Worried about this civilian security force? - Page 3

Worried about this civilian security force?

This is a discussion on Worried about this civilian security force? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; There is an old rhetorical rule in debates, dating back to the ancient Greeks, that says that when one party in a debate does not ...

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 142

Thread: Worried about this civilian security force?

  1. #31
    Member Array Firkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    183
    There is an old rhetorical rule in debates, dating back to the ancient Greeks, that says that when one party in a debate does not clearly define his terms or speaks vaguely about any issue in a debate, then his opponent is not only allowed to, but actually has the obligation to, take the statement(s) in their worst possible sense. Since Obama has never explained what he means by A civilian defense force as well trained and as well funded as the military, then people like myself, and apparently, Glenn Beck, have an obligation at least to consider these words in their worst possible sense.


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044

    Not political, the issue is unrealistic fear

    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    Ah, that is better, complete disageement with Hopyard; but, why the personal attacks on people with opposing views?
    The issue is unrealistic fear, not politics. Pointing out that certain fears are not based on reality, hence paranoia, is not a personal attack. (And is made with the hope that the folks who posted such views will reconsider their validity.)

    There is an old saying,
    "Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to rage. Rage leads to violence."

    If I asked you straight up do you think a CHL should be issued to someone with a diagnosis of paranoia I think I know most of you would say a resounding NO. So the whole issue of whether or not the fears expressed by the participants here go directly to the heart of fitness for holding a license.

    When people hold unrealistic fears, and especially when large numbers of people hold unrealistic fears, there will inevitably be some who proceed in their minds to justify violence.

    Let's be honest. The presumptions being put forth here about the motives of our government, and especially about O, are ridiculous.

    They are not born of either reality or understanding. They are initiated by paid propagandists and entertainers and carried forward by those susceptible to suggestion and unwilling or unable to think clearly, critically, or recognize reality. Birthers for example.

    People who hold unrealistic fears, especially that others (e.g., their own government) are out to "get them" are not people with good judgment. The operative word here being "unrealistic." That is why
    the word paranoia is appropriate.

    What starts out in the minds of some here as a legitimate concern about losing gun owner's rights has been transformed into something entirely different-- a paranoid fear of our government, our institutions, and our politicians.

  3. #33
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    I think we've already seen glimpses of this in Philadelphia on election day, think black panthers with clubs at polling place. Of course the USAG, appointed by BHO himself, decided not to press charges. Like the Brown Shirts of 70 years ago it's all about intimidation, rabble rowsing and creating crises to allow the Fed to step in cease more control of our lives. I believe this is a real threat, paranoid or not, and feel we ALL need to stay vigilant!!

    Regarding Hopyard's reference to a guy stating he was a terrorist at a town hall meeting....come on, we all know that was a poke at the Homeland Security memo. Don't take these things out of context!!

    JMHO of course!!
    MT
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,044

    Break from reality

    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post

    I guess I shouldn't be paranoid that history in fact DOES NOT repeat it's self ever. The Nazi religion never happened nor did the holocaust. A few million Jews simply got swine flu... yeah thats what happened.

    Right there is where your mind hopped over the edge. If you think there is a shred of realistic parallel between the America of today and the Nazis, if you think it appropriate to label a bi-racial president as a Nazi, you have no understanding of both what the word Nazi means or of history, or of our government. It is truly frightening to
    read some of these posts.

  5. #35
    Member Array mjmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    alabama
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What horrifically sad examples of paranoia--the above posts. It really makes we wonder if some of you are sufficiently mentally fit to have been issued CHLs.

    The way you guys drag stuff out of the context of the original speech, distort the the meaning, twist the intent, and express your fears is truly frightening.

    "Civilian security force". What do you call the 40 or so Federal Agencies which have law enforcement authority? Why would you object to increasing some of these in size and scope if you were obeying the law?

    Within the context of "Homeland Security" we perhaps (I don't think I really agree, but will grant a "perhaps") do need stronger and better armed civilian LEs given that there are limitations on the military use for civilian law enforcement.

    The other day there was a news story in which a man stood up at a Town Hall meeting and proclaimed himself "a terrorist." The Critter conducting the meeting, instead of condemning him, applauded his "patriotism." If that is the future threat that we face as a nation, then O is right and we do need an adequate force capable of dealing with terrorists. Oh, and btw, many of you were perfectly willing to give the previous admin a pass on holding US citizens without trial, indefinitely--remember Jose Padilla, dragged from a courtroom to a Navy Brig, over the objections of the trial judge? And you are fearful of O? Where was your "fear" when GWB was trampling on The Constitution.

    Again, the fear factor here amazes me. How can you fearful folk exercise anything like good judgment in a SD moment of crisis, when paranoid fear and utter fantasy rule your lives. How can you exercise good judgment when you show a willingness to believe the most outlandish of propagandistic lies?

    FLAME AWAY.
    Thanks for calling me a mentally deficent paranoid because my opinion differs from yours.
    You have a nice day .
    We live in a society where pizza gets to your house before the police

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    "Security force as well funded and armed as the military"

    His allies calling those who disagree with him "terrorists" and "unAmerican"

    Questioning of terrorists now being run out of the White House

    Census being run out of the White House

    Seizure of banks and means of manufacture

    Huge deficit spending that will eventually have to be paid off with higher taxes, and we are already past the peak on the Laffer Curve

    Add to this that people who are short on cash will compromise their principles for a paycheck to feed their families, and there's plenty without principles to start with

    You bet I'm worried.

  7. #37
    New Member Array The Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4
    Hopyard have you been drinking Kool-Aid?
    Lee

  8. #38
    Member Array Firkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    I think we've already seen glimpses of this in Philadelphia on election day, think black panthers with clubs at polling place. Of course the USAG, appointed by BHO himself, decided not to press charges. . . .
    Actually, the defendents failed to appear in court so a judgment was entered in the court records against them. In essence, the AG had already won the case, and, after winning it, decided not to pursue it!

  9. #39
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Firkin View Post
    Actually, the defendents failed to appear in court so a judgment was entered in the court records against them. In essence, the AG had already won the case, and, after winning it, decided not to pursue it!
    My bad....thanks for clarifying!!
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  10. #40
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillep Harding View Post
    "Security force as well funded and armed as the military"

    His allies calling those who disagree with him "terrorists" and "unAmerican" Uh-huh

    Questioning of terrorists now being run out of the White House Uh-huh

    Census being run out of the White House Uh-huh

    Seizure of banks and means of manufacture Uh-huh, think Communist Manifesto,

    Huge deficit spending that will eventually have to be paid off with higher taxes, and we are already past the peak on the Laffer Curve Uh-huh

    Add to this that people who are short on cash will compromise their principles for a paycheck to feed their families, and there's plenty without principles to start with Uh-huh

    You bet I'm worried.
    Agree 100%, well said!!
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The issue is unrealistic fear, not politics. Pointing out that certain fears are not based on reality, hence paranoia, is not a personal attack. (And is made with the hope that the folks who posted such views will reconsider their validity.)

    There is an old saying,
    "Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to rage. Rage leads to violence."

    If I asked you straight up do you think a CHL should be issued to someone with a diagnosis of paranoia I think I know most of you would say a resounding NO. So the whole issue of whether or not the fears expressed by the participants here go directly to the heart of fitness for holding a license.

    When people hold unrealistic fears, and especially when large numbers of people hold unrealistic fears, there will inevitably be some who proceed in their minds to justify violence.

    Let's be honest. The presumptions being put forth here about the motives of our government, and especially about O, are ridiculous.

    They are not born of either reality or understanding. They are initiated by paid propagandists and entertainers and carried forward by those susceptible to suggestion and unwilling or unable to think clearly, critically, or recognize reality. Birthers for example.

    People who hold unrealistic fears, especially that others (e.g., their own government) are out to "get them" are not people with good judgment. The operative word here being "unrealistic." That is why
    the word paranoia is appropriate.

    What starts out in the minds of some here as a legitimate concern about losing gun owner's rights has been transformed into something entirely different-- a paranoid fear of our government, our institutions, and our politicians.

    Hey Buddy, I said I am done on the subject as we will only ending up agreeing to disagree. I will point out however that, I did not mention politics simply opposing views.

    This subject aside everyone observes situations from their individual paradigm; we will all see individual situations based on the sum of our unique experiences. To cast aspersions on others based on your paradigm is as bad as acting on paranoid false beliefs.


    Peace and Kindest Regards,
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  12. #42
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    personally edited:

    Lets take care that we do not bash hop and hop does not bash others.

    Simply put this is a forum for like minded people. But that doesn't mean verbatim minded.

    Although I agree there may be a looming threat at the same time there is no need to become enemies within our community over a topic as this.

    lets use valid factual data to backup points if we so make them based on valid factual data.

    My start of this thread was based on a personal dire in the depths of my heart fear for you and my security and freedom as an American as I know.

    But the reality of our situation is that Obama said what he said.

    We look at history and we see nations that have had these security forces have undergone the worst dictatorships known to mankind and have suffered at the hands of merciless tyrant leaders whom used their own people against their own people.

    You may not think that your gun rights can be taken and they probably will not be but if this "Civil goon squad" decides you need to be disarmed and they are protected by law and statues pass forth by a congress willing to sheepatize their constituents, then what are you to do when they show up and disarm you by force and numbers.

    Just saying it will happen if we let it. Period. Liberal radical left wing loons are pushing for this every waking min of their lives and the second anyone in our country push for answers to the questions these same libs go into hostile defense slander race blaming mode.

    Just go read your history books people ... my God what is so hard to see what is going on here.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #43
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    I think Glenn is hitting a nerve with the left. They have not refuted anything he says or any of his research.
    You seriously have to be joking. The man can hardly get through a show without saying something that is easily proven false. Even in the infamous "deep seated hatred of white people" appearance on Fox and Friends, he contradicted himself less than 60 seconds later. He's not a loon because I disagree with him, he's a loon because he thinks 1+1=jellyfish.

    Please people, think this through. The "security force" was talked about in the context of national service. He was talking about the idea that a truly secure nation has to take care of its own, has to be fully educated, etc. It was the idea that we need to help ourselves. There's plenty of room to disagree about whether that should be a role for the government or not, but he wasn't freaking talking about armed goons.

    Honestly, the guy can't get a watered down health care bill through. It's nowhere near as radical as even Medicare, and you think he's going to manage to put together an armed force of Obamites to do his bidding?

    He's too much of a wuss to even go after Bush and his cronies for their war crimes, yet you think he's going to go Darth Sidious and take control of the country.

  14. #44
    Senior Member Array bbqgrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    In Delaware, East of the Mason Dixon Line.
    Posts
    797
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    You seriously have to be joking. The man can hardly get through a show without saying something that is easily proven false. Even in the infamous "deep seated hatred of white people" appearance on Fox and Friends, he contradicted himself less than 60 seconds later. He's not a loon because I disagree with him, he's a loon because he thinks 1+1=jellyfish.

    Please people, think this through. The "security force" was talked about in the context of national service. He was talking about the idea that a truly secure nation has to take care of its own, has to be fully educated, etc. It was the idea that we need to help ourselves. There's plenty of room to disagree about whether that should be a role for the government or not, but he wasn't freaking talking about armed goons.

    Honestly, the guy can't get a watered down health care bill through. It's nowhere near as radical as even Medicare, and you think he's going to manage to put together an armed force of Obamites to do his bidding?

    He's too much of a wuss to even go after Bush and his cronies for their war crimes, yet you think he's going to go Darth Sidious and take control of the country.
    Swing and a miss, this is the type of post that always gets marginally political threads closed. Swing and chops one foul, war crimes be serious, oh he went down looking that will bring up the home team.



    sic vis pacem para bellum
    "To believe that social reforms can eradicate evil altogether is to forget that evil is a protean creature, forever assuming a new shape when deprived of an old one." - SAT

    Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.

  15. #45
    Member Array mosouthpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombstone55 View Post
    Hopy, not everyone who is a republican/conservative agrees with everything that happened during the Bush administration (tarp, patriot act, no child left behind, schip, lack of border security, etc).
    +1

    i think this civilian security force is the administration's attempt bypass the use of military to conduct operations inside the US borders.

    i dont see why we need such a force when we already have several US agencies enforcing the laws already.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The Lima Review of Suarez International Force on Force Training with Steve Collins
    By limatunes in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: September 15th, 2010, 11:04 PM
  2. Obama's civilian national police force just got copulated
    By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 10th, 2009, 02:19 AM
  3. Obama's Civilian National Security Force
    By InspectorGadget in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2008, 02:41 PM

Search tags for this page

ffl interview questions

,

is the american government going to force certain civilians to take the swine flu shot

Click on a term to search for related topics.