Homeland Security; the begining of the end

I can asure you that i would be allot safer if no-one stopped me from owning and carrying a weapon, then i would depending on the cops that are 30 minutes away, and need to be called to the scene...cops only seldomly stop crimes from happening, more often than not, their role is to solve the crime that just was comitted, and bring x-person(s) to justice, that does not bring me safety, retribution for my familly? maybe, but not personal safety, only someone who's at the scene when it happens can do that, and that usually means only you and the attacker.

So now im left with only my hands for defence (if i brought my illegal gun, it could have conseqences...IE the cops NOT beeing my freinds), not enough money for a cellphone, and the prospect of crawling maybe a killometer to a payphone, bleeding heavily, so the paramedics can come 20 minutes later and declair me dead, and the cops 30 minutes later to start investigating the scene...ohh i feel jolly safe!

"Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin (1773)

The above statement describes the spirit of the foundation of this country.

These issues have been discussed countless times by many generations. You ignore history Phatcat. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. By sacrificing essential liberties we give the government that absolute power. History teaches us this power can never be wielded in a fair or just manner.

EDIT - I wanted to say one more thing. A good way to measure the corruption of the U.S. government is to see how fast you get in trouble by repeating the very things the founding fathers spoke. The people that repeat or quote the founding fathers are seen as troublemakers, or psychos. Isn't that ironic?

How many people on the four 9/11/01 planes were depending on the government to help?

Which of the four was thwarted in it's terrorist's mission? The one that the PEOPLE did something about it.

Strike one for the Government.

I can stand metal detecter here, and a X-ray there. but when we start getting into cammeras @ home, more police carry'n large gunz, and my ablity to speak my mind. I have a problem

Click to expand...

Did you read the story about the guy who was harrassed because of the book he was carrying? It had a picture of a bomb on the cover and was a nonfiction about a Greenpeace style whacko.

Don't forget and wear your Infiltration shirt to the airport. That might make you a terrorist suspect.

Exactly Technophile!

Nothing speaks louder than REALITY. Great point man.

Originally posted by RogueLeader
You still didn't address why you consider the government a protector. Asking the government to save you is like asking Hitler to babysit your Jewish baby. No government in history has cared about its people, only itself. The genocidal history of the 20th century is proof of that.

Click to expand...

well rouge
you need to look @ the GOV @ its smallest part.

the family.

you have a mother & father. they have kids, and as a unwritten law of survival they protect one another. each has a task to keep the group alive. The protection is, if one is attacked the others will come and help.

as time goes on this exteneded family, or "clan" grows. It trades with other clans and fights with others on disagreements. now lets say a clan who has a disagreement with another is unable to defend its self becasue its far to small. the logical thing would be to get help. Now you get the begining of building of larger GOV.

this is where the trouble comes in. these groups realize when they attach with others, and by force or negotiations can make them selves bigger as a whole. now we are getting into the greed for power.

Now why would you join said group? to be appart of something bigger? prehaps. More trade? Or... Protection... ahh.. with ablity to continue to live. thats a good selling point. sure you have to give up your "right" to some of your crops for the army, and those "special" higher ups because they of course did think of the whole thing and do protect me? right? right?

well its implied that they do. I mean hell if you don't deliver your not going to get to keep that seat of power. so we'll protect them, a knight here, a town guard there. sure a couple of them get killed now and then but all you have to do is put the fear in them that if they where alone... they would have to protect them selfs (wich is keeps one from work and play). hrmm... and it was only one or two... so I guess its ok... right?

thing little GOV grows and over time more rights and people are concidered ok to sacrifice for the "greater good"

So if you see, GOV in its smaller groups is a really nice thing. the group really cares for itself. now when you get modren GOV. THATS where the problem falls.

but you can't stop it. you could wipe us all out eccept for a few thousand...
and the cycle would begin again....

why dose it do this?
becasue it take only one group to fear another's potintal to comprmies there ablity to live.
the reason this all starts is becasue group A was smaller than Group B, and figured it could better defend itself by grouping up with Group C.

Basic sociology.
yes being a person sucks, we where screwed at the get go.
the best thing to do is hold your gonads in strife...

weeeeeeeeh!!

In a family, the child leaves his parents as soon as he is able to live on his own. Most problems in our society that require protection are caused by the existance of a government in the first place. Even in a capitalist system there would be almost no poverty if not for the government: just look at the turn of the century in America, when our market system was first taking off. The people were getting the shaft from the government that only looked out for big businesses. If the people could have unionized they could have at least received livable wage, but the people were outpowered by the government, which used its power to stop them from doing just that. Without poverty most crime would be gone.

Aside from crime, which the government is a major source of in the first place, I don't see where the need for government comes in. As far as the American-liberal ideology of using government to evenly spread out wealth, that never seems to work.

Confucius was right when he said, "Govern a great nation like you would cook a small fish: don't overdo it!"

Edit: The one thing that always annoys civil libertarians is the greater good argument. I stick to the philosophy that the whole cannot have what the parts do not. There can be no community right that the people do not themselves possess. The idea of community is itself an abstraction; a community is but a group of people. For the community to have a right, means nothing more than for all people who make it up to have that right equally.

I do agree with less GOV

but I don't agree on this

In a family, the child leaves his parents as soon as he is able to live on his own.

Click to expand...

now that did not start untill small GOV was formed and the children where not needed to support and protect the familly unit.

most children lived there entire lives within the family. very few left. prehaps to aquire new blood (marry other women of other clans, usually as a offering of peace)

Even if they remained within the same community or even the same household, they do not remain under control of the family.

Rousseau has the best analysis of the family in regards to freedom I can think of.

THE most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: and even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation. As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved. The children, released from the obedience they owed to the father, and the father, released from the care he owed his children, return equally to independence. If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.

This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.

Click to expand...

exactly.

ppl are very selfish. even those who are not do it for that "good feeling" which is a type of codpendence (heh kinna like me)

makes you wonder why we have sticked around so long.

wow this is a really strict way of looking @ thinks

Hmm...interesting...after thinking about that article, I started to think about the game Civilization and Alpha Centauri. You know what it seems like right now? That's right: a police state. Modified, no less, but still one. People hide their fear behind their patriotism and flags, giving up their freedom so they feel a little more secure.

I just don't want to have it stay like this, and stories like this one must be told. Otherwise we're just giving in.

And if we don't, I believe in what Einstein said:

"If there's a world war III, world war IV will be fought with sticks and rocks".

Originally posted by RogueLeader
You still didn't address why you consider the government a protector. Asking the government to save you is like asking Hitler to babysit your Jewish baby. No government in history has cared about its people, only itself. The genocidal history of the 20th century is proof of that.

Click to expand...

Amen, Rogue!

The government is using this situation to its own advantage, to slap down, in the name of "defense", unconstitutional and unjustified restrictions on our precious freedom. It's riding the wave of hysteria away from the sea of democratic freedom and towards the beach of dictatorship.

did you even read my responce

Originally posted by phatcat
did you even read my responce

Click to expand...

Me? Yes, I did.

Power belongs to the individual. It is delegated upwards to a higher, collective level for the sake of effiency and convenience. The government does not rule over the people, it works for the people.

The government does not rule over the people, it works for the people.

Click to expand...

if you belive that you have another thing come'n
the reason it still works for the people is so that it can still rule over them. its a trade off. A trade off where the people always get the short end of the stick

As usual there is a huge difference between what things should be (theory) and what things are (practice). I suggest you read The Prince by Machiavelly and then take a look at the current turn of events again, it's a very sobering experience.

You avoided my point Phat, so let me rephrase it to make it more clear.

You are sitting in youre room watching some good Anime im not aware off, having a nice time etc, im out on the town taking drugs, something goes horribly wrong for me and i blow my mind, and get myself into a vicious rage, i wander around town, and find myself outside youre house, and see the flickering blue light of a TV, and in my madness, i deside i want to kill whoever's in there, i break trough youre kitchen window, take on of youre kitchenknifes, and seconds later im in youre room ready to kill you...where will the police and/or government be able to help you here? they cant, youre only hope is to fight me youreself...with what though? i have a knife and im bloking the entrance to the door, so you cant get into the kitchen to get one youreself...this is why we need the right to selfdefence, this is allso why we should be allowed to arm ourselves for just that, and no, sometimes you wouldent have youre gun handy and that could be devastating, but just maybe, you did...thats youre one hope, and i think its better than no hope.

Now this issue is more important for me here, as my Government has left me no chance at all, even if i did get to use a kitchen knife in self defence, i would be sendt to jail for it, because self defence is illegal, i have no other option but to wait for the police, but a recent statistic tells me that in 80% of all cases, they are atleast 30 mins away...it need only take a second to get stabed to death.

Obviously i want my natural right to selfdefence back, and i allso want to have access to the best tools for that job, but i dont want to see any other country's loose this right either, that is why im saying this, especially because you yanks stand to loose that exact right right now.

The next thing the right to self defence and the access to a gun is usefull for, is to tubble a vicious Government, or just to act as a deterrent for a Government to become vicious, because the people can fight back if they do.

then the GOV steps in the take away self defence(diffrence from limiting), they are doing it not to protect you, they do it for the sake of protecting there own power. You now are praticipating in a GOV which nolonger serves you but only its slef.

In the US I can beat the sh*t out of a attacker. Especially in Texas. We have laws that make it so that if a indruder comes onto my proprety I have full right to blow the mo'fo away.

Self defence is a requirment to keep things working. If you don't have that ablity. you better have like a god-damn army of a PD (like japan).

speaking of witch I like Japan's system, but you have to notice it only work if you have a uber police force and no personal weapons. which is VERY restrictive. example of freedom echanged for security.

The problem with the Japaneese system is that, though their extensive police force does keep violent crime to youre person down, it doesent provide that extra bonus the right to a gun does, that beeing acting as a detergent for the Government to not do bad stuff.

Allso it does fail to provide compleate safety, everyone should have a personal bodyguard with them at all times to give that, but ofcourse that will not happen, so my opinion is that freedom and the access to a good tool for self defence is a better solution no matter how you look at it, for then atleast i have a fighting chance against both criminals and the Government.

I'd trust a government over the masses to provide my security any day, people in general are just too stupid to leave them with such destructive power.
Some countries simply hold the right balance, Japan as PhatCat pointed out but even a country like Germany works quite admirably in maintaining order and safety.

In a perfect world i'd applaud everybody carying weaponry, but then again in a "perfect" world it wouldn't be needed.

First of all, Fur, you wouldent be relying on others for safety, you would rely on youreself, second of all, the police are the dumb masses, i dont know about Holland, but in allmost every modern society, my own and most other European included, you have to take an Iq test, and FAIL it to get in, IQ of more than the averadge? youre not gonna be a cop.
The Government want dumb people as cops, because they wont raise so many question about what they are told to do, unlike the militarry, they have to turn their guns on the country's own populace on a dayli basis, wouldent be good if their cops where smart enough to question the morals of what they are supposed to do now would it? especially not if we are talking about beating down civil unrest or even a revolution.