In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Homeland security or the beginning of a police

alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
edited June 2002 in General Discussion
state.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush called on Congress to set up a Cabinet-level homeland defense agency Thursday to protect the nation amid "a titanic struggle against terror."

In a televised address from the White House, Bush told the nation that a sweeping reorganization of the federal government is needed to improve domestic security.

The centerpiece of his proposal is a Department of Homeland Security, which would consolidate duties now spread across nine federal departments and include a central clearinghouse for analyzing intelligence information. With an estimated 169,000 employees, the new agency would be second only to the Defense Department in terms of size.

Comments

  • RugerNinerRugerNiner Member Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We as Citizens have to keep a close eye on this to make sure we don't become a police state Nationwide.

    I feel Bush should have said something about citizen participation other than keeping eyes and ears open.

    This is were Citizen Militias are necessary. Just knowing they exsist should be a Deterrent to Terrorist.

    Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!

    Edited by - RugerNiner on 06/07/2002 06:00:39
    Keep your Powder dry and your Musket well oiled.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
  • BlueTicBlueTic Member Posts: 4,072
    edited November -1
    If they keep their focus on foreiners and leave the US citizens alone - yeah like that will happen - we are already guilty untill proven innocent. I really feel we should shut down the airports untill they stop with the gestapo tactics on us citizens. Racial profiling is not an issue - the issue is if you are here on a visa (non-citizen) then you should expect searches at the airport and residence. Just because a person is here, does not give them the same rights as us...

    IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)
  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    We won't become a police state unless the good citizens want it or just ley it happen. The feed back that I get from the nonrural breakfast diners in the mornings is they are perfectly willing to go along with anything the government wants to do as long as it makes us safer with most saying "After all, if you have nothing to hide you should not be afraid of the government". Wow, how about our liberties and freedoms, they are worth hiding from the government so they are all not taken away.

    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
  • kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,858 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    First thing I thought of ... was Hitler ... Am I paranoid?

    1."Re-Organization of the Government?"

    2. "Homeland Defense" - Protecting the Motherland?

    3. "High-Level Cabinet" - Gestapo?

    =================================
    The only bad thing about choosing a Kimber ...
    ... there are so darn many models to choose from!
    kimberkid@gunbroker.zzn.com


    Edited by - kimberkid on 06/07/2002 09:15:19
    If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
    ? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is one of those things that seems like a good idea at the time, which in 20 or 50 years could get really ugly. "A Republic, if you can keep it."
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    Ashcrofts speech is what scared me, he sounded like it was a stepping stone to wider restrictions on citizens.

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It is absolutely numbing how willing most Americans are to blythly hand over their rights and freedoms. This Homeland Security business looks very worrysome to me.
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,697 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What a "conservative" Bush is. Every chance he gets he expands big govt. to the max.

    "Not as deep as a well, or as wide as a church door, but it is enough."
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    AllenGrigs-X Ring.
    The last thing we need is yet another cabinet position, and another agency.
    When one considers the fact that we already have a ton of agencies that should be dealing with these situations, its quite hard to beleive that another government agency is going to do anything to solve these problems.
    The only thing it will accomplish is a little bit more surrendering of our liberties.

    "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
    -James Madison
  • Rob GreeneRob Greene Member Posts: 102 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thank you all for making me not feel like I was the only person who was worried about this step. While I am concerned about the security of my state and our country, I am also concerned about what may become of the state and country if misguided persons attempt to wield unconstitutional powers in an attempt to "protect" us. Me, my rifle, and 1000's more just like me will keep this country free from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. God Bless America!

    **It is your right to posess a firearm. In case of questions, please refer to ammendment 2, United States Constitution.**
  • mousemouse Member Posts: 3,624
    edited November -1
    Rob Greene, Timberkid, 4GodnCountry, I agree with u.

    Read any book on Hitler's propoganda and this homeland
    security smacks of Nazi SS. Unity and common goals to
    protect the motherland. Brain wash your kids in school.
    This program in the high schools for community service
    reminds me of the brown shirts too. Smoke and mirrors.

    I get irate listening to the dribble coming out of peoples
    mouths while we are fast loosing our liberties in this
    country.

    I looked up Militia's for my state, and it's address was
    no longer viable. Texas, and Tenn. looks like they have
    their acts together. WAKE UP!!!!!
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Troops....I fear that this is the nose of the camel.
    Things like this are done incrementally. This thing is going to get more and more pervasive until I rights are so infringed we won't recognize them anymore. I predict a large increase in the ranks of the various militias around the country.
    Gonna' be interesting to see which Republican might run against Bush in '04. If Dubya keeps up with this kinda' crap, someone might. And they might beat him.

    Mudge the suspicious

    ps. We keep posting stuff like this and the "Homeland Defense" goons just might pay some of us a visit now that they can bug our computers.

    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Anybody see O'Reilly last night? Tom Ridge was going on about the benefits of the so-called government reorganization and how it would improve "homeland security." O'Reilly asked him if there were any plans to militarize the north and south U.S. borders and Ridge answered that "we" did NOT want to put the military on the borders and hurt the good relationship we have with our friends from Canada and Mexico.

    So, I guess national security is of paramount importance, second only to bullsh!t politics. How does any rational human being think we can ever secure this country if we're unable or unwilling to defend our borders? This is insanity!

    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The answer to that question depends upon whether the government decides to view its law-abiding armed citizens as (justly) their friends and allies in the war on terror, or (unjustly) their foes, only getting in the way of things.

    The expansion of state laws for CCW permits does give me hope that things are turning around in certain limited areas, but we are far from assured that our rights will be extended rather than further abridged. Let's make sure we let everyone know we are a force for good in terms of homeland security and that a sensible plan will ease the unconstitutional and paranoid restrictions on the good people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Since laws are harder to repeal than they are to pass, I will continue to stock up on pre-ban mags and such, since I don't expect them to be re-legalized any time soon -- though they should be. And it's not too soon to begin dropping hints to your congressmen and women that the 2004 sunset of the anti-Second Amendment ban on assault imports will remove one blockade to homeland security.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Okay, here's the problem from a different angle. You give the government these tools to use on American citizens, and while there's a relatively friendly Republican administration we may make some positive headway. But once these policies are in place, what will the next Democrat administration try to do with the same tools? The Secretary of Homeland Security could go from best friend to most heinous enemy of the constitution and gun rights in general. The worst case scenario is broad machinery for increasing internal security in the hands of gun banning government who doesn't trust their its own people with the means to defend their persons and their property. These laws and new policies need to have safeguards built in to prevent such misuse by "the wrong party." Otherwise, laws intended to make access to militia weapons easier could enable the Feinsteins and Schumers of the world to raid American homes and accomplish the opposite of the original intent, making us sheep for the terrorists. Thanks for making me think twice about this.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

    Edited by - offeror on 06/08/2002 14:34:06
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well, you got me going. I just finished sending a round of e-mails to the Pres, the Vice Pres, my own reps, and the heads of the Appropriations, Ethics, Judiciary, Intelligence and a couple of other committees regarding the potential dangers of the Office of Homeland Security, to wit:

    Those of us law-abiding citizens who actively work to assure the continuance of our Second Amendment rights have been heartened by Mr. Ashcroft's pronouncement that the Second Amendment describes an individual right, and by such actions as the various states' adoption of more concealed carry laws for citizens. However, we do have one concern about the potential for abuse of the new Office of Homeland Security.

    It is all well and good to contemplate law-abiding citizens as friends and allies in the internal war on terrorism, and so long as we have a conservative Cabinet member who is in favor of gun ownership for citizens, CCWs, fewer restrictions on imports, the sunset of the ban in 2004, and in the "unorganized citizen militia," we will be a safer country.

    But please do not forget to build in safeguards against the Cabinet office being occupied by a gun-banning liberal of the "other party." The same tools which may be designed for the good of internal security could be turned against Americans if interpreted as a license to ban, restrict and confiscate. Please be sure that the charter for the Office of Homeland Security codifies the principle of unimpeded citizen gun rights, and that it incorporates the value of the individual citizen, well armed, as the friend and ally of the war on terrorism rather than its enemy.

    Some of us see the potential for unlimited internal chaos if the Office of Homeland Security were warped into an instrument of oppression by a gun banner like Schumer, Feinstein or Brady. There is already a certain degree of fear of this slippery slope toward a "police state," even though it is staunch conservatives like Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Bush proposing it.

    If this office were to have the unbridled ability to reverse its course and be used to oppress the citizenry, I would not like to be in the streets under such a condition. You MUST see that the charter for the new Cabinet office is written to clearly make the law-abiding citizen and the Second Amendment the allies of this office and NOT its objects of control. It is hard to overstate the importance of this basic concept.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

    Edited by - offeror on 06/08/2002 15:31:47
  • 96harley96harley Member Posts: 3,992 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rob Green, Ruger,
    I agree. Don't look at me as a threat just because I own a gun or two.
    Look at me as an asset. The average American with any sense (we sure are short on those or is that just the media making it appear that way?) knows any time you give the government something at the front door they'll soon be crawling in the windows and knocking down the back door to get what you have. Homeland security is a is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Dont be so quick to believe that it is the democrats who will use this to opress us.
    Reagan brought us asett forfeiture laws.
    Nixon gave us OSHA
    George the Elder gave us the civil rights act.
    The republicans are usually the ones who give us opressive laws in the name of "law and order".

    "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal governmentare few and defined, and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation, and foreign commerce"
    -James Madison
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Beginning of the police state ,or end of the beginning or was it the beginning of the end sinse we were at the end of the beginning ....

    Poor choice of destiny make thoose that for upholding the law go against the "LAW".
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    salzo -
    Point taken, but I still think we're better off having these post-9/11 changes taking place under a Republican administration than we would be if the Democrats were in there deciding how best to "make safe the homeland." I think we'd be seeing a rationalization that guns need to become largely unavailable domestically in order to assure they can't fall into "the wrong hands" here, meaning God-knows how many more curtailed rights for all Americans who have supposedly been "deputized" in spirit by the events of 9/11. At least Ashcroft and Justice have notified the Supreme Court that they stand behind the individual rights interpretation of the Second. I don't think you'll ever find a Democrat administration as friendly to gun owners as a Republican one. Certainly HCI has been temporarily derailed since Clinton left office.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • stanmanstanman Member Posts: 3,052
    edited November -1
    You could call me 'dim' or 'naive', of course you could call GW the same, and in both cases you'd probably be right!
    I think this whole "Office of National Security" thing stinks to high heaven! I may be wrong, but I smell a rat!
    Just like when Ashcroft and George Jr., out of the blue, started espousing their supposed belief that the second ammendment guaranteed individual rights.
    Where did that come from?
    There was no case before The Supreme Court that had anything to do with the second ammendment, so why choose this particular time to throw down the gauntlet? Why choose that point in time to thumb your nose at the same court that put you in office only months earlier?
    Being the naive dimwit that I am, I believe that the Bush administration was actually purchasing some FUTURE political capital.
    Only time will tell if I'm correct, but watch for our "Conservative Administration" to "reconsider" or "soften" that position in exchange for Democratic support on some other issue.
    Like homeland security maybe?


    "Homeland Security" is a defender shotgun in every home and a .45 on every hip!
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    This could be the first step the government has always wanted to gain more power over the people. We are in for a big change my friends!
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    stanman --
    Something in a .308 would be nice too.

    Political capital purchased at the cost of lying to the American people about something as fundamental as a stand on the core of the Bill of Rights is a cause worthy of a Tienamen Square. They'd better make sure you're wrong about that. The only thing more dangerous than a young gung ho American in the service is an old principled American in his home. We won't be lied to, and we've lived long enough to know what's really worth defending at any cost.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • stanmanstanman Member Posts: 3,052
    edited November -1
    Offeror,
    You're right, I forgot the .30 caliber!
    Perhaps something in a belt-fed model?
    Bolted to the roof?
    Yea, that works for me!
  • mousemouse Member Posts: 3,624
    edited November -1
    Offeror, good points. My brother thinks they won't
    bother to kick in our doors. He believes they'll use
    a biological weapon, so they can still use our land
    and water, when they decide they can't disarm us.
    The agenda for the new world order is way behind
    schedule as it is. We voted out the national I.D.
    so now they're using a national drivers
    license. In our city we voted against camera's at
    traffic intersections. They installed them anyway.
    Every nation that has voluntarily given up it's
    guns are now defenseless victims. They are about
    to do the same thing to the christians of Macedonia.

    We need strong
    Militia's. We need state government to stand up ;to
    the feds. We need to down size the federal government big

    time. They are to be serving us. I feel like I am in servitude.
    To hell with Peace at any cost. I hate it when I see these
    signs God Bless America. America needs to Bless God.

    Sift thru it friends, I'm a ranting now.
    Start my gun safety class Mon. It's a start hey?
    s
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Funny, we're not hearing from anyone who thinks the new Homeland Security Department is a good idea.

    If a farmer bashes his mule on the head with a mallet long enough, even the dumb mule will start to get skittish when the farmer picks up a sledge hammer.
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It makes me uneasy as well, but this whole thing seems to be going the way of a discussion of the Trilateral Commission. Yes, the Machievellian despots are out there, and here, no one needs to look further than the U.N. to see that, however, I really don't see a motive for GW, other than political expediency and an effort to "look like he's doing something". The man is NOT, as some might say, as dumb as a rock, he's sharp as a tack, and knows the score. There would be no place for him in a purported "New World Order", and he surely can see that. He's got a wife and kids, too. He's doing what he thinks will look good to the majority of the people. There is no force other than nuclear that could ever keep the American gun owner under a fist, if it came down to that. It ain't going to happen, nor will biological weapons directed by our own government towards its citizens. To what end? What would it solve, and who would it please, unless you believe that every person in government is a psychopathic lunatic, because if all of this came true, then they would be the only ones left....to sort out what??? Themselves? Doesn't wash. Just another attempt to make the people "feel good" that the government is doing SOMETHING, kinda goes right with the Hegelian Dialectic, no?
Sign In or Register to comment.