• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

So how much is enough?

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
45acpForMe wrote:
Just give Obama some form of social unrest and he will "ask" the UN for assistance.
I might view the U.N. as a liberating army. Any government that proposes to implement a more docile and less confrontational police force might well be preferred by many Americans as an alternative to this crushing and brutal authoritarian state under which we now toil.
I do not want to see blue helmets in my country...
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

45acpForMe wrote:
r6-rider wrote:
besides id be one of the "government" guys ordered to do searches and i can assure you, every house i check would just be another "law abiding citizen and no weapons were found"
For that reason they wouldn't allow you to do the searches. Just like China had to bring in troops from outside the area to shoot down protesters in Tiananmen Square, they will bring in UN troops from outside the US to do the dirty work.

Just give Obama some form of social unrest and he will "ask" the UN for assistance.

When Virginia secedes from the United Socialist States of America sometime down the road, that will be my notice to take up arms. If they try to register or confiscate guns it will be time to become a criminal. After all they can just keep making laws until all of us are a criminal one way or another.
Bringing in UN troops would be the biggest mistake they cold make. A lot of people will be reluctant to shoot at, even to defend their liberties, American cops or military.

But blue helmets? Light em up!
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:
Bringing in UN troops would be the biggest mistake they cold make. A lot of people will be reluctant to shoot at, even to defend their liberties, American cops or military.

But blue helmets? Light em up!
Did you ever stop to think that we'd be freer and safer with U.N. forces in America?

How would we be any less free?

If the U.N. takes control of the streets, your local police force would come under U.N. control, and the U.N. forces might very well be more tolerant, compassionate and less violent than our police.

As bad as things are today, I'd be interested in letting the experiment run.
 

DMWyatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
66
Location
Celina, OH, ,
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Stop smokin' whatever that is... :uhoh:
Fine. Note the numbered statements with which you disagree.
  1. It's best to cooperate with the police at the scene and let the lawyers work it out later.
  2. Disagreeing with the police at the scene is never a smart move.
  3. Having an attitude with a cop is a quick way to get tasered.
  4. A checkpoint doesn't deprive you of any liberty, and the benefits outweigh the cost.
  5. If you have nothing to hide, you don't mind your person, car or home being searched.
  6. A little inconvenience is necessary to have a safe society.
  7. We're not really free if we have to worry about crime, so it's best to let police do what they need to do to keep us safe.
  8. A person has no right to privacy for an illegal act.


There are instances where I'd have problems with all of them. #8 is bad all the way around. With the various types of crimes on the books, it would be next to impossible to maintain any privacy for anyone ifsomeone's always seeking illegal activity in normal conversations. Where do you draw the line for a lawful invasion of privacy? What conversations do you specifically troll, and for what specific activity?
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
Bringing in UN troops would be the biggest mistake they cold make. A lot of people will be reluctant to shoot at, even to defend their liberties, American cops or military.

But blue helmets? Light em up!
Did you ever stop to think that we'd be freer and safer with U.N. forces in America?

How would we be any less free?

If the U.N. takes control of the streets, your local police force would come under U.N. control, and the U.N. forces might very well be more tolerant, compassionate and less violent than our police.

As bad as things are today, I'd be interested in letting the experiment run.
Judging be many of your other posts, you're certainly not the statist you appear to be in this thread. Why you're posting like this I'm not sure, but I'll go ahead and answer as if you were the U.N lover you appear to be.

I have considered that. Freer? In what dream world? Safer? Safety -or security, being somehow protected from those who would do you harm- is an illusion. There are a few things that can be done that will make it less likely you will be harmed, most of them things you do yourself (such as always being armed, staying in a heightened state of situational awareness, and getting defensive training), but it simply is not possible to be completely safe and secure.

How would we be less free? Well, if the blue helmets were contollng the streets, would I be able to walk down them openly armed without being harassed or asked for my "papers"? Who exactly would pay for these "peacekeepers"? Would the confiscation of my wealth (taxes) increase because of them?

Would foreign troops be more tolerant, compassionate, and less violent that the police? What do you base that assessment on? Also, do you think criminals would respect blue helmets more than they do police? Would they respect international law, even though they ignore American laws?

You can wish for such an experiment all you want. I say it's a good thing that it's not your call. Personally, I think the experiment would end up with a lot of dead foreigners wearing blue helmets.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Did you ever stop to think that we'd be freer and safer with U.N. forces in America?

How would we be any less free?

If the U.N. takes control of the streets, your local police force would come under U.N. control, and the U.N. forces might very well be more tolerant, compassionate and less violent than our police.

As bad as things are today, I'd be interested in letting the experiment run.

Bullshit. First the UN does not have our best interest at heart. They support a one world government with them in charge. They encourage every country to abort their children and try to take away parental rights. Oh by the way they want to ban all civilian ownership of guns!!!! Those are all currently proposed UN treaties that people like BHO and HRC would love to pass in this country. That is not a "regime" I want to live under.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:
Judging be many of your other posts, you're certainly not the statist you appear to be in this thread. Why you're posting like this I'm not sure, but I'll go ahead and answer as if you were the U.N lover you appear to be.
I'm no lover of the U.N., and I'm certainly no statist, but I realize Americans, particularly the pro-cop Americans, are, and big ones, at that. If we're forced to live under an omnipotent regime, a foreign one is preferable to this brutal state.

I have considered that. Freer? In what dream world? Safer? Safety -or security, being somehow protected from those who would do you harm- is an illusion. There are a few things that can be done that will make it less likely you will be harmed, most of them things you do yourself (such as always being armed, staying in a heightened state of situational awareness, and getting defensive training), but it simply is not possible to be completely safe and secure.
My greatest fear, and the only armed threat I've ever encountered, is the police. Police are the greatest enemy America has ever faced. I'll support whatever reduces their power. If answering to a U.N. field officer mollifies the police, let's try it. We really have nothing to lose, at this point. Our taxes are as high as Europe, and we have the most people in prison of any country in the world. Every time we see a police car, we worry whether we will go home.

How would we be less free? Well, if the blue helmets were contollng the streets, would I be able to walk down them openly armed without being harassed or asked for my "papers"? Who exactly would pay for these "peacekeepers"? Would the confiscation of my wealth (taxes) increase because of them?
You can't walk around freely now. Cops ask people for identification, all the time, and telling them to buzz off will get you electrocuted. I'm willing to see if another power is more polite about it.

Would foreign troops be more tolerant, compassionate, and less violent that the police? What do you base that assessment on? Also, do you think criminals would respect blue helmets more than they do police? Would they respect international law, even though they ignore American laws?
The typical "criminal" is a drug user or traffic violator. If we had drug and traffic laws that more closely matched other countries (sans England), cops could stop this nonsense about being in "law enforcement" and return to keeping the peace. Our police are one of the most savage armies ever seen. How can any other army be any worse?

At this point, I'd be willing to send a case of beer to their local barracks and wish them all the best. I'd make a note of their stations and posts so I could run there for safety from the police.

You can wish for such an experiment all you want. I say it's a good thing that it's not your call. Personally, I think the experiment would end up with a lot of dead foreigners wearing blue helmets.
You really don't have a good bead on the sentiments of the majority of America. If U.N. troops were here, it would be as a result of something so damaging that the country would be on the verge of disintegration. U.N. troops would be welcome and would keep order in some regions, while letting other regions, such as Dixie, the Plains and the Mountain West, go bankrupt out of economic isolation.

I wonder whether I'd be freer if the American Revolution never happened. Without a Revolution, there is no Louisiana Purchase, and France might still have control over most of America. I'd eagerly vote to rescind the exchange.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

PiJiNWiNg wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
wolverines.jpg
WOLVERINES!!!!!
hahaha, what is that from?
Dude, are you serious? Run, don't walk, to your nearest DVD rental place and get a copy of Red Dawn and watch it tonight. That is your homework.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

45acpForMe wrote:
Bull@#$%. First the UN does not have our best interest at heart. They support a one world government with them in charge. They encourage every country to abort their children and try to take away parental rights.
Americans aren't too keen on parental rights. I live in Dixie, and it's common to hear one parent threaten to call Child Services on another parent. Americans are also masters of using the county Prosecutor's Office to work the child support system to the best advantage against the other parent.

Americans love having a teacher to tattle to.

Oh by the way they want to ban all civilian ownership of guns!!!! Those are all currently proposed UN treaties that people like BHO and HRC would love to pass in this country. That is not a "regime" I want to live under.
What good are guns? We're well past the point where we should have done something, but our gun owners are the most frequent supporters of the worst governmental evils and are frequently the most insistent on the least Liberty...except guns, of course.
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

black-field-cricket.jpg


smoking357 wrote:
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Stop smokin' whatever that is... :uhoh:
Fine. Note the numbered statements with which you disagree.
  1. It's best to cooperate with the police at the scene and let the lawyers work it out later.
  2. Disagreeing with the police at the scene is never a smart move.
  3. Having an attitude with a cop is a quick way to get tasered.
  4. A checkpoint doesn't deprive you of any liberty, and the benefits outweigh the cost.
  5. If you have nothing to hide, you don't mind your person, car or home being searched.
  6. A little inconvenience is necessary to have a safe society.
  7. We're not really free if we have to worry about crime, so it's best to let police do what they need to do to keep us safe.
  8. A person has no right to privacy for an illegal act.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Americans aren't too keen on parental rights.
What good are guns? We're well past the point where we should have done something, but our gun owners are the most frequent supporters of the worst governmental evils and are frequently the most insistent on the least Liberty...except guns, of course.
We currently have the right to homeschool our kids, teach them our religious values and beliefs, and can spank etc. Just cause some abuse the system doens't mean our system is worse than what would be imposed on us.

I can agree with you on the simple point that something should have been done a long time ago. I do not know what "evils" us gun owners support. "Gun owners" covers a broad stroke of the nation but most I met are decent hardworking people that support traditional values including freedom.
 

Carnivore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
970
Location
ParkHills, Missouri, USA
imported post

r6-rider wrote:
um... no ones taking my guns. by ANY means necessary

besides id be one of the "government" guys ordered to do searches and i can assure you, every house i check would just be another "law abiding citizen and no weapons were found"

You won't even be checking mine unless my pulse ceases . you've got no reason to go door to door . Not today ! Not tomorrow!

And No it's not gonna happen 100% door to door in this country unless you've done something to incite a federal investigation.. If by chance your home is being overtaken, you either roll over to pacify and live to fight another day, or you go down in a blaze of glory. either way the rest of us will catch wind of the hapenings, and know you brought it upon yourself, and shrug it off, or know that there is a massive movement sweeping city to city/county to county/state to state/ and the rest will be history once the firearms owning community stands together. Our government can't overpower it's citizens, and still remain a civilized nation!
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Fine. Note the numbered statements with which you disagree.
  1. It's best to cooperate with the police at the scene and let the lawyers work it out later.
  2. Disagreeing with the police at the scene is never a smart move.
  3. Having an attitude with a cop is a quick way to get tasered.
  4. A checkpoint doesn't deprive you of any liberty, and the benefits outweigh the cost.
  5. If you have nothing to hide, you don't mind your person, car or home being searched.
  6. A little inconvenience is necessary to have a safe society.
  7. We're not really free if we have to worry about crime, so it's best to let police do what they need to do to keep us safe.
  8. A person has no right to privacy for an illegal act.
Maybe I'm a bit radical, but this is where I stand:
1. At this point, cooperate with COMMANDS, Say "NO!" to any request.
2. It's not a smart move: Its as smart as banging your head against a brick wall. I just say "NO"
3. It prolly is a quick way to get tasered...I'm wondering when I'm going down.
4. Checkpoints suck, the one I encountered in AZ finally let me through after not answering any of their questions.
5. Screw that. Not my house.
6. Preemptively curtailing freedom only creates the illusion of safety.
7. I don't hire the police to protect me. I hire them to enforce the law. The highest laws protect our freedom. They should do their job.
8. In the middle here, a person does lose their right to privacy IF a valid warrant is issued based on probable cause. Otherwise, NO.

I'm sick of it enough to start getting pissy with them, but I still think we need to work in the system while there is still time to do so.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

Fine. Note the numbered statements with which you disagree.
  1. It's best to cooperate with the police at the scene and let the lawyers work it out later.
  2. Disagreeing with the police at the scene is never a smart move.
  3. Having an attitude with a cop is a quick way to get tasered.
  4. A checkpoint doesn't deprive you of any liberty, and the benefits outweigh the cost.
  5. If you have nothing to hide, you don't mind your person, car or home being searched.
  6. A little inconvenience is necessary to have a safe society.
  7. We're not really free if we have to worry about crime, so it's best to let police do what they need to do to keep us safe.
  8. A person has no right to privacy for an illegal act.
What the crap??? Seriously did you join the Orwellian society for a better life.

What is "cooperation" with the police? What does that mean? Give up your rights?

If the cops are doing something dodgey, you MIGHT want to disagree with them, lest you give your consent to have your rights violated.

If a cop tases me for my attitude, he's going to be out a TON of money.

Checkpoints can deprive you of your liberty, because the supreme court says so.

EVERYONE has something to hide, which may or may not be illegal and that has nothing to do with the right not to be searched.

Those who give up temporary liberty for security will be deprived of both.

I'd rather worry about crime and NOT worry about the cops breaking into my house at night mistakenly.

Privacy is absolute.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

I believe that what smoking357 is not seeing is the follow up that comes after many of these incidences.

I personally had my own little run in with an opinion enforcement officer, and I dealt with it after the incident.

And take care of it I did. No longer do people get stopped for OC in that particular city.
 

IndianaBoy79

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
639
Location
Eagle, Idaho, USA
imported post

Yes...for several years I thought "being polite" and talking to the police, volunteering information, trying to ease tensions...I thought it would help educate them enough so the encounters would eventually stop. It hasn't and I'm still getting stopped. I purchased a recorder and and recently exercised my right to remain silent for the first time in my life. I even refused to "show my papers".

The act of doing so felt like I was taking part of my freedoms back, and indeed this is exactly what it was.

Not much good can come from one polite interaction where you are willing give up your rights. A whole states' police policy can change if you exercise your rights and record the proof of someone stampeding them.
 

Slayer of Paper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
460
Location
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
imported post

smoking357 wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
Judging be many of your other posts, you're certainly not the statist you appear to be in this thread. Why you're posting like this I'm not sure, but I'll go ahead and answer as if you were the U.N lover you appear to be.
I'm no lover of the U.N., and I'm certainly no statist, but I realize Americans, particularly the pro-cop Americans, are, and big ones, at that. If we're forced to live under an omnipotent regime, a foreign one is preferable to this brutal state.

I have considered that. Freer? In what dream world? Safer? Safety -or security, being somehow protected from those who would do you harm- is an illusion. There are a few things that can be done that will make it less likely you will be harmed, most of them things you do yourself (such as always being armed, staying in a heightened state of situational awareness, and getting defensive training), but it simply is not possible to be completely safe and secure.
My greatest fear, and the only armed threat I've ever encountered, is the police. Police are the greatest enemy America has ever faced. I'll support whatever reduces their power. If answering to a U.N. field officer mollifies the police, let's try it. We really have nothing to lose, at this point. Our taxes are as high as Europe, and we have the most people in prison of any country in the world. Every time we see a police car, we worry whether we will go home.

How would we be less free? Well, if the blue helmets were contollng the streets, would I be able to walk down them openly armed without being harassed or asked for my "papers"? Who exactly would pay for these "peacekeepers"? Would the confiscation of my wealth (taxes) increase because of them?
You can't walk around freely now. Cops ask people for identification, all the time, and telling them to buzz off will get you electrocuted. I'm willing to see if another power is more polite about it.

Would foreign troops be more tolerant, compassionate, and less violent that the police? What do you base that assessment on? Also, do you think criminals would respect blue helmets more than they do police? Would they respect international law, even though they ignore American laws?
The typical "criminal" is a drug user or traffic violator. If we had drug and traffic laws that more closely matched other countries (sans England), cops could stop this nonsense about being in "law enforcement" and return to keeping the peace. Our police are one of the most savage armies ever seen. How can any other army be any worse?

At this point, I'd be willing to send a case of beer to their local barracks and wish them all the best. I'd make a note of their stations and posts so I could run there for safety from the police.

You can wish for such an experiment all you want. I say it's a good thing that it's not your call. Personally, I think the experiment would end up with a lot of dead foreigners wearing blue helmets.
You really don't have a good bead on the sentiments of the majority of America. If U.N. troops were here, it would be as a result of something so damaging that the country would be on the verge of disintegration. U.N. troops would be welcome and would keep order in some regions, while letting other regions, such as Dixie, the Plains and the Mountain West, go bankrupt out of economic isolation.

I wonder whether I'd be freer if the American Revolution never happened. Without a Revolution, there is no Louisiana Purchase, and France might still have control over most of America. I'd eagerly vote to rescind the exchange.
Well, I'm certainly not pro-cop, but I'm not anti-cop, either. I don't trust them- at all, but I also don't hate them. Honestly, I have had few dealings with them. I don't think it's necessary to be belligerent with them in order to stand your ground on your rights with them. You can cooperate with their instructions while still making it clear that you do not consent to any searches, and have nothing to say without first speaking to an attorney. And who says we'd be forced to live under a brutal regime? When they come to take your guns, do you plan to comply? I sure don't.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think you put too much energy into fear or hate or whatever it is of the cops. I agree that there are some (perhaps many) that are dangerous jack-booted thugs, but not all of them are. The way to deal with any of them is the same. Don't resist, but make it clear that you are not giving up your rights voluntarily. Also, it's a good idea to have a voice or video recorder going during any confrontation with police.

You are not required (in most states) to present identification to the police. In some states, you are required to give your name, but not present ID. In other states, you don't have to say anything. I agree that any kind of "papers, please" nonsense is unconstitutional and un-American, but the SCOTUS disagrees. My state is one of those where you have to give them your name, but not present ID. If and when I am stopped by police, that's exactly what I intend to do- unless of course it is a traffic stop, which is unlikely, since I always try to follow traffic laws. I figure, why put yourself into a confrontation with cops in the first place, if you can help it?

What you consider criminals (and perhaps what cops consider criminals, I wouldn't know) and what I consider criminals seems to be completely different. To me, criminals are those that present a possible threat to ME. Drug users and traffic violators are of no concern to me. While our cops have among them those that are brutal bullies, I think you far over-estimate how many of them there are, although I will concede that far too many of them (in fact, almost all) refuse to oust those that use brutality, and worse, their first instinct seems to be to defend their actions. However, I think you are far over-estimating their general brutality, or far under-estimating what a U.N. force would be like- at least, when they are dealing with sheep, instead of dodging bullets fired by patriots.

Oh, I think I do understand they majority of Americans. They are sheep, that will do whatever the government wants, as long as the supermarkets have food, and the TV keeps drilling it's programming into their heads. What I think you underestimate is how much damage a tiny minority insurgency can do. The vast majority won't make a sound about foreign troops, but that tiny minority will make them wish they'd never set foot in this country. And economic isolation? Seriously? If the feds try to isolate the western states economically, how long do you suppose they will keep sending in taxes? Who's going to be economically isolated?

Without the American Revolution, we'd still be colonies of England. Let's see, they just had essentially all of their guns confiscated a few years ago. Still think we'd be freer?
 

smoking357

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,100
Location
Pierce is a Coward, ,
imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think you put too much energy into fear or hate or whatever it is of the cops.
There is no greater enemy of this country.

I agree that there are some (perhaps many) that are dangerous jack-booted thugs, but not all of them are.
Most.

Also, it's a good idea to have a voice or video recorder going during any confrontation with police.
That will get you arrested in Florida.

Without the American Revolution, we'd still be colonies of England.
No. Most of America was not a part of England.

Let's see, they just had essentially all of their guns confiscated a few years ago. Still think we'd be freer?
See above. I'd much rather be a Frenchman or a Spaniard, and, as I've said, guns do not necessarily result in freedom.
 

canadian

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
165
Location
, ,
imported post

45acpForMe wrote:
We currently have the right to homeschool our kids, teach them our religious values and beliefs, and can spank etc.
You aren't free to do something unless you can do it in public without fear of reprisal. Try spanking your kid in Walmart or teaching them chemistry in the front yard and see how free you really are.
 
Top