Bend over, folks...

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
...because obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with


Tomblin? Tomblin? Sounds familiar enough, but I can't quite place the face.


Paul-Mont

"jl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 17, 12:58 pm, "Blueskies"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in
messagenews:ZNCdnUzsMue6_ujbnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@brigh t.net...
So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will
just be a metter of time before they go after my Corben and my F-150.
I still stand by my original belief that the
knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover to take away our
freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...

Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own
business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no?
This has been going on for years,and no-one
seems to give a damn....

I was walking off some steam about 1 a. m. in Asheville, NC. A cop
stopped me and asked me what I was doing there. I was walking through
the parking lot of a bowling alley about 2 blocks from my home. I was
out getting exercise, I told him.

He asked me for I. D. I told him I had none. Then I asked him wth
he was doing shaking down local residents out for a peaceful
neighborhood stroll. He did not answer. He then demanded that I
accompany him to my home to show him who I was. I refused. "I have
done nothing wrong. You're not going to shake me down," I said. He
then threatened me with arrest for resisting, delaying and obstructing
a police officer in the performance of his duties.

I told him that by god if he arrested me he'd better have a charge
that stuck or I would be owning a 2d lien on his mobile home. "Do
you have nothing better to do than to menace private citizens on the
street doing absolutely nothing illegal?" I asked him.

"I am not "mincing" you," he said.

He started to put his hands on me. "NO, don't you touch me," I said.

After a few minutes he said, "You can go. Go ahead." I walked away
immediately.

I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.


You just got lucky. He probably didn't figure you were worth it.

In a previous article, "Montblack" said:
("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
...because obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with

Tomblin? Tomblin? Sounds familiar enough, but I can't quite place the face.

I'm prepared to deny under torture that you ever brought me an ice filled
water bottle at Oshkosh.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Using vi is kind of like having sex. The first time to use it, it's kind
of awkward, but after using for a while you start to get good at it and
enjoy it. -- Eric Merkel

Rob Turk wrote:
"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
...
No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either. You
don't know who the terrorists are.

A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of a
story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
middle-Eastern decent?

The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and 'War
on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for terrorist
that does not include the standard high-school bully.

BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we ever
start.

I think you folkes on the other side of the ocean need to wake up. You need
ZERO terrorists anymore. Terrorists are people who inflict fear in other
people, for political or ideological reasons. Sometimes by their acts
(attacks) but almost always by their threats.

By now there's no need for any radical groups to act anymore, your
government has found the perfect excuse to keep the fear perpetuating. It
has allowed your government to grab powers beyond their wildest dreams,
powers that they would never have gotten away with if the common people were
not scared as hell for something as intangible as "the terrorists". You are
idiots for not recognising that it is your own government who are
terrorizing you, and have been for the past several years. Wake up, call
your congress goons and make it absolutely clear that this is not the 'free
country' you want to live in.

Blue skies...

Rob
(The Netherlands)



Sadly, Rob you are exactly right.


George

Nope, can't recall ever being asked for ID out of the blue, but these
days, I wouldn't be a bit surprised...

Blueskies wrote:


Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no? This has been going on for years,and no-one
seems to give a damn....



--

OK, I will try to qualify my view of a "terrorist"...anyone that
approaches me or my family with some visible weapon of some sort (I
know, bombs hidden under shirts or skirts can't be seen so it wouldn't
be a 100% effective way to identify my terrorists) and doesn't respond
to my cease and desist order. If they keep coming after a warning I
will not guarantee that I will pursue a peaceful course of action...not
perfect, but neither is any other method the gov tries to employ...

Scott


Ernest Christley wrote:

Scott wrote:

So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will just be a metter of
time before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my
original belief that the knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient
cover to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to
protect me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...


No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either. You
don't know who the terrorists are.

A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of
a story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
middle-Eastern decent?

The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and
'War on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for
terrorist that does not include the standard high-school bully.

BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we
ever start.

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
feel the government can effectively protect me either...

Paul Tomblin wrote:



In other words, while I don't think the current government can protect us
from terrorists, I don't believe you can protect yourself either.
Fortunately, terrorists aren't anywhere near as big a threat as the
government and their buddies in the media would like you to believe.


--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

In article .com,
jl wrote:

I was walking off some steam about 1 a. m. in Asheville, NC. A cop
stopped me and asked me what I was doing there. I was walking through
the parking lot of a bowling alley about 2 blocks from my home. I was
out getting exercise, I told him.

If you had had a dog on a leash, he would not have stopped you.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
feel the government can effectively protect me either...

You obviously don't attend my church. (Not being funny - I attend and am a
member of a mainstream Christian church.)

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Scott" wrote in message
...
That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
feel the government can effectively protect me either...

You obviously don't attend my church. (Not being funny - I attend and am a
member of a mainstream Christian church.)

Rich S.


That left me wondering as well. It seemed to give a whole new dimension to
ecclesiastical arguments...

Peter :-)