Worried about this civilian security force? - Page 4

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; Originally Posted by Hopyard "What horrifically sad examples of paranoia--the above posts. It really makes we wonder if some of you are sufficiently mentally fit ...

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 142

Thread: Worried about this civilian security force?

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    Originally Posted by Hopyard
    "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 Constitution gives us the right to free speach. We all have a right to our opinions.
    I missed the part in the Bill of Rights that gives you or anyone else the right to challenge who might be mentally fit.
    We are adults here, and should be able to agree to disagree without such comments!
    Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.


  2. #47
    VIP Member Array bsnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,258
    Yes I can believe this is going down, it's called pay attension, Has everyone forgot SA? How much more will will it take before people get it? Get a grip!

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugergirl View Post
    Originally Posted by Hopyard
    "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 Constitution gives us the right to free speach. We all have a right to our opinions.
    I missed the part in the Bill of Rights that gives you or anyone else the right to challenge who might be mentally fit.
    We are adults here, and should be able to agree to disagree without such comments!
    +1

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    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.
    I think your head should be examined as well.

    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.
    Gee, that sounds just like what the liberals have done, are doing, and continue to do.
    "Civilian security force". What do you call the 40 or so Federal Agencies which have law enforcement authority?
    Unconstitutional.

    Why would you object to increasing some of these in size and scope if you were obeying the law?
    I object to their very existence.

    On another note, I think you fail to realize Obama isn't talking about the established GOVERNMENT police force. He is talking about a force made of civilians separate from government police agencies currently in existence. These would be separate and most likely have more authority than the current LE, consistent with what history has shown us in communist countries before.

    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.
    That's the problem that Obama and the left wingers have. You don't deal with terrorists, you kill them.

    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.
    I was not one of them. I was one that questioned my government.

    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?
    I think it is you that live in a fantasy world. If you can't see how Obama is consistently ruining this country by creating "czars", ruining the already burdened economy, and implementing a host of known communist and socialist radicals as his top advisors and appointees, your version of reality is severely convoluted with mantra from the left.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  5. #50
    Senior Member Array TucAzRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    792
    By "civilian security force"... Meaning those that have not sworn an oath (I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;) Now let's think about this,.. Those in charge (above the president, that are really calling the shots) know that a revolution in this country would bring out weapons behind every blade of grass. They also know that most (60% from the one report I read) of the military wouldn't raise a rifle at a citizen of the USA. They are smart enough to know, to take control of this country (NWO) they need to have a force more powerful then the current military that is "for the people, by the people".

    Call it what you will, but this is real and to be prepared is good,. . Do the research yourself, don't trust in what anyone on here says,. It is good for everyone to get a real life view of what is going on in the world,. Not just what the media wants you to believe...

    Also,.. There is wolves in sheep clothing on this site,.. That is apparent and most should be able to spot them if they follow posts at all.. Keep an eye out for them..

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    If you don't like what is going on...you sure won't like this.



    August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
    Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
    by Declan McCullagh

    Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

    They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

    The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

    "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

    Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

    A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

    When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

    The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

    Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

    The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

    Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

    "The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

    Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

    The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."


    How much are we willing to take? I know I have had my fill.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  7. #52
    Member Array cz2075bd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    272
    Our current prez is a prideful, arrogant megalomaniac. He basks in being called God, the messiah, etc. He is our only president ever to have his own logo and to have his own propaganda posters reminiscent of nazi/communist leader posters. On his birthday they put up a giant poster of his face outside the whitehouse. This narcissistic mindset is characteristic of many men in the 20th century who started by articulating good intentions but became responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents.

    Our current prez is now pursuing powers to allow him take emergency control over the Internet and all private computer networks in an emergency.

    Our current prez has asked Americans to inform him of the identities of friends, family, and colleagues who perpetuate "fishy" information about his agenda.

    Our current prez's FCC Chairman is planning to institute local "diversity" formulae to force radio stations to alter their content. The FCC Chairman also recently held up Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as a positive example of government intervention in mass media.

    Our current prez has enlisted union thugs (SEIU) at town halls to intimidate and violently tamp down on public opposition to his agenda.

    Our current prez's M.O. is that the end justifies the means.

    What might O. want a domestic security force for? It could be anything from the relatively innocuous to the outright machiavellian. He is much less concerned with the constitution as he is with establishing his socialist utopia.

    Am I concerned by the comment? Yes. Do I think a gestapo is imminent? No, but still, when you take his remark in the context of everything else, and with retrospect towards his radical contemporaries in Chicago (Saul Alinsky, etc.) and some of the things they have said about revolution, etc., it does give one pause.

    Gotta admit Glen Beck is ballzy. He is the only one on talk radio or TV who is really looking beyond the surface into what is going on right now. He is finding some footprints that perhaps go beyond/above Obama, and through both political parties, to unseen power brokers who are benefitting immensely from the current collapse and restructuring of our economy. No wonder they are trying to discredit Beck and shut him down. If he is right, he could even be in physical danger right now.

    Beck does not buy into every new-world-order consipracy theory out there. He recently did a segment debunking the so-called FEMA "concentration camps". He is most concerned with things like the health care bill (which he fears would put his daughter, who has cerebral palsy, in a bad situation due to qualit-of-life adjusted rationing. The same thing Palin is motivated by due to her son who has Down's Syndrome).

    Time will tell.

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Gee, take over the transportation industry, the communications industry, the health care industry, the financial industry yet the current administration (or "regime" in Obama's own words) isn't communist or socialist even though that's exact what Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Tse Tung etc did when they came to power. And Hopy calls us paranoid. Fool.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  9. #54
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by bbqgrill View Post
    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.
    Not quite. I responded to the notion that Glenn Beck is essentially never responded to. He is. If I made a mistake, it was that I didn't provide a list of such incidents. I can if the original poster would like.

    After that, I provided a reasonable interpretation of Obama's statement. You are free to disagree, reasonable people can, but there was nothing inflammatory or out of bounds about it.

    Then I listed a number of rational reasons to doubt that Obama is going to be able to assemble an all powerful force of stormtroopers to carry out his will. The Bush line was not intended to start a flame war about that administration, it was a genuine example (in my view) of the fact that Obama has no political or moral courage whatsoever.

    If you disagree with me, fine, answer the points rather than ignoring them and posting cutesy rejoinders with absolutely no content.

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array Spirit51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    Let's see. Nazis took over the auto industry....banking....and health care...media. Next would be taking weapons out of the hands of private citizens. Yeah your right...I see nothing that looks the same. In case you need it pointed out....the above was sarcastic.

    Not everyone is willing to hide their heads in the sand like you. I see you as just another . Many of us don't run with THAT flock.
    A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
    Susan B. Anthony
    A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
    Robert Heinlein

  11. #56
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by cz2075bd View Post
    Our current prez is a prideful, arrogant megalomaniac. He basks in being called God, the messiah, etc. He is our only president ever to have his own logo and to have his own propaganda posters reminiscent of nazi/communist leader posters. On his birthday they put up a giant poster of his face outside the whitehouse. This narcissistic mindset is characteristic of many men in the 20th century who started by articulating good intentions but became responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents.

    Our current prez is now pursuing powers to allow him take emergency control over the Internet and all private computer networks in an emergency.

    Our current prez has asked Americans to inform him of the identities of friends, family, and colleagues who perpetuate "fishy" information about his agenda.

    Our current prez's FCC Chairman is planning to institute local "diversity" formulae to force radio stations to alter their content. The FCC Chairman also recently held up Hugo Chavez's Venezuela as a positive example of government intervention in mass media.

    Our current prez has enlisted union thugs (SEIU) at town halls to intimidate and violently tamp down on public opposition to his agenda.

    Our current prez's M.O. is that the end justifies the means.

    What might O. want a domestic security force for? It could be anything from the relatively innocuous to the outright machiavellian. He is much less concerned with the constitution as he is with establishing his socialist utopia.

    Am I concerned by the comment? Yes. Do I think a gestapo is imminent? No, but still, when you take his remark in the context of everything else, and with retrospect towards his radical contemporaries in Chicago (Saul Alinsky, etc.) and some of the things they have said about revolution, etc., it does give one pause.

    Gotta admit Glen Beck is ballzy. He is the only one on talk radio or TV who is really looking beyond the surface into what is going on right now. He is finding some footprints that perhaps go beyond/above Obama, and through both political parties, to unseen power brokers who are benefitting immensely from the current collapse and restructuring of our economy. No wonder they are trying to discredit Beck and shut him down. If he is right, he could even be in physical danger right now.

    Beck does not buy into every new-world-order consipracy theory out there. He recently did a segment debunking the so-called FEMA "concentration camps". He is most concerned with things like the health care bill (which he fears would put his daughter, who has cerebral palsy, in a bad situation due to qualit-of-life adjusted rationing. The same thing Palin is motivated by due to her son who has Down's Syndrome).

    Time will tell.
    You forgot narcissistic
    Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.

  12. #57
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Tubby45 View Post
    You don't deal with terrorists, you kill them.
    Actually, that is how you deal with them.
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Array TucAzRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    792
    By obama definition,.. Any right wing extremist that owns a weapon and ammo for that weapon is a terrorist??? Are they not?? In cluding the "guy that stood at a town meeting"...

    Now by old definition,.. That is not the case,....

  14. #59
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,914

    Apparently not

    Quote Originally Posted by Rugergirl View Post
    Originally Posted by Hopyard
    "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."
    I missed the part in the Bill of Rights that gives you or anyone else the right to challenge who might be mentally fit.
    :[/QUOTE]

    Most states have standards for issuance of CHL and this is perfectly constitutional.

    So far, no court has ruled this practice unconstitutional. Not even in Heller--which I thought should have gone much further.

    Folks who can't tell the difference between real danger and fantasy island danger aren't fit to be carrying IMO.

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Actually, that is how you deal with them.
    Dealing infers compromise. We don't compromise, we kill.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... 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.