Martial Law

[Bailey Guns]

What if Bostonians were not 99% disarmed?

What if our politicians had created a national, state and local attitude that ALL CITIZENS are responsible for our own, our family and our neighbors welfare instead of relying on a telephone and hiding under the bed?

What if we lived in a nation where it was known that 50% or more of the adult populace was potentially armed and trained?

What if we lived in a nation where terrorism of any kind was not tolerated?

What if we lived in a nation that did not coddle criminals or criminal behavior?

What if we lived in a nation where the death penalty was used as a deterent not just an opportunity for criminals to have access to law books that most lawyers cannot afford, unlimited appeals, 10, 15, 20, 40 years of free room and board, free healthcare, free education, now free sex change operations?

What if we lived in a nation of people that believed in their own personal freedom and personal responsibility?

I for one never called the SIP request an order. I simply called into question whether or not this could have been viewed as a training exercise for seeing how the masses will react to potential martial laws scenarios in the future. I believe that some of the measures were prudent. But timing and other measures make me wonder.

What if we didn't live in a country where we're free to vote in the politicians that pass the laws that cause some of the above things to happen? The people of MA are by and large very liberal and mostly agree with the gun laws and such. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to live as they choose? Isn't that the point of our system of gov't?

Just like in Colorado. The people spoke and the likes of John Morse and Rhonda Fields and Evie Hudak were, as far as I know, lawfully elected. I find people with their views to be very distasteful and I wouldn't piss on any of 'em if they were on fire. But they were elected as lawmakers through our system of government. The argument can be made that they are doing what their constituents want.

And how can you imply terrorism is tolerated here? On the one hand you're saying the gov't has overreached in the pursuit of a terrorist and and on the other you're saying (or at least implying) that terrorism is tolerated. Which is it?

And personally, I think the death penalty is meant to be punishment, not a deterrent. It might serve as a deterrent to some, but that's not what it's designed to do. It's the ultimate punishment.

[clublights]

**SNIP**

And personally, I think the death penalty is meant to be punishment, not a deterrent. It might serve as a deterrent to some, but that's not what it's designed to do. It's the ultimate punishment.

Isn't all punishment a deterrent?

I mean I won't modify my barrel to less then 16" or modify my AR to full-auto because of the punishment I could face for doing it. It's a deterrent.

[Bailey Guns]

Isn't all punishment a deterrent?

I mean I won't modify my barrel to less then 16" or modify my AR to full-auto because of the punishment I could face for doing it. It's a deterrent.

It is to me. Probably just semantics.

[clublights]

It is to me. Probably just semantics.

Your probably correct...

but like in my example above .. if the only punishment was to have an ATF agent wag his finger at me saying " your not supposed to do that" I'd probably do it. but the idea of going to federal pound me in the ass prison for a few years deters me from breaking those laws.

[losttrail]

[QUOTE=Bailey Guns;1095321]What if we didn't live in a country where we're free to vote in the politicians that pass the laws that cause some of the above things to happen? The people of MA are by and large very liberal and mostly agree with the gun laws and such. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to live as they choose? Isn't that the point of our system of gov't?

Just like in Colorado. The people spoke and the likes of John Morse and Rhonda Fields and Evie Hudak were, as far as I know, lawfully elected. I find people with their views to be very distasteful and I wouldn't piss on any of 'em if they were on fire. But they were elected as lawmakers through our system of government. The argument can be made that they are doing what their constituents want.

And how can you imply terrorism is tolerated here? On the one hand you're saying the gov't has overreached in the pursuit of a terrorist and and on the other you're saying (or at least implying) that terrorism is tolerated. Which is it?

Both. The possible overreach in Boston is an example.

Conversely the examples of drug cartels infringing across our border into Phoenix, AZ and other cities, kidnapping American citizens is an example of terrorism not being squelched. Our government putting up signs miles within our own border warning American citizens that Mexican drug gangs are operating in the area and it is not safe to hike, camp, motorcycle or ATV in those areas is an example of terrorism being tolerated.

And personally, I think the death penalty is meant to be punishment, not a deterrent. It might serve as a deterrent to some, but that's not what it's designed to do. It's the ultimate punishment.

If the death penalty were swift, efficient and public, it would be a deterrent. If people knew that if they committed murder, drug trafficing to children, pedophillia, rape, whatever we as society deem to be capital offenses, should they be caught in the act and/or convicted by a perponderance of evidence, would be publicly executed within 24 hours, it would be a deterrent.

If convicted of a capital offense without a perponderance of evidence, given one appeal within 12 months. If still found guilty, public execution, that would be a deterrent.

As it is there are a number of capital offense that have been committed around the country by persons that purposfully committed their crimes in states WITHOUT the death penalty because they knew they could not be put to death.

Punishment should be a deterrent as well as a consequence.

When we were little, didn't we all make some decisions based upon whether or not we would get our backsides warmed? Potential of punishment was a deterrent.

[sellersm]

What if we didn't live in a country where we're free to vote in the politicians that pass the laws that cause some of the above things to happen? The people of MA are by and large very liberal and mostly agree with the gun laws and such. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to live as they choose? Isn't that the point of our system of gov't?

Just like in Colorado. The people spoke and the likes of John Morse and Rhonda Fields and Evie Hudak were, as far as I know, lawfully elected. I find people with their views to be very distasteful and I wouldn't piss on any of 'em if they were on fire. But they were elected as lawmakers through our system of government. The argument can be made that they are doing what their constituents want.

And how can you imply terrorism is tolerated here? On the one hand you're saying the gov't has overreached in the pursuit of a terrorist and and on the other you're saying (or at least implying) that terrorism is tolerated. Which is it?

And personally, I think the death penalty is meant to be punishment, not a deterrent. It might serve as a deterrent to some, but that's not what it's designed to do. It's the ultimate punishment.

For the sake of discussion, and to continue with the "what if" motif... What if the elections weren't really what we think they were? What if they aren't as forthright and honest and clear-cut as we're led to believe? Would that change the scenery if we found out that these citizens weren't really as liberal as the election "results" would lead you to believe?

As to the terrorism comment: notice how the MSM has portrayed this "young kid". He's just a "young kid", "normal college kid", etc. etc. And the POTUS himself didn't mention terrorism, EXCEPT to say that "The FBI is investigating it as a terrorism event". He's not owned up to using the T-word outside of any other context... So how does that play in this discussion? Does this portrayal indicate to the average citizen (whatever that really means) that terrorism is tolerated? Or doesn't it?

Just my .00000001 cents in the discussion.