Police state? Yes/No?

[Chairboy]

To be fair, Ripsnort, the 'state' is busy working on removing that right.  The anti-handgun lobby (who has the ear of many a politician)  has said as much, essentially that they know people will object to sudden seizure of weapons, so they're doing it slowly, just like boiling a frog.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nice attempt to divert the conversation away from your original post's intent of painting the US as a "Police state", Curval.  I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms in a "police state"

This is what I wrote:

Under the guise of preventing terrorism it seems that the legacy of J. Edgar has the potential to live on.

You then brought up the 1/3 of people have an FBI file on them, which I said "smacks of a police-state in and of itself".

You did a much better job of "painting" than I did.

[Pongo]

It actually is a Canadian issue.
Parot Act

Rip
Are you saying then that Iraq was not a police state under Sadam? The individual Iraqi was far better armed then the individual American.

[SOB]

I think you're making a giant leap from what's in the article to J. Edgar Hoover / police state stuff.  Trying to pre-emptively avoid problems, especially when the president of the US is involved, just makes sense.  But that's not to say we don't have problems... I'd continue, but I looked at a pic of a woman showing her breasts that was posted on the FDB BBS last night, so I'm probably on Asscroft's watermelon list now - I'd better tread lightly.*








*If your handle is Eagler and/or you have your house decorated in a montage of Bush / Cheney / Asscroft / Crying Eagle posters, please relax your sphyncter, and understand that I know this was simply sarcasm and a gross exaggeration of our state of affairs.  I apologize if your panties got all atwist.  Carry on.

[X2Lee]

no

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Based on that article? No.

Based on other things, appear to be well on our way.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Pongo
Rip
Are you saying then that Iraq was not a police state under Sadam? The individual Iraqi was far better armed then the individual American.

I knew I should have written the last part of that sentence..let me clarify...
"I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms written into a constitution in a "police state"

And regarding Iraqi's being far better armed..there are quite  few countries that rivals the U.S. for gun ownership:

Europe's gun culture rivals US
 | By Honor Mahony

The UK's Independent picks up on a report that Europe's gun culture is giving the US a serious run for its money.

It quotes figures from the Small Arms Survey which show that Europeans own a total of 67 million registered guns - a number, the survey argues, showing that some nations have developed a gun culture that bears comparison with the United States.

"Contrary to the common assumption that Europeans are virtually unarmed, an estimated 84 million firearms are legally held in the 15 member states of the EU. Of these, 80 per cent - 67 million guns - are in civilian hands", the report states.

The Survey also shows that there are major differences between countries.

Germans are buying almost as many new firearms per capita as Americans.

Finland, with its strong hunting tradition, has the most legally registered guns in the EU at 39 per 100 people, the UK has 10 - one third of the German and French figures - and the Netherlands has two.

Gun laws are tightest in the UK, the Netherlands and Poland.

Aaron Karp, co-author of the report told the Independent: "Citizens of most European countries are more heavily armed than they realise, with an average of 17.4 guns per 100 people in the 15 EU countries alone."
 Not such a great difference between the United States and Europe.

Source: http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=11931

[Curval]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Based on that article? No.

Based on other things, appear to be well on our way.
-SW

Why not based on that article?  All the FBI needs to do is brand you an anarchist, then they start a file.  Simple really.

[Ripsnort]

Yes, Curval, as simple as this

[Curval]

You don't have to worry.  Anarchists have scruffy hair apparently.  They aren't after you.  

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Because surveillance of potential threat groups has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, with the new rules for America (or "laws" passed in the name of the war on terror) - you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree. Funny how that works, its paranoia at its greatest. Paranoia is a great weapon, it invokes fear. Fear is wrought by terror. Etc.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Because surveillance of potential threat groups has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, with the new rules for America (or "laws" passed in the name of the war on terror) - you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree. Funny how that works, its paranoia at its greatest. Paranoia is a great weapon, it invokes fear. Fear is wrought by terror. Etc.
-SW

I guess we could just do nothing and risk this scenario as the next attack...

[Eagler]

I ain't paraniod - are you?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Oh boy! Now thats sensational Rip!

Maybe you should read more carefully, between that post and the "black helicopters" I really don't think you are paying attention.

Eagler, the state of America would suggest the majority of the population IS.
-SW

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Oh boy! Now thats sensational Rip!

Maybe you should read more carefully, between that post and the "black helicopters" I really don't think you are paying attention.

Eagler, the state of America would suggest the majority of the population IS.
-SW

Heres the bill on the internet..go ahead and dissect it.  Show me the part where it says that you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree and BE SPECIFIC!

I doubt you've even  read the bill, so here it is.  There will be a test in 30 minutes.
http://www.pfir.org/2002-hr5005