Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
I also thought that the picture taking example was pretty weak. We live in an age where people take pictures of their breakfast and tweet about their poops. Picture taking is as common place as passing gas.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Originally Posted by Stuart
And those people should be locked up as well
Hey Hoosier! Thanks for your opinion. I looked up your guy; he has some non-traditional thoughts as well.
The purpose of the editorial is to make people think. Sorry you disagree with the whole premise.
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
I disagree that racism is the cause of insecurity. I think "common sense" is to blame. Just because something seems to be obvious and correct, doesn't mean it is. The problem needs to be studied, tested, theories created and tested until the best result is achieved. I know you didn't write it, so don't take my response personally. I just get tired of people whining about being labeled a racist. It's legal to be a racist, if someone wants to take that view they're totally welcome to it. Just don't act shocked when you get called out on it.
Bruce Schnier does have some non-traditional thoughts, but that's what you get when you look into security factors in depth. Many times the initial assumption is very wrong. For example, I've seen people complain that grandma got randomly selected out of the line for extra screening. Their contention seems to be that an old lady isn't a security threat, and thus should be exempt from extra screening. In reality, if old women were exempted, a new security hole is created, which would eventually be exploited. So what seems to make sense ends up producing vulnerabilities.
H.
Yes, he IS Irish!!!
The only thing I have about when Hoosier disagrees with something (which he has every right to do) is that he always gives it that "I'm right, you're wrong, and why the hell can't you see that?" twist. Then he explains what he meant, and it makes some sense.
We have to balance preserving our liberties with trying to prevent terrorism. I don't think that we're ever going to do that by relying on the Government and Police; there's no way they can do it all. But the way our society is today, if you happened across something suspicious and reported it I agree that you'd probably be the one doing the explaining, at best. I agree with Ginsue and I think PC-ness is going to be what kills this country. Political correctness is NOT the same thing as tolerance.
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Herding cats and favoring center
I don't mean to come off that way, I just get tired of the same stuff being repeated endlessly. I want us to be secure, and I think a lot of efforts we put into it are hurting more than helping. And the costs of it are staggering.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
This pretty much sums up my point of view. There's no way to live in a free society and be perfectly safe. We spend billions on countering a threat which has claimed 4000 American lives, and ignore the real problems which impact so many more. So much of the security that really affects us, like airport security, provides little to no real benefit. Every passenger and bag going on a plane is screened; but the cargo freight that gets loaded on isn't. We won't see Al Queda repeat the attack vector of Sept 11th, not because of extra screening or no-fly lists. The reason they can't use this method again is now all 150 passengers on the plane know the end game. Before Sept 11th, the hijackers wanted to go to a different destination. They weren't using the aircraft as bombs, and so the passengers didn't resist. Any mf'er who starts shouting Allah Ackbar on a plane today is going to have to get through every other passenger on that plane to breech the cockpit door.
They will attack (or attempt) to attack us again, and it will be against another relatively soft target. In fact if they're smart, they'll attack something simply because securing it is incredibly expensive. Train tracks, gas pipelines, you name it. As a response we'll poor more wealth into defending that soft target, and they'll move on to another. Our response has done more damage (economically) than their attack.
H.
In that explanation, I do agree with you, Hoosier. The heightened security isn't and was never meant to stop another attack, it was meant to make the general public "feel safer". The federalizing the airport security ala TSA was an expensive 'warm blanket and cup of chicken soup' for the public, to make them feel safe in flying again, and to keep our airlines from permanently financially crashing. It had nothing to do with safey.
I agree if another attack is to come, it won't be through the use of the airlines, it will be done some other way. Frankly, we cannot harden our country to the point of being impenetrable without the loss of a lot of liberties, that many, including myself, are not willling to give up. We will have to endure additional attacks when they come and we will have to accept losses.
Oh, and I agree with the poster who stated you come off a little "I'm right and you're wrong." You say it isn't meant that way, but your writings are very much an aggressive stance on your part. While the editorial isn't my writing, I posted it here for others to read and I agree with the writer. Right now, being labeled a racist is the trump card for the other side to shut up people who disagree with their positions, their legislation, their attacks on our society.
My $.02
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
I'm not saying we should give up ANY liberties while trying to maintain security. What I'm saying is, we can't let one trump the other. Giving up our liberties in exchange for the illusion of security is no security at all. We can't have our society the way it is and expect to be safe all the time (Although millions of people do every day, in their ignorance) but PC isn't the way to get it any more than trampling on everyone's rights. I remedy this for me and mine with my CCW. If the sheep expect the cops to protect them, good luck.
As long as we have lazy, ignorant people who like to armchair quarterback every action taken to protect them (like the Navy SEALS who might have smacked that one scumbag terrorist and then got charged for it) expect to keep their liberties while others bear the burden of providing them, I don't see things getting better.
and that's my $.02
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM
Herding cats and favoring center
Profiling, stereotypes, etc exists for a reason whether people want to admit it or not. It's not paranoia..... It's proven not to be a bunch of white girls on a ski team from Norway who are committing "acts of violence and terrorism".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote