Bend over, folks...

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.

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....



--

Blueskies wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message .. .
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....


Awhile back a black lawyer with dreadlocks used to walk through
white neighbourhoods so the cops would stop him and ask for ID. The
courts decided the police have no right to demand proof of
identification without probable cause. They have since found that
refusal to provide your name verbally is obstruction or something.

Unfortunately too many people who have nothing to hide tell police
who as that they don't mind if their vehicles are searched. If they
think they have probable cause they should have no problem getting a
search warrant. They may cuff you and put you in their vehicle "for
their own protection," to intimidate you into agreeing to a search. An
honest cop will tell you they catch lots of bad guys this way, but it
tramples a law abiding citizen's rights despite what the courts may say.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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.

"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)

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

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)

In a previous article, acepilot@bloomerdotnet said:
to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...

An IRA car bomb killed some friends of mine in a public market in
Warrington UK. An airliner killed a friend of mine while she was sitting
in a meeting with half of our customers in WTC 01. How exactly would your
own guns help in either of those cases? (Other than shooting me, because
obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with.)

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.

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
....would you work for a company that couldn't tell the difference in
quality of its employees' normal work product and the work product of
someone on drugs without performing a test? -- socks

("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

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