Where are we headed?

Well, I stand corrected then with regard to the irony of the situation.

My counterpoint to your following statement, though, is that the jury's still out with regard to those of school age or approaching graduation. The Gen-X group of the previous posts widely was regarded by their elders as comprised of nothing more than 'slackers', yet that judgment now is seen to be incorrect by many given their current contributions to and level of activity within American society. I don't think that anybody denies that there currently are threats to civil liberties in American society, yet many of those threats initiated with actions effected not by people of the 30ish and under set, but by the elders that hold seats of power and supposed wisdom. It is my experience that many of those younger Gen-X people actually are working against many of those same infringements, though maybe not so much with regard to 2nd amendment issues specifically, which is unfortunate. So, if that is the case with regard to that set of the population, why not withhold judgment with regard to their successors and see what they actually do and accomplish? Babies and bathwater ...
 
I see your point. Though it is hard for me to maintain an optimistic point of view, based on people I have encountered. It isn't fair to generalize an entire generation on my personal encounters. So I agree, to wait and see what the outcome is. I just hope it turns out better than I think it will, when the elders who hold the seats of power and supposed wisdom, expire.:cool:
 
Each generation initially looks self-absorbed or stupid to prior generations.

Many years ago, I worked for a gentleman who told me that his father had despaired of his future worth because he was not studious in school. That gentleman celebrated his 19th birthday while participating in the invasion of Guadalcanal.
 
Let's take air travel for instance. You're complaining that it's a hassel and even a "violation of your rights" to be asked for ID. In light of 9/11 how else would you recommend people board such missles capable of bringing a nation to its knees and plumeting us into war?
Click to expand...

How about not restricting you or me from bringing a loaded weapon on board? Would you feel more safe or less safe if the average Joe could 'carry' on a plane? If less, then I suppose you would agree that it's not safe to allow any of us to carry on a bus, or a train, or anywhere else in public. I am not willing to trade freedom (current or future) for a false sense of security.

I'm familiar with no cases where property is seized and lawfully held for no reason, and I'm also familiar with no case where citizens were detained for greater than 72 hours without a hearing (over weekends when the magistrate is unavailable generally).
Click to expand...

Take a look back at New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane. It is my understanding that the New Orleans Police went house to house (in a few instances) to seize lawfully owned firearms, many of which have yet to be returned.

Take a look back at New Orleans in the aftermath of the Hurricane. It is my undestanding that the Police went house to house (in a few instances) to seize lawfully owned firearms, many of which have yet to be returned.

Is my memory failing me, or were the people who were hearded into the Superdome told that they were not able to leave? How long were they there? I would have wanted to take my family out after the 1st night, even if I had nowhere to go & had to walk. Would the powers that be have allowed me to do so?

I believe there is a great need for a centralized government. But I want that government to function ONLY within authorized Constitutional parameters. If we find that circumstances warrant a change let it be made according to (again) Constitutional perameters.

Some think that this course of action is unrealistic for our times or that it takes too long. How long will it take, and how difficult will it be to reclaim those freedoms we continue to allow to slip away?
 
The only thing I can see wrong with letting the average joe pack on planes is that sometimes the average joe, without the proper training, can be a little trigger happy. And in a crisis situation, average joe might send a round through the hull of the plane at 30,000 feet. I know the windows are supposed to be bullet proof, but what about the aircraft body? I think more air marshals with proper training would make flights safer. Checking your gun with your luggage though, shouldn't be the hassle that it is.:cool:
 
Windows on planes are not bullet proof.
A handgun bullet thru a plane's fuselage will do little damage....James Bond movies, notwithstanding.

Rich
 
Glock 31 said:
And in a crisis situation, average joe might send a round through the hull of the plane at 30,000 feet.
Click to expand...

You could empty your G31 through a jetliner's fuselage and not even overtax the cabin pressurization system.
 
I thought the fuselage on a jetliner was in the wings. I understood the facts to be that if the cabin pressure was breached at sufficient altitude, it would cause severe structural damage in midflight, provided the breach was big enough. What are the damage requirements to cause such an incident?

Still doesn't make it a good idea to be firing through the walls though. But, the basic idea of having good natured armed citizens on a jetliner, training or not aside, I guess could have more pros than cons.:cool:
 
Wow, this exactly mirrors what I was arguing after Sept 11th: If the government really wanted to make air travel safer instead of merely making air travellers feel safer, there wouldn't be any such thing as TSA. In the wake of those attacks, the official response is no longer to cooperate. Remember what happened to Richard Reid as a result?

They should just let folks bring on board whatever possible weapons they want (with the exception of explosives), seal up the cockpit, and put a sleepy-time button in the cockpit. Good luck hijacking that plane! :D

Of course, people looked at me like I was nuts...maybe I am :confused:
 
You mean in the event of an attempted hijacking, gas all the passengers?

I guess it would be effective. Provided the air seals around the cockpit were foolproof. And then of course people would be whining about the impact on constitutional rights of people being gased in mass. Imagine being a holocaust survivor having to go through that kind of experience. On the other hand, the hijacking would be stopped. Can't really decide if it's a good or bad idea.:cool:
 
The fuselage is the cigar shaped central portion between the wings.

As far as bullets ripping through the plane... You have seen to many hollyweird portrayals. Aircraft can take more bullets than you can carry, in most cases. It won't stop flying. Even taking out a window won't cripple it nor will it cause explosive decompression. Commercial aircraft have a safety margin that is unbelievable to the uninformed.
 
Well, thankyou for clearing that up. I assumed airplanes were more fragile than they apparently are. I still maintain that more properly trained flight marshalls would be more effective in maintaining security and safety rather than a random person who may or may not have proper training. Plus with armed citizens, you stand the risk of getting one of those people who thinks hijacking the plane might not be such a bad idea and decides to help out the already would-be hijackers. Granted that's an extremely unlikely situation.:cool:
 
Let's call a spade a spade...

From bondage to faith,
From faith to courage,
From courage to freedom,
From freedom to apathy,
From apathy to unfaithfulness,
From unfaithfulness to bondage
Click to expand...

That says it all.

As a nation, we have become unfaithful to the principles that The Founders built this nation upon. "The Government" is infested with political whores who worship money, power and higher education, not the God of The Founders. They are a cancer upon our nation, eating away at our liberty on a daily basis.

The majority of our citizens - AKA "The Sheeple" - have become whores too, worshipping money, power and higher education like the political whores who infest "The Government."

The prognosis for America does not look good, for I fear "The Sheeple" will not wake up until it is too late.
 
"The Government" is infested with political whores who worship money, power and higher education, not the God of The Founders.
Click to expand...
While I certainly have issue with elected representatives being after nothing but money and power I do have issue with people thinking that elected representatives should hold religion above knowledge in their endeavors.
 
With regard to gassing people enmasse to stop terrorists in their midst, I can think of one very recent example where that turned out quite badly for all involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Theatre_Siege.

steelheart, your statements require support to attain validity. You stated:

"The Government" is infested with political whores who worship money, power and higher education, not the God of The Founders.
Click to expand...

Please provide examples and more fully explain how the current government (I assume that you mean the Federal government) is "infested" with a greater number of "political whores" devoted to those things that you specified than it was during its past.

You also stated:

The majority of our citizens - AKA "The Sheeple" - have become whores too, worshipping money, power and higher education like the political whores who infest "The Government."
Click to expand...

Again, please provide examples and more fully explain how the current American population is more devoted to those things that you specified than it was during the past. I'll let you slide on the issue of higher education, as it is quite clear that more people in this country seek higher education today than they did in the past (in no small part because now they actually have the opportunity to do so now), and frankly I do not see how you could possibly demonstrate that such an increase in desire exercises a negative effect on the overall development of the nation.
 
Last edited:
Well, back when I was young, we used to have to walk 5 miles through snow that was knee deep just to get to school....
 
Redworm,

People are free to worship as their conscience dictates, including elected representatives. Surely you aren't saying that the devoutly religious should be disqualified from public office?

Article VI of the Constitution states, "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I'm sure you'll agree that includes no requirement for lack of religion as a qualification for those seeking public office as well.
 
Redworm,

People are free to worship as their conscience dictates, including elected representatives. Surely you aren't saying that the devoutly religious should be disqualified from public office?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. My only issue is with the idea of "religion = good, education = bad". I don't care if every member of Congress attends a Mormon church together every Sunday. But the moment their religious beliefs infringe on mine it's a problem.
 
My only issue is with the idea of "religion = good, education = bad".
Click to expand...

How does such a belief infringe on your religious beliefs? Do you depend on governmental largesse granted to universities for a living?
 
I do have issue with people thinking that elected representatives should hold religion above knowledge in their endeavors
Click to expand...
Ouch! ;)

afsnco-
Your point was that the pursuit of education was somehow antithetical to the American Way. Stick with that, rather than answering questions with questions.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top