him into town as he was obligated to do but would then speak to the persons actions in helping him to the courts in an attempt for consideration of their actions.

Yes, I agree the gov needs to stay out of the schooling as well. They have no business there determining what young minds should be hearing politically. Stick the three R's, which the schools have not done for quite some time now.

When I worked in LE, we had two types of laws in this state. Shall and May laws. May laws gave us discretion in our enforcement. Shall laws did not. If I had the option of discretion I used it objectively, if I did not, I upheld the law to the letter lest I be brought up on charges of misfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of my assigned duties to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth.

In a domestic call, if I saw a battery of another, I arrested one or perhaps both parties involved. I did not have a choice. Even when the wife begged to not take him away to jail and would not press charges, I was obligated to take him anyway by law. That particular scenario has been played out all over the country where the officers left the parties to work it out as neither wanted to press charges only to later respond to a murder at the same address because they did not take the party out of a violent situation.

Traffic tickets, I stopped them for any violation, never gave a ticket unless the party professed they didn't know what they had done wrong. Then they got an explanation in writing.

I stayed objective in dealing with the public, gave them breaks when allowed and didn't when not allowed. Not every cop was so kind, I understand that and know where others have problems with these types of enforcers.

I appreciate all who have thanked me for my service to this great nation. Really though, no thanks are necessary to my thinking as I felt obligated to serve my country to preserve what we enjoy here in the US. Sometimes it seems it was for naught, but one has to atempt to make the a better life for the next generation coming up.

Brownie

mercedesrules
December 31, 2003, 05:14 PM
(brownie0486)Because the gov might do something like raid the wrong house, they would ban all raids to thrwart the druggies, hostage takers. Hell, innocents might get injured in the process, can't have that now can we. Where's the sense in that logic? Are we to just let the gangers have their way with us and never assault them in their lairs for fear an innocent may be injured in the process?
Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh? Highly immoral! No wonder you can't see other posters' points.

MR

N3rday
December 31, 2003, 06:09 PM
Definitely the government.

Do you realize how many democratically elected leaders we have overthrown to be replaced by our own military dictators?
We have always been about OUR money FIRST. Bin Laden is an example.

We have been trading with all the 60 something Bin Ladens for years, and we know that they have in the past, and probably will in the future, house terrorists. 'Dubya' is just too financially dependent on the rich Saudis and their oil to give a crap about anyone's freedom, or even their lives. We knew he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. We wanted oil, we took it, and now Haliberton is swimming in pools of it.
Which, by the way, should be illegal. The Spoils System is unconstitutional.

Oh, and by the way, Gore really did win Florida. Really. Many of his votes were discounted by a system that matched criminal records. The system threw out thousands of blacks who hadn't commited a felony, but whose names or birth dates were similar to those who had.

I'm not saying I have a preference for Gore, I just don't like Bush. We need our rights back. 1st and 2nd amendments have really been tossed around recently. People misinterpret really simple laws to say really complex things, i.e. the "National Guard" crap the antis are running with. ALL of the bill of rights applies to individuals, and that includes the 2nd.

Now you got me sounding like a liberal. jeez:uhoh:

We just need an honest president. One who will look at facts before he decides an issue.
"oh, look! The AW ban had no effect on crime? Well what is it there for? cancel it!"
We need a gun-toting president who gives tax cuts to the middle and poor classes, not the rich.

manwithoutahome
December 31, 2003, 06:35 PM
N3rday,

Not to hit a nerve here, but you do understand the electorial system don't you?

It's not the "popular vote" that gets a person in.

It's called the electorial college, which is a batch of folk we don't know, in each state, that makes the vote that counts.

They have the opinion of looking at how the people voted and vote accordingly, or they may make their own decision.

We don't elect presidents, they do.

So Gore may have won the "people vote" (even if votes were cast out) but he didn't win the electorial vote, and that's the only vote that counts.


M

MicroBalrog
December 31, 2003, 07:02 PM
Because the gov might do something like raid the wrong house, they would ban all raids to thrwart the druggies,

"Stop taking drugs or I'll shoot!" doesn't sound too moral to me.

Maimaktes
December 31, 2003, 09:06 PM
The government, of course. I don't even have to think about it.

The *only* reason the September 11 hijackers were able to succeed as much as they did was because *the government* had already violated the heck out of ordinary, honest, *American* travelers' 4th and 2nd (and probably 5th) Amendment rights.

We disarmed, herded, tagged, tracked serfs *are* the government?! LOL!

We disarmed, herded, tagged, tracked serfs can *control* the government?! What a joke!

We still enjoy freedom in this country, as proved by the fact that we can still (for the moment) post frank comments on a message board without a bunch of guys with MP-5s in ski masks or Darth Vader costumes kicking in our doors and throwing in grenades?! ROTFLMAO!!

Think about all the freedom you still enjoy the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason by some LEO who feels fully justified in pointing a Glock at your head, and even pulling the trigger multiple times, if you say "No" or just ignore him and turn your back on him when he wants you to grovel on your knees or belly in the mud, for *nothing*, or if you refuse to hand over the pistol he already knows you have a permit to *legally* carry to "check to see if it's stolen."

Of course he's justified, because he "wants to go home to his family at the end of the shift." Well, gee, maybe we mere mortals and commoners would like to go home to *our* families at the end of our journeys too! Maybe we're really not all scumbags and dirtbags and subhumans just because we're not paid by the government to carry guns and to accost and confront people in the most belligerent, provocative manner possible. Maybe we're just your fellow Americans trying to get to work, or home from work, or home from the store, or from the shooting range.

This will be a free country again when you and I and the next guy -- even if he's unshaven, unwashed, unemployed, has long hair, and drives an old car with one headlight out -- have the full, free *exercise* of *all* our rights -- *not* privileges -- *all* the time, in deed not just in word, and in fact, not just in theory, and definitely not just when the police and those who cut their checks find it convenient or safe *for them* and for their paychecks and pensions.

This country was not established for the convenience and safety of the police. In fact, at the time, the Redcoats were the police.

"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Believe it.

Maimaktes

N3rday
January 1, 2004, 01:57 AM
The point I wanted to make was that Gore actually got the popular vote in Florida, though it was given to Bush because the recount was stopped before we could get a true count.

brownie0486
January 1, 2004, 02:40 PM
MicroBalrog:

Ever seen a crack baby born to a crackhead in a ward where the tab is picked up for their medical bills by our tax dollars?

Ever seen what drugs cause desperate people to do to others? How about what the dealers will do to anyone who gets in their way [ like innocent civilians ].

Ever seen what effect drugs have on crime within the communities? Ever had your house broken into by a crackhead looking for goods to pawn for the next fix?

These are not crimes against people? Law abiding people?


Maimaktes stated "Think about all the freedom you still enjoy the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason by some LEO who feels fully justified in pointing a Glock at your head, and even pulling the trigger multiple times, if you say "No"

Show me one case where that has happened, I want actual documented proof, not your hypotheticals to further your mindset and justify your reasoning. The way you speak it sounds like the cops are out there shooting people in the head while behind the wheel on the roads here in the US on a regular basis. Of course we know thats not true so why would I take anything you have stated above as the truth. More rantings with no documentation, makes one want to question their motives in even mentioning it doesn't it?

And oh yes, about the quote. "the next time you get pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason"

Are you suggestiong there is never a reason for LE's to pull their duty weapons at traffic stops? I sure hope not as that would again show your neivity as to what they are actually doing on the roads.

I've yanked mine a few times, bank robbery suspects, cars matching the description in the right area in the right timeframe. I suppose I should have thrown caution to the wind and approached the vehicle of three adult males like they were little old ladies from Pasadena according to you right? Where do you people come up with this stuff? Totally illogical in nature. Now let me ask you a question.

You are put into the same scenario of a traffic stop of a vehicle involved in an armed robbery. You're gonna do what when you approach the vehicle? Ask them if they are the ones who just robbed the bank and to please give it back? Relying on them to be decent uman beigns and not blast the crap out of you? You won't survive very long on the streets that way I suspect.


mercedesrules: Thats correct sir. Mistakes are made daily, I suspect you make mistakes yourself quite often enough to not be calling the kettle black as well. That innocents are mistakenly raided, shot is regretable, but because a mistake may be made certainly doesn't negate the fact the criminals have to be taken down. I can see others points as noted, it's you who seems to think the cops are the only people to make mistakes in this world. Their mistakes can and do result at times in innocents being injured. To then make statements that it was done with malice or should not be done at all because mistakes can and will happen borders on ?

You could be involved in a car accident, I hope that means you won't put yourself in a car, after all, it's happened to others and can be avoided entirley right?

There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

Holier than though? Is that it?

Brownie

seeker_two
January 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

If you have not taken every precaution to prevent a mistake from happening (checking your pistol's chamber, knowing what's downrange, rereading the warrant to confirm the address, etc.), then it becomes a moral issue...

...especially when you plead innocence for yourself and your organization in your "mistake". Or claiming that your "mistake" wasn't a mistake at all--just law & policy.

I'm not perfect. I'm not always right. But I'm not a duck, either. But I don't have to be perfect, right, or a migratory waterfowl to know what each one looks like. And what you're spouting doesn't hold water compared to that.

mercedesrules
January 1, 2004, 04:15 PM
(brownie0486)Ever seen a crack baby born to a crackhead in a ward where the tab is picked up for their medical bills by our tax dollars?
The evils of socialism, not drugs.

Ever seen what drugs cause desperate people to do to others? How about what the dealers will do to anyone who gets in their way [ like innocent civilians ].

Ever seen what effect drugs have on crime within the communities? Ever had your house broken into by a crackhead looking for goods to pawn for the next fix?
These are not crimes against people? Law abiding people?
The evils of the war on drugs, not drugs, themselves.

mercedesrules: Thats correct sir. Mistakes are made daily, I suspect you make mistakes yourself quite often enough to not be calling the kettle black as well. That innocents are mistakenly raided, shot is regretable, but because a mistake may be made certainly doesn't negate the fact the criminals have to be taken down.
The crux here, brownie, is that I am against the war on drugs and all that it entails and causes: the surprise entries, the corruption, the high prices for drugs, the resulting burglaries and robberies, the tremendous costs, the draconian penalties and the loss of liberty. I just don't think that any collateral damage is justified to capture potheads (or any other peaceful drug user). The violence is all due to the "war".
I can see others points as noted, it's you who seems to think the cops are the only people to make mistakes in this world. Their mistakes can and do result at times in innocents being injured. To then make statements that it was done with malice or should not be done at all because mistakes can and will happen borders on ?
The war on drugs "should not be done at all".
You could be involved in a car accident, I hope that means you won't put yourself in a car, after all, it's happened to others and can be avoided entirley right?
Driving my car has a benefit I weigh against the potential for cost. The war on drugs has no such benefit.

There nothing immoral about making a mistake. I would suggest if thats the case we are all immoral, including yourself. Care to comment about your perfect lifestyle where you have never once been wrong or mistaken? I'd certainly like to hear this one.

Holier than though? Is that it?
I don't consider forceful-entry raids with casualties as "mistakes"; I consider them home-invasion attacks. Collateral damage during a drug raid is no more excusable than the bombing of Hiroshima.

Sure, I make mistakes. That's why I don't go around armed trying to enforce my code of private behavior on others by force.

MR

brownie0486
January 1, 2004, 05:05 PM
mercedesrules:

Mentioning Hiroshima, now I understand your mindset behind your thinking.

No basis in reality.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brownie

Maimaktes
January 1, 2004, 05:30 PM
Well, Brownie, it is almost too obvious to point out that all these social ills caused by drugs are happening now, under drug prohibition.

How desperate would people be to get drugs if the drugs were legal and cheap? What would drug dealers be willing to do to anyone in their way if the drugs were legal and thus no longer commanded a vastly inflated "street value"? Who'd fight big, bloody turf wars over something that wasn't profitable anymore, because the bottom had fallen out of its price?

*Documented* proof of bad police shootings. Hmm, that won't be easy to come by. Nearly all police shootings, even of completely unarmed, non-resisting (or only "passively" resisting) citizens are found justifiable. I know of a few highly questionable ones since about 1988 in my geographical area, but I didn't save the newspaper clippings, and they aren't on the Internet, and I don't have anything like total recall, so I can't cite you chapter and verse, or give you all the names and agencies involved, or the dates. Having less than perfect recall, and lacking a lot of linkable information at my fingertips is not quite the same thing as being a liar, however.

At *this* link

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/whackstack.php

can be found quite a number of police shootings, many of which are at least "questionable." Not all that many of them involve parked motorists shot in the head, but a good many seem to involve people who were shot for little more than being uncooperative, or just not compliant enough fast enough. Some of the casualties weren't even shot with firearms, but were done in by various other methods. (Asphyxiation seemed to be popular.)

The most egregious case I've heard of recently is unfortunately *not* on this list. It involved a man shot in the back and being, not killed but merely paralyzed for life from the chest down, as he walked (not ran) away from a cop shouting threats and pointing a gun after him.

The cop said the guy made a "furtive movement" (which turned out to be sticking his hands in his pants pockets as he walked away -- lots of people walk around with their hands in their pockets most of the time, especially in cold weather), and the Grand Jury refused to indict. This appeared to be mainly because the paralyzed guy actually was a minor street level drug dealer with drugs in his possession at the time he was shot in the back as he walked away, ignoring the cop, and thus committing "contempt of cop." Unfortunately, I cannot recall for certain even what state this occurred in (except that it was a western state), let alone the city, or the names of anyone involved.

Here are two links to a story that was prominent about a year ago. It does involve a traffic stop and a headshot, though not to a human being:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/09/police.kill.dog/

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/01/26/story334568.asp


Some of the stories to be found at this link are instructive as well.

http://keepandbeararms.com/default.asp


"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Maimaktes

brownie0486
January 1, 2004, 06:21 PM
Actually there are plenty of bad police shooting stories to be had. These, however involve individuals actions against another, not the dept policy or status quo likely right?

Plenty of cops being repremanded, jailed for misfeasance. In the papers all the time actually. That doesn't make it an everyday occurence in this contry like some would have us believe.

Whether actions are taken against these people for misfeasance, negligence or a capital crime is not the issue really. They are individual crimes by individuals.

To then post you are in fear of the gov over terrs because of someones criminal actions which have no basis in a discussion about the threat of either in general terms seems odd.

The "gov" encompasses many entities. To then cite various individual illegal or wrongfull actions by individuals as the "gov" and react with paranoia about the boogeyman is out to get them mentalities like it is the accepted norm and status quo of the larger body it's comprised of is not accurate or correct. The fear of such which that makes one pick the gov as more dangerous to them over the terrs does not have a factual basis.

The gov, or boogeyman isn't laying in wait for you at your doorstep or at every turn. Take the number of times mistakes and intentional wrongdoing have occured, even the ones if you like where it was questionable so we don't get anyone thinking the numbers were scewered, and divide that into the number of people in this country it could potential happen to. I think you'll find the percentage would be so small as to be laughable at the thought it's number could make so many people pick the wrong real threat to their safety.

Edited to add: I just did some calculating to look at the numbers that could be used on both end of the scale. If 50,000 people had been killed by one who governs 300,000,000, the percentage would be .00002% of the total population. If 2,500 had been killed unjustly by the misdeeds of the gov total the percentage would be .00001%. And thats if the gov killed that many every year. Think those figures are realistic year in and year out? I'll have to be shown that thankyou before I consider the gov more of a threat to me than the terrs.

The percentage of calculated as if it happened every year. Take any number of years, say 20-50 yrs and the percentages will go down from there when extrapolated out as to how many percentage wise have been so wronged/killed by the gov over a few lifetimes.

These percentages do not support your paranoia of gov folks.

Brownie

seeker_two
January 1, 2004, 07:50 PM
The gov, or boogeyman isn't laying in wait for you at your doorstep or at every turn. Take the number of times mistakes and intentional wrongdoing have occured, even the ones if you like where it was questionable so we don't get anyone thinking the numbers were scewered, and divide that into the number of people in this country it could potential happen to. I think you'll find the percentage would be so small as to be laughable at the thought it's number could make so many people pick the wrong real threat to their safety.

Edited to add: I just did some calculating to look at the numbers that could be used on both end of the scale. If 50,000 people had been killed by one who governs 300,000,000, the percentage would be .00002% of the total population. If 2,500 had been killed unjustly by the misdeeds of the gov total the percentage would be .00001%. And thats if the gov killed that many every year. Think those figures are realistic year in and year out? I'll have to be shown that thankyou before I consider the gov more of a threat to me than the terrs.

And, just because it's such a small statistic, that makes it OK to ignore? :scrutiny:

Whether actions are taken against these people for misfeasance, negligence or a capital crime is not the issue really. They are individual crimes by individuals.

Individuals who wear the badge & take the orders of a government who looks the other way (remember the Waco "investigation"?). I guess those ATF agents were also "individuals" too?...:rolleyes:

These percentages do not support your paranoia of gov folks.

No. We have people like Bush, Ashcroft, & the other Patriot Act supporters to do that for us...:banghead:

brownie0486
January 2, 2004, 11:07 AM
And you think the Dems are better? Or is it just the politician de jure of the day you are not happy with.

Yes, I think the numbers in percentages is insignificant, don't you? Certainly not worth the paranoia people seem to share here about the boggeyman coming to get them in the middle of the night. I didn't say ignore it, just that one has let his paranoia run rampant unnecessarily about the issues at hand.

If anyone thinks the percentages are worth the paranoia stated here by some I would have to guess they will not get behind the wheel of car as the potential percentages of death by one are much greater.

Better chance of being hit by lightening, hope all you folks have your talismans working overtime when you step outside daily.

I don't see the paranoia, until the numbers support the paranoia, I'll look to the terrs not the gov as the dangerous ones and be realistic in my logical conclusion that the terrs are the more dangerous ones.

I'm still waiting-----------------------------

Brownie

mercedesrules
January 2, 2004, 11:50 AM
mercedesrules:

Mentioning Hiroshima, now I understand your mindset behind your thinking.

No basis in reality.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brownie

You're welcome, but this post proves my points, not yours.

MR

TallPine
January 2, 2004, 12:03 PM
I don't see the paranoia
I don't see any paranoia either. Someone asked a question as to which was the greater threat, terrorists or government? Most of us say govt; you say terrorists - are you paranoid of terrorists ...? :p

The chance of being killed by a drunk driver is hundreds of times greater than being killed by a terrorist. Neither is very likely. At least, not very many people have chosen to quit driving or riding in a car.

What is very likely is that given an incremental increase in control and corresponding decrease in civil liberties, a (our) government will eventually become a totalitarian dictatorship. Not this year, not next year, maybe not even ten years from now, but at the current rate almost certainly within 50 years. Generate enough paranoia about terrorists, and we (not I, but most) will vote it in. The Germans did it - are we smarter than they?

I probably won't have to worry about it, but I don't even won't to think about what kind of life my grandchildren might have. Probably, they will just become accustomed to it, being born into it, and it won't bother them all that much.

But what would Thomas Jefferson say about the current state of government in the USA ...?

brownie0486
January 2, 2004, 12:04 PM
mercedesrules:

Yes, it proves your point, you are a paranoid with no basis in reality.

I see no one who has answered the gov is the more dangerous of the two give any real evidence in significant numbers that their worries are founded in significant facts which warrant the paranoia and "grandstanding" here with others who are as quick to decry the govs actions in anything.

Hiroshima, they got what they deserved. And in the end it saved millions of lives by dropping them on two cities. If you were up on history you'd know that the japanese were never going to surrender, they had the populace set in their minds that the US would torture everyone of them and they were ready to fight to the death, every last one of them for the homeland which would have happened. That would have cost more Americans lives in the tens of thousands. It was the lesser of two evils and considering we were attacked first and they drew blood first, they got exactly what they deserved.

Oh, and then we helped them rebuild their country so they are what they are today instead of what they could have been [ the 51st state ].

Brownie

seeker_two
January 2, 2004, 12:11 PM
Yes, I think the numbers in percentages is insignificant, don't you? Certainly not worth the paranoia people seem to share here about the boggeyman coming to get them in the middle of the night. I didn't say ignore it, just that one has let his paranoia run rampant unnecessarily about the issues at hand.

Yes, it proves your point, you are a paranoid with no basis in reality.

And if you're willing to choose "a little bit of tyrrany" over "no tyrrany at all", I worry about YOUR concept of RIGHTS and FREEDOM. :rolleyes:

And that's something pretty scary to see in a "peace officer"...:uhoh:

Kaylee
January 2, 2004, 12:15 PM
and that's about enough of that. Take it to PMs gentlemen.

If you enjoyed reading about "fear the most, terrorist or our government." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!