Tweet
............................
-
-
Actually, you can have spring-loaded BB guns in China.Comment
-
....................Originally posted by treelizardAttached FilesComment
-
-
I bet some of those spring loaded bb guns would be a real help to these poor people who have nothing to protect them from an evil government that doesnt allow personal weapons.Originally posted by treelizard
Comment
-
At least you diss other country's governments too.Originally posted by BoarSpearI bet some of those spring loaded bb guns would be a real help to these poor people who have nothing to protect them from an evil government that doesnt allow personal weapons.
Comment
-
Criminal behavior and bullshit politicains know no cultural boundaries...but crooked idiots running other peoples country into the ground isnt my problem. I dont have or want a second country to run to when the one I'm from becomes too crooked and unsafe to live in, running isnt in my nature.Originally posted by treelizardAt least you diss other country's governments too.
Comment
-
Just spending all your time whining about the worst possible things that have or could happen and ignoring all the rest....hmmmm...Originally posted by BoarSpearI dont have or want a second country to run to when the one I'm from becomes too crooked and unsafe to live in, running isnt in my nature.
I'm out.Comment
-
what are you talkin about man. fighting your own government? lol, you need to hurry up and buy yourself some white tennis shoes, get a tan, and move into a Boca del whatever community down there in florida and just chill.Originally posted by BoarSpearCriminal behavior and bullshit politicains know no cultural boundaries...but crooked idiots running other peoples country into the ground isnt my problem. I dont have or want a second country to run to when the one I'm from becomes too crooked and unsafe to live in, running isnt in my nature.Comment
-
FILL ME IN ON THE STUFF YOU ARE HAPPY ABOUT OR PROUD OF Treelizard...Whats so great lately? What has the Government done that gives you hope for AMERICA? your out alright, of your mind...quotes from you like "Bruce Lee died from smoking pot" really show how on top of the facts you are.Originally posted by treelizardJust spending all your time whining about the worst possible things that have or could happen and ignoring all the rest....hmmmm...
I'm out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EmptyneSs
Yeah and you should buy your own giant hamster cage and do as your told all the time.
So shhhhhhhhhh...
Comment
-
I could do that, but it would be mostly cutting and pasting everything Brewer's already written about that you ignored...Originally posted by BoarSpearComment
-
You mean all that propagnada he posted about how wonderful things were in Iraq? the BS that the governments own reports refuted? Thats why I didnt bother, it was BS lies from the press office...Or are you referring to the chinese Oil drilling off florida and such that you and mike always avoid? look who is talking about avoiding threads...the queen herselfOriginally posted by treelizard
COP OUT from lizard to avoid the subject, gee thats never happened before...Comment
-
LOL, well since you're gonna label everything "BS" if it is positive and "the truth" if it is negative, no matter how far-fetched it is, why should I waste my time?
I choose to surround myself with POSITIVE things rather than banging my head against the wall trying to show you that you can look at the light. You obviously don't want to... This is tired and old.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EmptyneSs
Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither' -Ben Franklen
How Much Freedom Should We Trade for Our Security?
I begin by clarifying the meaning and scope of this essay’s theme. By “freedom”, I mean the basic freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution: freedom of press, of speech, of religion, of assembly, as well as all the freedoms implicitly protected, but not enumerated. By these, I include privacy, the freedom to buy and sell property, and many others, generally subsumed by the Declaration of Independence’s phrase, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
By “security”, I mean protection or assurance of safety from acts of war and crime, including acts of terrorism. I include protection from nuclear attacks, cyber attacks, suicide bombing, kidnapping, mugging, rapes, and robbery. In short, security based in the broadest sense I can imagine.
The verb “trade” implies there is a continuum of freedom, from greatest to least, and a similar continuum of security. Another implication is that maximum freedom and maximum security are not compatible in the same society at the same time. Are these premises true? I see a variety of degrees of freedom in societies worldwide, from an America, where such freedoms are protected by the highest law in the land, to Iraq and North Korea, where personal freedoms may be curtailed by the whim of a single person, the dictator of that land. I therefore agree with the premise there is a continuum of personal freedom from country to country around the world.
Is there a similar continuum of security? No country is crime free, nor is any country free of the threat of the attacks from other nations or from terrorists, so I cannot easily conclude this from example. The essay’s theme implies that denying personal freedoms, particularly privacy, search and seizure, and perhaps travel may well increase national security. Certainly if a police or defense agency was omniscient and knew all facts about every person within the country’s borders, their ability to act to prevent crime and prosecute criminals, spies, and terrorists would be greatly increased. Being able to search any person at any time would greatly limit the ability of criminals and terrorist to pursue their agendas. Documenting all travel in and out of and within a country and limiting the travel of any person at any time would also greatly aid security efforts. All of these freedom restrictions have been done in the name of security at various times, with some, but not complete success in achieving security. I therefore agree with the assumption there is a continuum of security that can be achieved on a national level.
Such draconian security efforts, while defending the nation from attacks, do not necessarily defend every individual. Indeed, such power in the hands of government officials vastly increases the opportunity for abuse. In fact, when personal freedoms have been taken away for security’s sake, such abuses have followed. This occurred in the National Socialist government of Germany and in the communist governments of the U.S.S.R., China, and Cuba. Thus, we see there is a continuum of national security, but that does not translate to personal security. The trade off is thus between personal freedom in a society versus the nation’s security. This essay will focus on this trade off.
Given that a nation is able to increase its security by reducing personal freedoms of its citizens, should it do so? The goal is to maximize both personal freedom and national security. Can a nation achieve sufficient security while retaining the full freedom of its citizens? How much security can be achieved with no reduction in freedoms whatsoever?
I stress “freedom of citizens” because given the definition of freedom and security above, it is clear that much of the threat to security comes from non-citizens. Many of the freedom restrictions given can be applied to non-citizens: immigrants, legal and illegal, and resident aliens. Suppose all draconian restrictions were applied to all non-citizens: they all had to be tracked and registered upon entry to this country and every one had to notify the police or immigration bureau when they moved. Would this be sufficient security for the nation? Such restrictions were imposed to some extent in the United States in World Wars I and II, with severe immigration restrictions and the internment of Japanese nationals, but no other freedom restrictions. German infiltrators from a submarine were caught and tried. There were no notable domestic security violations.
National borders are still porous. If the nation devoted a large number of military units, say four soldiers per mile, along with the appropriate detection and interdiction technology, the borders could be sealed from illegal immigration. The nation would still be vulnerable from traitors among its own citizens and any non-citizens that forged their citizenship. Would that be sufficient security?
Leaving that question unanswered for the moment let me ask another: how much freedom can be given up? The very basis of the United States is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To reduce any personal freedom requires the modification of the Constitution. Only three amendments have been passed in the 219 years of the Constitution that have restricted personal freedoms: Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)] Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)] and Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]. The eighteenth amendment was canceled by the 21st. Practically speaking, very little freedom can be given up under the U.S. form of government to its citizens without violating the Constitution.
Further, even given that an amendment restricting personal freedoms passed, the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. Within it, the personal rights of citizens are derived from God, not from the government. The government is formed for the benefit of the citizens. If the government violates personal freedoms, the citizens have a right, an obligation, to overthrow the government. Therefore, if three quarters of the U.S. agreed to an amendment abridging personal privacy, for example, the remaining quarter of the states and any citizens disagreeing with the amendment are obligated to either overthrow the government or form a separate, independent government.
This is such a startling idea today, that I quote the relevant portion of the Declaration below:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Thus, the question of the essay, while true in its assumptions concerning security and freedoms, is resolved by realizing that personal freedoms are not negotiable by the government. Governments derive their power from the people, in order to secure the rights of the people. People derive their freedoms from the Creator, or, in atheistic terms, by our nature of being human. Governments cannot deny our humanity or remove our freedoms. Those that do are subject to their own people, and are liable to be overthrown. The overthrow of despots by a popular revolution has occurred many times in history, proving this point.
The practical answer to the essay’s theme is to maximize border security and protection from non-citizen threats. A nation should gather information about its enemies, while protecting the rights of its citizens. To seek to restrict a nation’s citizens’ personal liberties is to threaten the nation from within, from its citizenry, while protecting it from without. This self-defeating strategy will fail, while the other strategy has not failed in the 226 years of U.S. history.
Other nations with notable personal freedom have similarly been successful at maintaining national security. The United Kingdom has not been conquered for nearly a thousand years, despite being attacked by Spain, France, and Germany. The democracies of Canada and Australia have not been conquered in over a hundred years of existence. Democracies that have been conquered, such as France, succumbed not due to personal freedom, but due to poor military strategy, such as the Maginot line.
The most threatened nation in the world is Israel. They have suffered three major wars since their creation in 1948. They are surrounded by hostile nations and have hostile terrorists mingled within their population. They have lost thousands of lives due to terrorist attacks. They still have personal freedoms while they have won three wars and while they continue to fight terrorism, even while negotiating with their enemies. If Israel can maintain personal freedoms while under attack, why cannot every nation? Why should any citizenry give up their freedoms, when security has been obtained through brave battles against enemies rather than domestic security restrictions?
I have shown that it is not possible for a nation to give up personal freedoms and remain a stable nation. I have shown that nations with personal freedoms have not been conquered, when supplied with a good military, and those that have been conquered were due to failure of the military, not due to the personal freedoms. I conclude we should trade no freedom for security, but use freedom to work for security.
Comment
-
Oh wait! I've got one! A judge ruled that the voter-approved SF handgun ban is illegal!Comment
Comment