Category: Let's talk
Its undeniable that september eleventh, the seven seven bombings, various shootings around our country, and all the Terror seen in the middle east has profoundly effected many of us. for some of us in our community living and working in or near dangerous situations is just a fact of life in our world.
though, after seeing the bombings in boston, after seeing the latest attempted poisonings of government leaders, its clear some are starting to panic.
i've seen quite a few tweets on twitter from both the famous and non famous alike that make it clear that they'd give up just about all privacy and dignity for just a little safety.
In your opinion, is the patriot act worth it? What about CISPA, the greater push for wire tapping social networks and online activity, drones in the skies, audio and video cameras recording everything on streets, busses, trains...what about the pat downs experts claim are ineffective, but make people feel safer when boarding plains...
Is the way our countries, laws and expectations are changing really worth it, for a little security?
Apart from the terror plots that the FBI has cooked up and foiled, what proof do we have any of this works?
when videos on youtube show you how to sneak knives and guns past the TSA, and even the inspectors responsible for testing the airports to make sure nothing gets threw are disappointed,, does stepping in to that X-ray body scanner really make you feel safer?
Do you think we've become crazy with fear, or haven't done enough? why?
Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
This is something on which I've been pondering allot lately so I'm looking forward to the discussion. I'm in shock right now over the explosion in West, Texas, about an hour south of where I live as well. That was an accident from what they're saying. Anyway, I want to give this some actual thought before I put out a response although I will say, my gut reaction is in line with Silver Lightening.
very well said, Cody.
I think measured responses are far better than panicked ones.
Now, Department of Homeland Security, under which many of us now operate, is not all about absurd pat-downs, wiretapping and other extreme behaviors. For the most part, it has been a good thing: a way for local and national authorities to communicate with one another. However, the "Something-must-be-done" complex is precisely what the terrorists want. remember, they want to restrict your freedom. So while the systems we've got are definitely flawed, I'm not sure it's all about restriction of freedoms. In principle, I frankly agree with Cody's quote of Benjamin Franklin, I believe it is, though I may be mistaken on which founder first quoted that.
The trouble, and the greatest freedom inhibitor, as I see it, are the reactionary tendencies on either side. Both having a something-must-be-done complex rather than taking the measured steps necessary to actually secure our freedoms. I'm not sure anyone feels more or less secure on account of an x-ray machine or a pat-down. I think the best one could say is that people feel pretty damned inconvenienced by it.
My personal opinion is to start with, your best path to freedom of any sort is to cease to consume the hysteria promulgated by both sides on this one, and try and outsmart the bad guys on this one. If there were bad guys. In Texas, it seems all we have is some failed safety inspections which could lead to liabilities but are not terrorism. The poisoner appears to be accounted for, and the person who planted the dirty bomb in Boston appears to still be at large.
I'm typically one of the last in line when it comes to making up new laws as a response to an event. Better we are if we can make the systems we've got work smarter and more cohesively.
I agree with Cody.
how about more measured and controlled laws when it comes to guns and explosives. instead of the republicans doing what they did yesterday in the most recent affair just to oppose, do something sensible. have harsh punishments for idiots who want to step over the line.
I think what ever happens how ever we are globally moving into a more big brother state of conditions. because you may not know it but all social media is watched anyways, certain words are primed to flag up if mentioned, also sattilite imaging is used as we are all well aware of.
if you look carefully and search properly enough you'll find evidence to the extent government and federal agencies are watching over us.
Well, of course we've got to blaim the republicans because everyone knows that the criminals commiting crimes with guns, and the nutjobs committing these mass shootings are going to certainly abide by whatever new laws are passed. Give me a friggin break!
If gun restrictions worked, there wouldn't have been such a high murder rate in Chicago as they have some of the toughest gun laws. BTW, Chicago also has one of the lowest rates of prosecution of current federal gun laws.
As for the TSA, what a joke. Let's definitely be sure to separate the screaming kid in the wheelchare from his parents for an invasive patdown, or make the cancer surviver with breast inplants remove them, while allowing muslim women to not remove so much as an inch of their berkas because again, as we all, know, it's the crazy little old ladies who fly planes into buildings.
Enforcing laws already on the books would be a great place to start before taking away any more of our freedoms. Face it, you can't legislate against stupid, evil, or crazy.
There are also no guarantees in this life as proved by the horrible horrible accidental explosion in West last night. It was caused by a fire at the plant, btw, no terrorism currently suspected. Thank God..
Tornados kill. Earthquakes kill. Storms kill. It goes on and on and on. You can't legislate safety anymore than you can legislate success in life.
Keep in mind also that those republicans who voted down yesterday's bill were voting on behalf of their constituants, you know, the people who voted them into their positions.
The president said that 90 percent of Americans wanted that to pass. What Americans has he been talking to because that's the most overexadgerated claim I've heard in a great long while.
I'm not saying that nothing should be done but it would seem to me that enforcing the laws currently in place would be a much better place to start as opposed to disarming law abiding citizens.
As for freedom in general, I'd much rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I can't remember who said that but it's one of my favorite quotes.
I don't feel any safer just because they are planning on putting cameras everywhere. Cameras won't save me or anyone else from being shot, blown up, or from being killed. Action needs to be taken.
I agree with cody.
In addition, I think the continuous treck in to big brother territory needs to stop. None of these tactics have proven to work thus far, so its a little insane to just assume more control is the realistic answer.
I've made that exact argument about Chicago, washington DC and New york city and California, and most people can't really logically respond with anything useful. though its fact, the places with the toughest gun laws in the states have the most gun crime. they actually have the most violent crime, period. Burglaries, assault, rape, etc. Same thing happened when gun laws got tighter in the UK and Australia, all forms of violent crime rose. and has been proven by insidents in china, the Uk, places in the US where guns are not allowed and even in canada, when guns are not available, people will turn to knives, hammers, etc.
Another thing most people don't seem to be willing to admit is that most mass shootings happen in what are called "gun free zones."
As the name would imply, its illegal to have a gun in a gun free zone, and thus, any attacker doesn't have nearly the amount of worry they'd face should they decide to kill outside a gun free zone in the US.
In aurora colorado, there were 20 movie theaters with in 20 miles of where the shooter lived, but he picked the one that was designated a gun free zone, for example.
Leo, I agree with your statements about a means of sharing data between different kinds of law enforcement being a good thing in principle, but in practice, you find there is no safeguards that insure the data collected isn't abused. this is a huge problem, considering the governments desire to monitor more and more data...
If you think about it how much security have we actually gained with all the new technology spying on us throughout the world?
In the past we didn’t have authority peaking in to our every move, homes, cars, wagons, and such things, and we were deemed safe, so why do we need them to do so now?
With 9 11, some simple security measures would have caught that, but these weren’t used. The measures that were in place at that time were just as good as the ones we have now.
Now is it that a strip search will protect me on a flight? If I really wanted to do something, and was professional, I’d not buy a ticket and board a flight now would I?
Lack of privacy only gives authority more control, not us more security.
I think we’d be better served if the laws on the books were enforced strictly, and all the loop holes in them closed, over someone with a camera monitoring me taking a pee. How do I know the person whose job it is to monitor me is sane or secure? I don’t, do I?
Exactly. Rather than making new laws, which isn't going to solve anything, how about we, ahem, try to do better at enforcing the laws we already have? More cameras is also not going to make it better. Terrorists and other criminals will always find a way to get around them. It was, as I understand it, only an electrical short, a complete fluke in other words, that foiled the underwear bomber.
Anyone who wants to argue for the freedom to bear arms, should not just use Chicago, New York and LA as examples.
Use Mexico: A nation where guns are technically outlawed. Yet more guns come into California from Mexico than anywhere else. And when I was down there I saw plenty of weapons. And of course there is a ton of gun crime. Mexico is a beautiful example of what gun control brings.
Gun free zone = target, or the firearms equivalent of the kick me sign from childhood.
Leo, good point, I usually reference mexico, but I just forgot.
Sure, get over the border outside of Texas and you should drive in a bullet prof car. If Mexico enforced the law it be find, but they don't.
Can Coon, or however it is spelled, is a great example of that. The drug wars were getting out of hand there, and kidnappings. Money was at stake, so they cleaned it up quick.
First, let me say that I am immensely disappointed in silverLightning for making an absolute overarching statement and not backing it up, as is his usual tendency, with facts and experiences.
Now, I have a question for all those that agree with silverLightning's statement in post 2:
I want freedom, will not give up any freedom for security. Thus, I have the freedom to drive a car down your neighborhood street. I have the right to carry explosives with me, in this car, so that when I crash it into your house, which I have the freedom to do, you and your neighbors and myself will be torched. Or, I want the freedom to hijack planes, as long as I have enough force to overcome the indignant pilot, and bring them crashing down into the middle of big cities to watch and laugh as you passengers and the population of the city die in a giant plane explosion.
Granted, these would only be done by an insane person, but clearly refusing to give up any freedom is anarchy, pure and simple. We have to give up freedom for security, which we all have done and I am sure will accept; it's illegal to murder, to steal, and to hijack. We have institutions to prevent these crimes. Now, for my main point.
I agree with what I believe is silverLightning's true sentiment: that we do not need to give up more freedom. I concur and believe that doing so is playing right into the hands of those that would decrease both. I believe that further incursion into our private affairs, especially those in the technological world, is an Orwellian cause, which will create not only an espionage system that will watch us all but also a fabulously inefficient structure that will bring the United States crashing down while the various terrorist groups rub their hands in delight. I have to go now, but I should be back to debating tomorrow. Until then, look out your window for a fast approaching car, because I will not give up any freedom...
Anyone who makes this argument clearly demonstrates a lack of what freedom is. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want whenever you want and damn the consequences. Freedom is to do what you think is best in the strictures of society.
We are not simply a bunch of people who all live in the same place, we are a community who have all agreed on rules and regulations. What we have not agreed on is to be watched constantly by a certain unit of this community, or to be treated as if we're dangerous terrorists by a small unit of this community.
Learn what the framers meant by freedom and liberty, then we'll talk. I really don't have the energy to explain it to you. Ask a teacher or something.
Well said Cody.
Yes poster 16. We are talking civil freedoms, not freedoms to do as you wish. We are talk about the freedom not to have a camera in our houses, or for every word we type, or site we visit to be monitored by the authorities.
We are talking about being free to move about without spying until we abuse that freedom. At that point laws that are already set up should be more strongly enforced, and all the loopholes that allow abuse of these freedoms restricted.
Sure, you have the freedom to pack anything you like in to my living room, or house, but at that point I should have the perfect legal freedom to use whatever force necessary to stop you without you being able to sue me because I didn't do the job well enough, even though you were in the wrong.
If I had that camera taping this event the outcome wouldn't change at all simply because the response time would be to long to matter. However, that same video would damn me for not shooting you well enough and you could sue because, well, you actually didn't intend to do me harm yet, just stopped by to show me you could.
With all the cameras and such things we are still catching crooks after the fact, so how is this helping me?
Lol. I'd just like to say, I love the intellegent sarcasm and bashing more than anything that happens every so offten on these boards. But, I don't want to change the subject so...
I agree with what's been said above. Security is being overemphasized in all the wrong ways. Truth be told, nobody can read minds, so technically speaking it is impossible to predict that a person is thinking and planning on committing a nuke. Really, all that can be done is to try and look out for red flags, when we can. For instance, if a person seems to be behaving abnormally, or acting suspicious.
But then, we come to the problem where they don't seem to be suspicious at all, and that's the real scarey part. So ways to try and stop shit like that from happening can be developed, but the perpetrator will find a loop hole, one way or another, and by the time we find out, the bomb all ready exploded.
You say that those that would give up freedom deserve none. Freedom, last time I checked, meant the right to do something. Thus, the right to murder is, indeed freedom. It's a freedom that none of us, I hope, want to apply to anyone let alone ourselves, but it is a freedom nonetheless. I agree with you that we don't need to be watched; I believe I have already stated this, but let me do it again in case I wasn't clear enough.
I agree with you.
Now that I have said this, let's have a discussion about what is freedom. Why isn't the right to murder and face no civilized consequences freedom. Before, when everyone had the ability to do basically whatever they physically could, wasn't this the basic sense of ultimate freedom? This also was seen as abhorrent, so people formed a government to fix the problems, and have been experimenting ever since. Why does this definition displease you?
If you start examining definitions of what exactly this or that means, then you must add security? What does this mean, and what exactly is security?
Do this and the snake starts to bite its tail, and we just are debating not solving anything.
Why not define security. These are the only two terms I see that need definition, and I think that both definitions are quite clear. But, if you want to debate what a freedom is, why not define security too?
Ah of course. Like we never debate things on here. You're absolutely right. Here, now, we need to start trying to agree on something.
Okay folks, define these terms as related to this topic. Freedom seems to not be understood as relating to this topic, but we don't have an issue with security.
Now I understand freedom as it was ment by the poster, but maybe I'm wrong?
Explain it to me?