The fall of America...

[King of the Americas]

...and what has to happen to bring us there:

-non-existant border boundries
-a willingness to provoke enemies into a hostile state
-a military not designed for defensive purposes
-a population of fat, lazy, unarmed civilians

Lately, I have had the opportunity to revisit an older news story, and how we reacted to it.

I am sure all of you remember the Maryland snipers, and the absolute terror they managed to put upon the people of Maryland? Well, I wrote a series if e-mails to media outlets about 'better ways' to protect civilians, and the ineffectiveness of law enforcement to bring the case to a prompt close.

At the time, I recall some other people being opposed to my questioning the ability and knowledge of the officials working on the case, but maybe by now, the waters have calmed so that we can discuss this issue in an adult manner.

I believe this kind of attack could very well end up being the demise of America...

2 men...well, one man and a boy, a car, a center fire riffle, and lots of ammunition, managed to completely disrupt a civilian population for some weeks. I may be off a little on the exact details of the case, but basically an indivdual or two used our most basic rights and tools to a very effective form of attack.

Now, how many of those crates do we inspect at our borders and in our harbors?

While our present enemies do not have a navy, persay. They have proven themselves willing and able to use our transport vehicles as such for any purpose they choose.

Socially speaking, the roots of War are afoot. Somewhere in the middle east is an overpopulation of young men, and their leaders have all the ammunition they need to motivate them enough to risk their lives in an attack against us, on their soil or our's.

WHY in God's name are our leaders SO willing to lead us down this path? WHY are they so unable to read history and understand that to ignore it is to repeat it!?

Oh the mistake we made, when we practiced to invade.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...Socially speaking, the roots of War are afoot. Somewhere in the middle east is an overpopulation of young men, and their leaders have all the ammunition they need to motivate them enough to risk their lives in an attack against us, on their soil or our's.


Stop giving them ammunition. Deprive the terrorists of their raison d'etre and they will vanish. Much less costly than TWAT.

[King of the Americas]

I am affraid 'I' am not the one giving them ammunition.

My government leaders, and corporate officials have all but completely covered their orders to the fullest.

What is "TWAT"?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
What is "TWAT"?

The War Against Terror

[King of the Americas]

...can be found in over-expansionism, without proper respect to invaded nations and peoples.

These are difficult practices for citizens to change.

[King of the Americas]

...a hesistancy.

[glee]

How many Americans are killed by other Americans using guns each year?

How many die in road accidents?

And how many are killed by terrorists?

[King of the Americas]

...there is a shift coming in these numbers.

To date, Drunk Drivers account for the most deaths and injuries to Americans.

[Quasi]

I think one concept that Bin Laden and Saddam had was to grow enormous personal power and money, which has little to do with the USA or Islam, these are just things for them to use to their own ends. For example, Saddam had 650 million US in a wall of one apartment. Clearly there is a LOT more money out there stashed away. Similarly, Bin Laden was setting up terror cells in central asia in order to set up theocracies there for him to control. None of this has anything to do with "political inequalities" its just a few taking advantage of young, uncritical people. TWAT is sending a clear message to companies and countries that support these types of people: You will not make any money, your property will be taken, and you will possibly be arrested. Many former supporters, such as the French oil companies who paid Saddam off, are sadly now without any oil to sell from Iraq.

[King of the Americas]

...the tighter our military grip gets, the more aggitated and the more motivated toward aggression these 'cells' will become.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted King of the Americas
-a population of fat, lazy, unarmed civilians

The fat and lazy part I've heard before, but how did you arrive at the conclusion that the American populace was unarmed?

At the time, I recall some other people being opposed to my questioning the ability and knowledge of the officials working on the case, but maybe by now, the waters have calmed so that we can discuss this issue in an adult manner.

I believe this kind of attack could very well end up being the demise of America...

2 men...well, one man and a boy, a car, a center fire riffle, and lots of ammunition, managed to completely disrupt a civilian population for some weeks. I may be off a little on the exact details of the case, but basically an indivdual or two used our most basic rights and tools to a very effective form of attack.

Given your stellar attention to detail, I can't imagine how anyone ever questioned your competence to comment on the case. :rolleyes:

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Stop giving them ammunition. Deprive the terrorists of their raison d'etre and they will vanish. Much less costly than TWAT.


TWAT. Heh, Heh. Nice one. For some reason I've never come across that acronym. Perhaps I should get out more.

[King of the Americas]

I didn't say that we ARE fat, lazy, and unarmed.

I said this is but one of the things that will aid/cause in our fall.

---

They weren't commenting on ME or my ideas and their validity. They were upset that I would or could criticize our 'leadership'.

I got shouted down by a few upset nationalists, just like I did when I asked the question, "Could WE have done anything to provoke these attacks?", on 9-12.

Nobody really likes to talk about and or address our shortcomings and failures...

...too bad too, because if we continue down our present path, death and destruction are sure to come, and the utter failure of America is not beyond comprehension.

[Stig]

Quote: King of the Americas
Nobody really likes to talk about and or address our shortcomings and failures...

...too bad too, because if we continue down our present path, death and destruction are sure to come, and the utter failure of America is not beyond comprehension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's too bad that the vast majority of Americans cannot see this. You can see it and I can see it and terrorists can see it. Your government and most of the people they govern are too happy to have their cheap petrol and "freedom". America will not last with the way things are going.

Stig

[Cain]

-a population of fat, lazy, unarmed civilians

Fat? Check.
Lazy? In many important ways, yes. Still, Americans work harder and longer than most europeans (see this thread, "Work Week Woes" posted a little while ago that got zero replies):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17500

Americans, in my opinion, only work hard so they can purchase more consumer goods (keeping up with the Joneses). The fact Americans put more hours into the day taking orders from their bosses and enriching a narrow segment of the population, could be a contributing factor to weight gains (no one has the time to eat right).

We're lazy when it comes to democratic participation.

Unarmed civilans? Nope. But it's interesting to think about how the government views black men picking up guns. Ronald Reagan had no problem signing into law severe gun restrictions because black men began arming themselves and taking back their neighborhoods. I heard there's an estimated 40,000 men in milita groups (overwhelmingly white) here in the U.S. Can anyone imagine if 40,000 black guys began arming themselves and training for the big war against the Federal government? The sniper incident doesn't help, which leads me to say...

I'm not sure how you propose we deal with sniper attacks in metropolitan areas.

If Americans could thin down, maybe they could run from a sniper -- and die tired.

Owning weapons would not help either. Picture the scene of a sniper's bullet taking a person down. Everyone draws their weapon for a Reservoir Dogs-style stand-off. Ah, good times.

I agree American imperalism is the most decisive factor, but what constructive suggestions do you have to offer?

[King of the Americas]

YOUR's is the response I was waiting for.

What could we have done, and what SHOULD those civilians have done to secure their safety and put to an end these snipers who were in fact preying upon the citizens of Maryland?

The People have and should employ the right to Bare Arms and form a local Militia.

Now to ME, that means a bunch of good ol'boys getting together and 'hunt' an area, by setting up elevated look-out points, no more than a quarter mile apart, and connected by CB, and or walkie-talkies, just waiting for the preditator to make a move, and then they surround, attack, and or capture.

This to me is the very basic prinicple of self-determination and preservation that was ment in providing us the 2nd Amendment. And to ME, this is what it means to live in a Free State, free of torment, terror, or tyranny.

When 'crimes' are committed against a people, they can and should be will and able to defend themselves and their liberty.

Sadly, the leadership and law enforcement failed to capture this most pasic principle in the employment of their defensive or offensive tactics against the snipers. For several weeks their attacks went on, unstopped.

I am just saying, that if that sh*t went down in Texas...it wouldn't have taken so long to find them.

As I recall, they just happen to 'stumble upon them while they were sleeping'...?

How do we do, what we do, and why do we do it that way?

Better days through better ways, people.

[Frostbite]

Watch Bowling for Columbine, very thought provoking.

[max]

Nikk
Did you know this acronym too......
Found Under Carnal Knowledge?:D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by max
Nikk
Did you know this acronym too......
Found Under Carnal Knowledge?:D

(imprisoned) For Unlawfull Carnal Knowledge ie. fornication.

[King of the Americas]

Moore got an award for it, didn't he?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
YOUR's is the response I was waiting for.

What could we have done, and what SHOULD those civilians have done to secure their safety and put to an end these snipers who were in fact preying upon the citizens of Maryland?

The People have and should employ the right to Bare Arms and form a local Militia.

Now to ME, that means a bunch of good ol'boys getting together and 'hunt' an area, by setting up elevated look-out points, no more than a quarter mile apart, and connected by CB, and or walkie-talkies, just waiting for the preditator to make a move, and then they surround, attack, and or capture.

This to me is the very basic prinicple of self-determination and preservation that was ment in providing us the 2nd Amendment. And to ME, this is what it means to live in a Free State, free of torment, terror, or tyranny.

When 'crimes' are committed against a people, they can and should be will and able to defend themselves and their liberty.

Sadly, the leadership and law enforcement failed to capture this most pasic principle in the employment of their defensive or offensive tactics against the snipers. For several weeks their attacks went on, unstopped.

I am just saying, that if that sh*t went down in Texas...it wouldn't have taken so long to find them.

As I recall, they just happen to 'stumble upon them while they were sleeping'...?

How do we do, what we do, and why do we do it that way?

Better days through better ways, people.

I often get a chuckle from the KOA posts where he lectures to the word as to what should be done about this, that, or the other, via postings that are full of many obivious editing and spelling errors such as this one item:

The People have and should employ the right to Bare Arms and form a local Militia.

Yeah right! Like the bad guys would really be scared into submission by a bare armed militia. KOA should win an award for supremely pretentious posting with numerous spelling errors.

It could be called the SPOONE Award.

[King of the Americas]

...always hate, and always will HATE typing, writing, and spelling of any kind.

SCREW it all, it is not for me.

I am not a 'scribe'.

You wanna lecture ME, then do so on my prinicples. I have proven myself 'paralyzed' in my typing and spelling abilities over and again. So be it.

But come now, Crossbow. Tell me if this is the only fault you find in my 'Bearings', I say you had best kept this to yourself.

Or do you mean to quip, that this is ONLY THE BEGINNING of my shortcomings?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Moore got an award for it, didn't he?

Aye he did, best documentary feature.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
YOUR's is the response I was waiting for.

What could we have done, and what SHOULD those civilians have done to secure their safety and put to an end these snipers who were in fact preying upon the citizens of Maryland?

The People have and should employ the right to Bare Arms and form a local Militia.

Now to ME, that means a bunch of good ol'boys getting together and 'hunt' an area, by setting up elevated look-out points, no more than a quarter mile apart, and connected by CB, and or walkie-talkies, just waiting for the preditator to make a move, and then they surround, attack, and or capture.

This to me is the very basic prinicple of self-determination and preservation that was ment in providing us the 2nd Amendment. And to ME, this is what it means to live in a Free State, free of torment, terror, or tyranny.

When 'crimes' are committed against a people, they can and should be will and able to defend themselves and their liberty.

Sadly, the leadership and law enforcement failed to capture this most pasic principle in the employment of their defensive or offensive tactics against the snipers. For several weeks their attacks went on, unstopped.

I am just saying, that if that sh*t went down in Texas...it wouldn't have taken so long to find them.

As I recall, they just happen to 'stumble upon them while they were sleeping'...?

How do we do, what we do, and why do we do it that way?

Better days through better ways, people.

Hmm... are you a complete idiot? Can't you see that this is a vicious circle?

[King of the Americas]

:confused:

Okay...No.

What I see is failure in Law and the principles being employed to create justice and stop crime.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
:confused:

Okay...No.

What I see is failure in Law and the principles being employed to create justice and stop crime.

I dont understand how you can say you'll get rid of fear and terror by getting a gun and digging yourself a goddamn bunker on your front lawn. I'm just speechless.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think you understand the nature of the events in Maryland.

Those people were under attack, and to go out of their homes, was to fear for their very lives.

When the streets are not safe, and government officials are failing to provide safety and security, the People HAVE to step up and say "No more."

We aren't talking about the neighborhood punk throwing stones and breaking windows. These were snipers using center fire rounds to hunt innocent indescriminate civilians.

And I wouldn't build a 'bunker' in my yard. You can't see sh*t in those. However, if this happened in Texas, I am sure I'd see several 'deer stands' in and or near tall trees scattered everywhere.

[Frostbite]

Yeah but weren't the Maryland snipers caught? How often does that happen? I don't live in your area so I can't really put myself into context, but doesn't retaliation with violence ultimately lead to other acts of violence? Aren't 11,000 deaths by firearm enough to convince you? Personally I wouldn't wanna live in a Clint Eastwood movie. It's 2003 and I think we should steer away from violence and use weird and wacky concepts like education, empathy and care.

Just my 2 cents.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...always hate, and always will HATE typing, writing, and spelling of any kind.

SCREW it all, it is not for me.

I am not a 'scribe'.

You wanna lecture ME, then do so on my prinicples. I have proven myself 'paralyzed' in my typing and spelling abilities over and again. So be it.

But come now, Crossbow. Tell me if this is the only fault you find in my 'Bearings', I say you had best kept this to yourself.

Or do you mean to quip, that this is ONLY THE BEGINNING of my shortcomings?

Gee whiz man, just type out your posts on a word-processor and after they are done, then just spell check it (normally F7) and proof-read it. After it is in an acceptable form, then copy and paste the posting to the JREF Forum.

Now then, if you really want my opinion of your plan for handling the shootings you were referring to, then I think it is a very, very, very stupid plan!

Come on now KOA, do you really want thousands of well armed, well intentioned, highly agitated, trigger happy people out there with instructions to 'Shoot the Sniper'? I sure don't! Those people would scare me more than the sniper.

They might actually shoot or apprehend the killer in question before he strikes again. But I would expect that it would result in more people being killed not less since many of these folks will not have the training, accuracy, and skill that is required for them to single out that one bad person (or in this case, two bad persons) in all of the hundreds, and perhaps thousands of people that they would see while on watch.

I would expect that several innocents would be struck because the watchers would think that they were the killer. After all, quite a few people get killed every year in hunting accidents because the person doing the shooting thought that the other person was a deer, a turkey, a bear, an elk, etc. And that is in the wild miles away from the nearest city and involves very few people so I shudder to think what would happen if it was thousands of people compressed into a very small area.

[King of the Americas]

ACTUALLY, violence CAN be used to biget Peace & Security, but ONLY when it comes in the Defense of your Home and Land.

In fact, to give up your arms, is to give up any notion of true Peace & Secutiry. For to prove yourself unarmed, fat, and rich...is to prove yourself a worthy target to criminal mind.

OFFENSIVE Weapons breed violence, whereas defensive weapons provide security...

:confused:

...No?

[Frostbite]

I dunno man, I wasn't raised in the same area. I'll never have a firearm in my house because it's a tool used to kill other people. Just seems to me like a vicious circle.

[King of the Americas]

And thus there were differences drawn...among peoples...

Would you employ Walls in this perfect world you live in?

I wish that I didn't have to have a gun, and I hope to God that something like that never comes to my home land. But if and when it did, I really don't see myself running and fleeing, with first making a descent forcefull stand to defend myself, my property, and my family.

'I' an not a lamb waiting for the slaughter kind of guy. I more like an aware of my surroundings and weather, ears up kind of guy.

YOU may not be a bad person, but I can tell you that there ARE others out there who are. And if you don't defend yourself from them with force, they will take advantage of your passiveness.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The People have and should employ the right to Bare Arms

The only way the government's gonna take my sleeveless T-shirt it to rip it from my cold, dead back…

[King of the Americas]

...can be even more dangerous than an attacking army.

*THIS is a given.

Edited to add:

Thus the reason for the terms "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment.

[Skeptic]

KOA is suffering from the common disease known as "innumeracy". There are at least a thousand times as many people killed by road accidents than by snipers or disgruntled workers, and about ten times as many of THAT killed by heart disease or cancer, every year.

For that matter, significantly more people killed every year by slipping on the soap in their bathtub than by gun-wielding maniacs. Imagine for a moment that the media, for some reason, concentrated the latter soap-related deaths:

1). There would be a headline literally every day saying "yet another death blamed on soap!" in the NY Times.

2). "Newsweek", "Time", etc. would have big issues featuring a bar of soap on the cover, with the byline "SOAP: the New SARS?"

3). Frantic proposals to ban soap and its evil derivatives, shampoo and body lotion would be heard in Congress, under the "better safe than sorry", "if it saves even one life...", and "think of the CHILDREN!" principles of public manipulation.

4). A grassroot campaign to require the registration of all soap products would soon be started.

5). Talking heads on TV would drone on and on about "soapgate", worry about the fact that an increasing amount of soap is shipped into the US from countries potentially hostile to it.

6). Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would go on TV, arguing that the old fable that black people instrinsically smell bad was invented in order to force them to shower more often and get killed by soap by the racist establishment.

7). Pat Buchanan would go on TV, saying in his non-racist, charming way that he always knew that the stinking nigge--- errr, the differently-smelling African-Americans--are really to blame for their higher death rate because of this increased soap use. It's about time they stopped blaming white people for their problems and realized their inferior body odor was nature's decision.

...and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

Absurd? Yes, but not MORE absurd than all the bruhaha about the snipers and school shootings every time they happen. The problem is that AUP--like most people--focuses his worries on the unusual and spectacular instead of on the usual; on gunmen instead of on Cancer--which, I notice, he doesn't even mention as part of the reason for the "fall of America", despite the fact that more people, including children and young persons, die of it every day in a large hospital than are killed by gunmen YEARLY in the ENTIRE USA.

There are good arguments for and against gun ownership; but "protecting your family from rampaging snipers" isn't one of them.

But the snipers get all the attention for a variety of complicated reasons.

[CapelDodger]

Now to ME, that means a bunch of good ol'boys getting together and 'hunt' an area, by setting up elevated look-out points, no more than a quarter mile apart, and connected by CB, and or walkie-talkies, just waiting for the preditator to make a move, and then they surround, attack, and or capture
The phrase that immediately springs to mind is "friendly fire". Just think how many would-be Shanes and Rambos would be simply gagging to get out there. And not just in the city or town involved; rumours would spread that the sniper had moved to any town, and be eagerly believed by those that wanted to. Pretty soon somebody would loose off a shot and whoops, Apocalypse time.

In my opinion the "fall of America" will start from inside. There's already a civil war going on in many cities, and over 2 million Americans are "POW's". The divergence of interests between regions and classes is increasing at an accelerating rate, and the issue of States' Rights was not put to sleep by the Civil War. The government is in thrall to moneyed interest groups who refuse to pay taxes, while trying to project expensive military power world-wide. The US is trying to run a world-class empire with a steel industry that needs tariffs to protect it and an economy that requires over $1 billion a day of incoming credit. All this as well as the Notional Missile Defence and mind-boggling agricultural subsidies, as if there is no real limit to what can be had without paying for it. Add in an economy that falls behind in bio-tech because it ain't in the Bible, and educational and health services of a third-world standard - the place is screwed already. I just hope it doesn't take me with it.

[King of the Americas]

...the greatest threat any of us face is is true Drunk Drivers. In fact, the have killed an injured more people than EVERY war combined since the American Civil War.

However, the treat I was discussing is how vunerable we are to these kinds of sniper attacks, and how officials were seemingly powerless to stop them, as well as the manner in which the civilians presented themselves.

My point in addressing this issue was trying to draw attention to our proven weaknesses, in an attempt to better understand how the 2nd amendment gives us the ability to protect ouselves.

[Pyrrho]

Get yer flak jackets today...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=body+armor

[King of the Americas]

...were illegal, except for law enforcement?

But I may be very incorrect in that assumption.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...were illegal, except for law enforcement?

But I may be very incorrect in that assumption.
The only state(so far) which has such a law is California. Michigan and Maryland have proposed bills which, I believe, have not yet been passed into law.

These laws only forbid criminals from using body armor... seriously... I know it sounds weird, but it's like this: the law makes it illegal for anyone previously convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, possess or use body armor. So it's A-OK if you're an average Joe with a clean record. The law also makes it illegal to wear body armor while committing a criminal act... as in, they'll tack an extra two years onto your sentence if you're caught robbing a liquor store while sporting a bullet proof vest.

Important distinction: bullet proof vest vs. body armor... they're basically synonomous, BUT then you have so-called tactical body armor. That's the big thick stuff that the SWAT guys wear that'll just about stop everything short of a charging rhino... that stuff is only for law enforcement use, and is illegal for your average John Q. Public to buy/own/wear.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

However, the treat I was discussing is how vunerable we are to these kinds of sniper attacks, and how officials were seemingly powerless to stop them, as well as the manner in which the civilians presented themselves.

My point in addressing this issue was trying to draw attention to our proven weaknesses, in an attempt to better understand how the 2nd amendment gives us the ability to protect ouselves.

I don't see how more people being armed would have done anything to reduce the threat of the sniper. Maybe you think that the sniper would be deterred if more passers by carried weapons, I don't think so.