MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Agreed. I have to discuss this stuff at work enough.
Terrorist attacks, a worrying new trend?
- Thread starter devon deer
- Start date
Agreed. I have to discuss this stuff at work enough.
dustinf
Active member
I'm more concerned with protecting us from ourselves. Drunk driving, cancer, obesity, and young white kids shooting up elementary schools/movie theatres kill more Americans than terrorists.
The fact of the matter is, you can get killed walking your dog.
Enjoy every moment of everyday, and die having lived a happy life.
katqanna
Well-known member
...given your formative longevity in MotherTexas, I fully understand the imperiousness of your comments.
Disclaimer: Any imperiousness is solely the byproduct of academic and scientific research.
I swear.
RobG
Well-known member
Don't you think it is the price of liberty? The Constitution was put in place because the founders knew it would be hard to accept the "collateral damage" of not living under surveillance to catch every criminal. The gun crowd should understand this best of all - some 3000 people per month are killed by guns in the U.S. yet you and I know that infringing on our rights is unacceptable. By comparison, less than 3000 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the entire history of the country, yet far too many folks are demanding that the rights of innocent Americans be stripped to "protect" us from these extremely unlikely events. Stated differently how much will you give up to protect your loved ones when the likelyhood of them being murdered by a gun is hundreds of times greater than by a terrorist?
That this war on terror will be our undoing has been known for some time:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
James Madison, Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29)
Live free or die I say...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Thread killer...right there^
Couldnt agree more.
Couldnt agree more.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Well written Rob,
Let me clarify syntax....collateral damage inflicted on the bad guys. How much do we have the stomach for?
...agreed on gun control...let's enforce existing laws. Hell, let's even hold attorney generals accountable for arming the most reputable of our southern neighbors...then let's apologize to them for 'our' gun problem.
Let me clarify syntax....collateral damage inflicted on the bad guys. How much do we have the stomach for?
...agreed on gun control...let's enforce existing laws. Hell, let's even hold attorney generals accountable for arming the most reputable of our southern neighbors...then let's apologize to them for 'our' gun problem.
Starting today I'm sticking to hunting. There's enough dumb opinions in those threads to argue about without trying to save the world.
RobG
Well-known member
I'm not sure what you are asking. If you mean U.S. citizens that are labeled by our National Police as "terrorist" or "enemy combatants" they need the same rights are everyone else until proven guilty (then they need the same rights as the guilty). The Constitution offers no exceptions to due process for people merely labeled by the Executive Branch because it is a small step for them to start labeling groups they want to oppress as terrorists. By groups to be oppressed, I include you Mr. Gun Owner and threat to the safety of the Union.
That's my opinion.. the human tendency towards mob mentality has given the general public plenty of stomach for it on scant evidence provided by someone other than our peers.
Last edited:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
...shoulda stopped there.
I'm with pa mt man..would rather suffer the spectre of .270 bigotry than feigned naivete cloaked in linguistic legerdemain.
rhomas
Banned
Rob, would you consider someone like Al Awalki who had basically denied his rights as an American citizen and was absolutely an enemy combatant who was advising Al Quaeda on ways and means to attack our country while actually living with and sharing a bed in a terrorist camp; the same rights as guaranteed under the Constitution? Wouldn't it be rational to consider his actions as treasonous and therefore his execution by drone without due process a reasonable action (especially considering that he was no longer on US soil)?
RobG
Well-known member
Awlaki was a U.S. citizen assassinated without due process. There was no checks/balances, just some guy in the Obama administration decided Awlaki needed to be taken out. For all we know, Awlaki may have just been a guy on the internet who labeled Obama as a Muslim and then said we needed to kill them all (like you did). With that "evidence" then Obama trumped up the terrorist stuff as a cover (it almost worked with the AP harassment, right?). No I don't believe that, but given your paranoia I'd expect you'd find it plausible. Why do you choose to trust the Obama administration on this issue? Don't you see the slippery slope?
rhomas
Banned
I don't trust anything that comes from Obama, regardless of what it is. In the case of Awalki, there was plausible evidence from sources other than the White House, including Awalki's own internet site and his postings. Just as in the case of Iraq's WMDs, there was sufficient evidence from multiple sources outside of the US that provided the intel used by the Bush administration. Doesn't it make a case for action, when sources outside of the US, including some sources who aren't necessarily friendly to our country, provide the evidence??????
RobG
Well-known member
I believe the Bill of Rights was created because in the heat of the moment we have to avoid what seems obvious and satisfying because those things are paths to abuse and ultimately tyranny. If all this was easy the Bill of Rights would not have been necessary.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I agree Rob. In order for the bill of rights to work, people need to be responsible and take care of themselves and their families. This is the greatest threat we face as a country, a growing portion of our society is turning into a bunch of irresponsible infants who say they want freedoms, but don't understand what they are asking for. Having the freedoms the Bill of Rights gave us also obligates the individual to a burden of responsibility most Americans don't want.
dustinf
Active member
I don't know.
Is the life of an innocent American killed 9/11 more valuable than the life of an innocent Afghani killed by a US bomb?
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
It sounds like you are advocating we should have done nothing following 9/11.
I know it is easy on the conscience to be the victim, because you never have to bear the burden of what the costs of your actions might be. There is a small portion of the population that has to live with that burden for the rest of the country, whether it is appreciated, or not
. So, under what hypothetical scenario would, you personally, be willing to physically fight for your way of life? When they close all hunting on public land?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
...how many Afghani lives were saved by 9/11? You really see no difference?
dustinf
Active member
I should have clarified, I was using Afghanistan as an example because we had to go to war there(which I support 110%).
I was just trying to point out dead is dead. Right or wrong is based on our point of view.
dustinf
Active member
There's a big difference when looking at the big picture.
rhomas
Banned
So doesn't it make anyone wonder how many innocent American lives were saved by killing Awalki? Couldn't there be a case here for sacrificing one in order to save hundreds if not thousands?
I will agree that if he had been living here in the US, and had not relinquished his citizenship (which he did incidentally when he declared that he was no longer an American Citizen), then the actions taken would have been a violation of his rights under the Bill of Rights. However; considering all of his renunciations and declarations, can we honestly still say he had any rights as an American citizen????????
Now if we want to discuss American citizens who were denied their civil rights, then we can begin by naming Randy Weaver, David Koresh and all of the other Branch Davidians. Isn't it a fair assumption to believe that the Clinton DOJ and AG Janet Reno were guilty of major criminal activities, that far exceeded the drone attack on Awalki??
I will agree that if he had been living here in the US, and had not relinquished his citizenship (which he did incidentally when he declared that he was no longer an American Citizen), then the actions taken would have been a violation of his rights under the Bill of Rights. However; considering all of his renunciations and declarations, can we honestly still say he had any rights as an American citizen????????
Now if we want to discuss American citizens who were denied their civil rights, then we can begin by naming Randy Weaver, David Koresh and all of the other Branch Davidians. Isn't it a fair assumption to believe that the Clinton DOJ and AG Janet Reno were guilty of major criminal activities, that far exceeded the drone attack on Awalki??
Similar threads
