" But I strongly agree with this statement. You have to look at 9/11. These groups are not afraid to take drastic measures or kill innocent people, just to try and prove a point or be heard. But they're a nameless and faceless group, which is what makes it so tricky as how a government is going to protect it's greatest resource, 'the population'."

The problem is, "mission creep" always always always happens. Today its islamicists, tommorow.... ? ? ? Theres always new uses for an existing legal tool. A govt, any govt will always find them.

I would say that the Govt should be the populations resource, not vice versa. In a facsist establishment, the populace is the Govts resource. In a Free Republic, the Govt
is the populaces resource.

The fact that the former way of thinking is becoming more prevalent, often without people even being cognizant of it, is what I am speaking out against. Remember, all fascism doesnt look like WW2 Germany. Just because brownshirts wont necesarrily be hauling awerage people off to detention camps tommorow doesnt mean that what we are experiencing as a society is healthy.

I agree the government should be the populations resource and not vice versa. I don't think that any government today is a resource to it's population. Even a "Free Republic".. As I said before, a government will always do what is best for itself. Even if it's choices are not in the best interest in its population.

I would look at what the government does, as it's best interest that imediatly negatively effects the mass of it's population the least, being better then WW2 Germany.

Are we headed to fascism? Maybe... And alot of people would be fine with that sadly.

Thinking alternatly is all well and good, but the fact remains that even if those in power are changed, will the next person change anything back to a better time? Or will they continue on? Or worse yet, will the next person to seize power as you said, go from Islamic extreamists to the next target?

For all we know, like Lincolns time, we might be headed into another Civil War. Honestly, I think that's probaly the only thing that's going to change our governments current situation...

(PS- If you don't see me again after this post. Likely the FBI will have taken this computer aswell for my 'terroist' comments. )

Even if it were a civil war that would 'save us', we probably won't ever see one. At least not before someone else decides to blow our shit up first. The majority of our population is so apathetic and conformist that when someone started a 'rally to start the savior of wars, the second civil war' 99.9% of the people around them would just prefer the cops tossed the 'trouble makers' in jail so they don't have to see/hear it.

Solution.

Found yourself in a pickle ? Want to buy some firearms but
learn you're on that double-naught spy terrorist watchlist ?
Don't fret, use those l33t terrorist skills and build yourself a BOMB !

Just think, you'll get the job done AND help protect our second amendment rights all at the same time ! Some minor
chemistry skills, a freight truck and an assload of propane tanks should do it !

Don't go out being remembered as the guy who shot up McDonalds with a pistol ! Blow that baby to the moon ! Your name will live in infamy !

Maybe ( big emphasis on this word ) someone will realize that banning devices such as guns don't quite cut the mustard there Bunky. . . .

We've been perfecting our killing skills since we first threw rocks at each other.

Banning guns to solve shooting sprees is about as intelligent as banning cars to solve drunken driving. . . :|

-Daye

I see the principal in your arguement, Derid, and you're right; it seems like a moot point to limit legal gun sales while we have gapping 2,000 boarder that Washington refuses to close. But the fact still remains that we are at war and our citizens seem to refuse to admit it and accept the sacrifices that war requires.

It wasn't a month ago that Soo Chun We (sp?) commited a mass murder at Va. Tech and the news reports were littered with talks of creating a "list" of people who may be mentally unstable and should not be allowed to purchase firearms. I don't think this is an outragous idea; and similairly I doin't think it's outragous for suspected terrorists to be subject to the same restrictions.

Personally I think it is misguided to be upset with the government when you should direct your outrage twards those terrorists whom force us to sacrifice our liberties for security...

I'm upset with people who give up rights out of fear. I dont like losing my rights because other people are scared I guess.

The thing is, I dont even see that other people are scared. I mean who is really scared of terrorsists? Seriously? I figure that some people just assume everyones scared, or believe that "some other ppl somewhere" are scared.

The "war on terrorism" is a permanent war. Why? Terrorism is a TACTIC not a group. A tactic that unfortunatly is validated in the eyes of its users when it forces a society to change from open to closed. If people insist on changing society to fight this tactic, then those same people are by extension saying that open society no longer has a place in the modern world. Because a tactic will never go away.

The only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorised. If terrorism never accomplishes anything, then it becomes harder and harder for the terrorists to rationalize its use, and will eventually even come to see themselves as the petty murderers they are.

Similairly I'm frustrated with people who fear our government more than our enemies.

The fact is that no one is afraid of the terrorists... It speaks to how good of a job we've been doing (no thanks to the New York Times).

Also I doubt the terrorists care about an American's right to not be put on a "terror suspect list" and refused the right to purchase firearms. The only validation they will need is our withdrawl from Iraq, which seems enevitable...

_________________________________________________________
http://www.centredaily.com/131/story/88329.html

Al-Qaida No. 2 mocks American 'failure'
By KATARINA KRATOVAC
A new video of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader released on Saturday mocks President Bush and U.S. legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying the bill would rob the group's fighters of the chance to kill more Americans.
Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahri derided the new U.S.-backed Baghdad security plan, recounting an April 12 suicide bombing in Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone when an attacker slipped through security and killed a Sunni legislator in the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria. An al-Qaida-led amalgam of Sunni insurgents in Iraq claimed responsibility.

"And lest Bush worry, I congratulate him on the success of his security plan, and I invite him on the occasion for a glass of juice, but in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament in the middle of the Green Zone," al-Zawahri said.

The video was obtained Saturday by U.S.-based monitoring groups who released a transcript to media.

Al-Zawahri, shown seated before a bookshelf in a white robe and turban, addresses legislation pushed by Democratic leaders, and vetoed by Bush, that would have required the first U.S. troops in Iraq to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," al-Zawahri said, according to a transcript released by the monitoring group SITE. The bill is evidence of American "failure and frustration," he added.

"We ask Allah that they (U.S. troops) only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson," he said.

He made no mention of Bush vetoing the bill on Thursday - an indication the video may have been made beforehand.

Al-Zawahri encouraged minorities around the world to join the holy war, or jihad.

"Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims," he said. "That's why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world."

Al-Zawahri claimed al-Qaida fighters in Iraq were "nearing closer to victory over their enemy, despite this sectarian fighting" that has convulsed the country.

He discussed other topics as well in the 67-minute video, including fighting in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, and Somalia. He made references to Saudi Arabia, Egyptian constitutional changes meant to cement the government's hold on power, and the Pentagon's release of the confessions of al-Qaida No. 3, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind who was captured in Pakistan in March 2003.

Saturday's video was the fifth message - including posted video and audio tapes - by al-Zawahri this year. Osama bin Laden has not surfaced in any communications since mid-2006.