The war on terror isn't limited to abroad

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

X,
you mean to tell me that you have 20 boxes of Pseudoephedrine. I think you are arguing to argue. When I dive the lake I have to take pseudofed. I do not have 20 boxes. They would expire before I could use that amount. We don't hook people because of possession of reasonable quantities. We find out what they have to say first. Your average tweeker can't explain 20 boxes of pseudofed. In Az we don't need "heet", let alone 5 bottles of it. It is commion sence in enforcement.

I couldn't even tell you what the Patriot Act allows me to do that I couldn't do before. Most LEO's know from the past exploits of others that have had restrictions put on us to not abuse anything. We still do the old fashioned Police work.

I didn't read the article above nor do I intend to. I reload, I have sufficient powder on hand to create explosive devices. That is not a problem. If I am out there spouting off anti anything sentiment, and I have propaganda at home in support of that anti something sentiment, I should not be surprised if someone shows up on my doorstep looking hard at me.

I just deleted a portion because I was venting. It is pointless to talk with the average citizen who does not see what I (and all the others like me see) everyday. You don't understand until it is you, then I am at fault for not preventing it. When it is you, you would have me violate every rule there is, but blast me because I don't. But I will do the best I can to get the bad guy even though I am an a****le.

The people in the Murray building did not think it was going to be them. The people in the Towers did not think it was going to be them. Before a year has passed we will have another group of surprised people, will it be us? How do we balance civil rights of the innocent against those of the guilty. Right now the justice system exists for the bad guys, not for the innocent.

 

[tsg68]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Empath I think we tend to generalize reactionarys within the govt. (local and federal) who classify just about everything as a "public safety threat" or "hazard" and then attempt to regulate said "threats" at a compromise of our civil liberties as "they". Especially when the risk of abuses of such regulations are certain. I think some believe it a conspiracy, but I believe it is the natural course of power to seek absolution, and that is why our constitution is so precious and was so deliberately written to protect our freedoms and even our abilty to dissent and or revolt if neccessary.

A friend of mine who Ironically used to install security systems for a living once told me that there truly is no such thing as security, only deterents, a determined foe will eventually succeed as any security plan/system must be effective 100% of the time (a near impossibilty) while an foe only needs to succeed one time in multiple tries to shatter the illusion. I think he's a pretty wise individual.


I think that while we should appreciate those who risk their butts to try to provide us protection, we need to be wary of those in power who promise us security in trade for liberty because that's a falsehood and a bad deal for all of us all the way around.

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Empath]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Well written, TSG.

 

[McGizmo]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

What empath said

 

[Kiessling]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

ditto.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Chengiz said: "You mean to tell me that you have 20 boxes of seudoephedrine. I think you are arguing to argue."

I'm not sure why you think that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, but I can assure you that I'm not. I wouldn't wast my time on such a pointless endeavor. I certainly hope the it didn't seem that way to all here because I am very serious about this issue and don't want it to come off as sounding like some kind of frivolous argument.

In reference to your question, yes, when I was younger, both myself and my mother had sever allergies and there were many times when I did have nearly that many boxes of allergy pills in the house because we would wait till they went on sale somewhere and then stock up on them and buy them in large quantities. Those days are over and in the past though because now days if you buy over a certain number of boxes at a time, you are automatically labeled as being a drug dealer!

I also have a lot of chemistry stuff as well because I have had chemistry classes in the past and I used to do a lot of experiments for my own education and amusement, again, a big red flag that I would never be able to clear myself of if I was put into a court type situation and forced to "prove my innocence".

If I recall correctly, I once even had lithium metal in kerosene just like you described earlier because that is the best, most least expensive way of keeping the stuff stabile. I can't recall now whether it was lithium or sodium, but whichever it was, I had a perfect right to own it without being carted off to jail as a drug dealer.

Then there are the other items on the list such as kerosene, paint thinner and most importantly, *lithium batteries*. I have large quantities of all of those things and under some state laws, that now automatically makes me a drug dealer and that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I have absolutely no criminal intent with any of that stuff, but yet and still, I may have to someday go to court and prove myself innocent, because, as most everyone here surly knows, you are assumed to be guilty till you can figure out a way to prove yourself innocent in the judicial system these days.

Now, like I said earlier, I don't blame law enforcement for any of these problems and I respect the fact that you guys are out there risking your butts to try to make the world a better place by removing the real criminals from circulation. Heck, I've even considered going into law enforcement myself on several occasions in my life, but my life always seemed to take a different path. As I stated earlier, I put the blame right squarely on the shoulders of the law makers themselves because it is they who are taking away our freedoms, not law enforcement. Law enforcement is only doing what they are told to do, so there is no blame to be placed there.

Now days the laws for the millions are dictated by what a hand full of people choose to do and they still want to call it a free country. They can't have it both ways, either we, unincarcerated, citizens are free men to make decisions for ourselves about what we will or won't own, or else we are merely wards of the state and have to look toward the government to make our decisions for us because we aren't entrusted to make them for ourselves. If I have to choose between the two, I choose freedom, along with all of it's inherent risk (because I see the risk of a police state as being much greater of a risk). If everyone else felt this way, we wouldn't have laws restricting ownership of things that the government deems to be "dangerous" or whatever.

For instance, the framers of the constitution didn't say what caliber and make of gun you could or couldn't own or that you couldn't own a cannon, if you were so inclined. They simply said that you "have the right to bear arms". To me, that means any arms that I have a mind to own, not whichever ones the government thinks I can be entrusted to own. Back then people still believed in freedom because they had to fight to obtain it, now people look toward the state to solve all of their problems and to make a dangerous world safe and it is simply not possible to do so through legislation and all laws that attempt to do so will only restrict the freedom of those of us that have no criminal intent. I.E. all of the gun restriction laws. These were some of the points that I was attempting to make earlier. I hope that I have herein expressed my thoughts in a way that will be less easily misconstrued or misunderstood.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

X ... the only point that I get from your post is that you would rather that these laws didn't exist so that you... the innocent... can live "free". And it doesn't matter that with the lack of laws, those who are not innocent are "free" also... to infringe on the "freedom" of the rest of us.

You miss the most important point of all here... if you are truly innocent, then you have nothing to worry about. Your posession of all of those items doesn't really mean squat unless you have a full blown meth lab going in your house as well. If you don't, then you really have nothing to worry about, do you? Don't be pissed at the law makers... be pissed at the assholes who made it necessary for these laws to be made... in order to PROTECT your right to freedom that would otherwise be taken away from you and your children by the scum of the earth who ISN'T as innocent as you are. If you want to rage against anything, aim that rage at the drug dealers and manufacturers. If you do away with THEM, then you can do away with these silly laws that infringe on your freedom. The needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

The thing is though that with the newest laws in some states, that mere possession of these things in a given quantity is a crime now. You don't have to have a full blown meth lab like used to be the case.

Just because I'm pro-freedom doesn't mean that I'm pro-scum either. I'm just saying that if we truly are living in a "free" country that we should have to wait for someone to actually demonstrate their criminal intent before disposing of them. It is one thing to talk about committing a crime or even planning to commit a crime and it is quite another to actually do it. I've noticed by other post in this thread that I'm not the only one that sees things this way either.

So far as getting rid of all of the drug dealers goes, that is an impossibility without direct mind control of every citizen in the country because so long as there is a demand for something there will ALWAYS be a supply. That is nothing more than elementary economics. There have always been black markets in the history of the world and there always will be for this very reason. Trying to legislate them out of existence will never work. Trying to get the drug addicts off of the drugs seems to me to be the only sensible option available, but instead, the majority of the tax dollars are spent locking them up instead of helping to curb their cravings.

I would also blame Hollywood for portraying people that take drugs as being "cool". So long as kids think that they have to take drugs to be accepted by the "in" crowd, there will always be drug dealers and illicit drug use. This seems to be just as much of a fact to me as the sky is blue. If a kid wants something bad enough, they will find a way to get it, no matter what punishment is set up to deal with them. The only punishment that will end this sort of drug abuse is the death penalty and I say that only because you would have to kill them to make them stop if they don't want to stop for their own sake.

The only true answer lies in compelling them to not want to take drugs of their own free will. It's either that or the death penalty, all other punishments are destined to fail because they don't change what the person *wants* to do. A person looking to get their next fix doesn't care about what may be done to them in the future. If they actually cared about their future then they wouldn't be doing drugs and screwing up their lives in the first place.

So far as the law makers go, no criminal is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to take away freedom from the masses, that is simply their own short sighted decision to try to make a show of "dealing with the problem", so that they can get reelected.

Just like TKL said, "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."

 

[Bravo25]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:
You miss the most important point of all here... if you are truly innocent, then you have nothing to worry about. Your posession of all of those items doesn't really mean squat unless you have a full blown meth lab going in your house as well. If you don't, then you really have nothing to worry about, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the arguement that is used to keep passing laws to further restrict our freedoms. "Trust Us. We'll take care of you." Sorry but I don't trust the government, and I don't want them taking care of me. Neither do I want them restricting my freedoms, and prohibiting me from taking care of my own. Neither do I want them locking me up because I am doing just what the founding fathers said I "must" do... Question my government!

I agree with the part about being pissed at the law breakers that caused this, and I believe we should have stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. Much stiffer.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

[ QUOTE ]
...the newest laws in some states, that mere possession of these things in a given quantity is a crime now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide me with links on this? Examples? Quote specific laws and states and references? You've piqued my curiosity... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that if we truly are living in a "free" country that we should have to wait for someone to actually demonstrate their criminal intent before disposing of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Olahoma City? And September 11th, 2001? Ok... I'll remember not to whine so much next time thousands are killed in one fell swoop. I'll try to remember that we had to wait for that to happen in order to stop it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to get the drug addicts off of the drugs seems to me to be the only sensible option available, but instead, the majority of the tax dollars are spent locking them up instead of helping to curb their cravings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you've never really been exposed to or had to deal with these addicts. Throwing money at them and putting them in rehab doesn't work. THAT has been proven many times over. Look at Robert Downey Jr... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

... But again you missed my point. I don't really give a rat's *** about druggies and their suppliers/manufacturers... round 'em up and put them on a slow boat to Who-Gives-A-poop Island for all I care... (when you have children, you'll understand this mentality a little better)... I want my tax dollars to go toward putting those who make and distribute this crap out of business. I want THEM on death row.

[ QUOTE ]
I would also blame Hollywood for portraying people that take drugs as being "cool".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, could you please provide me with examples of this? I know I'm old and all that so perhaps I'm missing the "good stuff" in Hollywood nowadays... but I just haven't seen this lately. But again... you've piqued my interest... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The only punishment that will end this sort of drug abuse is the death penalty and I say that only because you would have to kill them to make them stop if they don't want to stop for their own sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok now... see... here is where you directly contradict your statement above... "Trying to get the drug addicts off of the drugs seems to me to be the only sensible option available..."... so which is it? rehabilitate them or kill them? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
So far as the law makers go, no criminal is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to take away freedom from the masses...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... actually it's not the criminals who are holding the guns to their heads, it's the law abiding citizens who are tired of the scumbags of the world taking away OUR freedoms by being allowed to go about their business of flooding our streets with drugs and commiting crimes in order to accomplish this. MY freedom is in knowing that I can sleep at night and that my children are being protected somehow... I don't care how it is accomplished... because the bottom line is... regardless of what you might think... if I'm not doing anything wrong, then I have nothing to worry about from the law.

 

[raggie33]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

i can deal with loseing fredoms if it makes us safer..

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Sasha said: "Ok now... see... here is where you directly contradict your statement above... "Trying to get the drug addicts off of the drugs seems to me to be the only sensible option available..."... so which is it? rehabilitate them or kill them?"

That only seems like a contradiction on the surface. I said that that seemed like the only sensible solution because I know for a fact that there aren't nearly enough people that feel as we do that a viable solution can be found in the death penalty. I, in fact, agree with you that the death penalty would be the most efficient solution and possibly even the best solution, but you would never get the rest of this squeamish country to go along with that because we can't even get a *real* death penalty for murderers and this ranks, at the very least, one notch below them... In fact, we will most likely be heavily derided in this very thread for even suggesting such a thing as giving the death penalty to druggies and/or drug dealers.

 

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Unfortunately we Americans fail to take responsibility for our own actions. We don't know our neighbors like we did 40 years ago. Communities stuck together and it was difficult to be a criminal in with "civilized" populations.

We had all the crime in the poor areas of the cities. We created welfare to support the poor but did not create a system to get them on to their own feet. We legislate answers without concern for the far reaching causes.

I own several firearms and it pisses me off to no end to see the Government (actually a certain party) trying to take that enjoyment away. I am not a chemist, but I understand tthe joy a chemist has for trying to achieve something new and exciting. That chemist is severely restricted in his abilities to do certain things because of these laws governing sodium/lithium metals. But reality is that the manufacture of methamphetamiine is way out of control. We, the citizens, have to deal with the consequences, polution of our water sources, public lands, the individuals let loose amongst us.

We can't have vigilantes, otherwise my neighbor would be gone. We have a justice system that hopefully will win most of the time (51%). How many coaches this year will lose their jobs because of a .500 season.

X.....you and your mother have nothing to worry about. The narc's aren't going to kick your door. A rookie officer can tell the difference between an upstanding citizen and a tweeker. You are in Tn. The meth out brake is just hitting these areas and will make our problem look insignificant. If you hike in the woods (watch for poison oak, that crap eats my ***) look around and you may see some of these labs and not recognize them for what they are. The moonshiners used these areas to hide from the revenuers. The tweekers will too. Understand that they will poison your water tables as good as or if not better than Dow industries. OSHA doesn't govern them.

 

[Greta]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Again... you miss the point. In order to have the death penalty, we must have laws to back it up. You can't just put someone to death in this country... even now. They have to have broken some kind of law. So it seems to me that you are once again contradicting yourself. You don't want the laws but you want to be able to pass out the death penalty to those who are deserving... Good GOD, man! Do you know how ultra-right wing that sounds?!?!? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif ... You're scaring me, X... you really are...

 

[raggie33]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gifwatches

 

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Singapore has the death penalty for dealers, users, and probably a lot more. Great answer. But it is not the American answer. We have some weird feelings in this area.

It has been proven that we have executed the wrong people and have come close on others. Our justice system allows for rehabilitation (there's a joke) and the ability to correct an injustice. And that is why it takes so long to fry someone. As much as it pisses me off that these s***bags get passes, it is reassuring that if I am wrongfully accused of something I have a chance. There are a lot of places this does not exist.

But none of this answers the question, "what are willing to lose to gain security"? I don't know. I do know this, every freedom we lose, the terrorists win. Every loop hole that is left open, the terrorists will use to attack us. Israel has fought a lot with these issues and they still don't have security.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Ok. I just tried to find my old links that I had collected back when I was researching the whole lithium battery/drug dealer laws, but it seems those were part of my bookmarks that were lost when I had a pretty bad computer crash a while back and I didn't have them backed up.

Maybe if I have time later I will go back and research the whole thing again, but if memory serves, just owning a certain amount of certain common household items is now considered to qualify you as a drug dealer in some states, along with it's mandatory drug sentence, no matter whether you actually have a meth lab set up or not.

 

[Chengiz]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

X,
I'll look in my Az law book. It will be very similar to most states as they were derived from federal guidelines. I still don't think a flashaholic has to worry. The average flashaholic has enough lights tto support the battery usage issue.

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

@Chengiz: Those were some very wise words and I agree with much of what you said such as the part about communities sticking together. Now days people just don't care what is going on in their neighborhood, just so long as it doesn't bother them, personally...

 

[X-CalBR8]

Re: The war on terror isn\'t limited to abroad

Sasah said: "I want my tax dollars to go toward putting those who make and distribute this crap out of business. I want THEM on death row."

Why do you think it harsh of me to suggest the death penalty when you, yourself, have just done so?

Also, calling me "ultra-right wing" connotes support for the Republican party which I don't agree with. The closest major party out there today that I could claim any degree of affinity for would be the libertarian party because they are the only ones that seem to be trying to revert this back into the "free" country that it once was.