So driving home from eating out.... a thought struck me. But let me set the stage:

Years ago I examined the whole "gun ban" thing... and I was on the fence. After listening to all the sides I came to this conclusion: the banning of guns... or more directly the taking away of the right or abilty for one to protect themselves does not work in the US due to our legal system.  The police are NOT in charge of protecting anyone.. because if they were and they failed.. then the legal system would need to be structures such that they could be sued. It ends up one big liabilty.. and legal quagmire. So we dont do it.

But lets say we wanted to change it so that we were "protected". What would need to be done so that we could be protected? Well, basically we are just too free right now for that to be done. There would need to be restrictions.. gun bans for sure, or at least registration to start. But really thats not near enough, mass transit would need to be monitored closely, basic stuff .. pat downs strip searches.. freedom of movement would be restricted when needed such as party conventions or the Super bowl.

Oh snap... see I kept thinking of "local" law enforcement doing this... I didnt see the end run... DHS claims they are now responsible for our protection. And all the loss of freedoms that I thought would have to come locally.. are now national... DHS is in charge of my protection... they command the TSA... they work with the Secret Service who when -ever an event is labeled NSSE are in charge of security..and have jurisdiction of all others. You can know be imprisoned for walking in a restricted area...no prove of motive is required. Looking for a bathroom....that could be life in prison at the Superdom at the wrong time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Special_Security_Event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration


Feeling protected yet??

And Pine you're exactly right regarding the gun-control issue. Law enforcement cannot protect us. And your thoughts about litigation are spot on. When I see those signs on doors saying no guns allowed I always wonder if someone gets hurt inside doesn't that mean the owner is liable?
The University of Kansas has all these beautiful old stone buildings with those stupid ugly signs with pistols and "X" through them.  Drives me freaking crazy. How can you have a beautiful building with a very ornate door and destroy it with a stupid sign that no one's going to pay attention to anyway. I'll bet there was a sign outside the door at Sandy Hook elementary, sure didn't stop the kid from killing all those people. Why don't the parents see the school for lack of security that was inherently promised by the sign. I guess to your point pine, they should sue TSA or Homeland security.!!! I wish they would.

You applauded it? Not me,, Nope,, I was railing against it all the way,,

srinath wrote on 08/19/13 at 08:07:01:


Sri.. the amount of bad kharma you often bring to an otherwise benign thread is un-equaled.

You are correct it was Bush that started much of this. But not "W".. George senior. As former head of the CIA. Actually, I suspect that Ronald Reagan was also influenced by the pentagon. As I stated "years ago" .. that would be about 1996. At the time, the State of Mississippi was looking at changing the open carry law. Something that finally occurred just this year (2013). Again as I said, I was not considering anything much at the national level, as not much was really happening. By the way the president at the time was Bill Clinton.

You can continue to see every post as anti-Obama and respond as such, or you can realize that some people have a bigger picture than one president.  It is my current thought that what-ever entity is responsibly ( CIA, NSA, Pentagon) their plans have been brought forth through many presidents from both parties, though decades design. I would no more give Obama credit for creating this ... than I would hope that he could/would change it. The same for "W". Nor would I think that George conceived it...
Conspiracy? not really... a change in interpretation of the constitution that allows for a radical reduction in STATES rights... much less the people rights... yeah.

The faces change but the names are all the same.

I pointed out Admiral Poindexter and I left it by saying he was an interesting guy.
Did anyone look him up? Does anyone remember him?

HE LIED, under OATH, to CONGRESS. A felony! ... during the Iran Contra scandal.
"Somehow" he committed this felony and stayed employed and was part of the NSA project to spy on citizens.

I was 1 year old so forgive me for not remember this, but Rumsfeld worked for Reagan. Yea, the same guy. These are the same people STILL in power, still pulling the strings.


--Steve

James Clapper is another one who lied to congress.

Wyden has access to the files. He has SEEN the files, yet he's restricted by what he can say.
So he asks instead...

[Wyden]
So, what I wanted to see is, if you could give me a YES or NO answer to the question: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

[James Clapper]
"No, sir."

[Wyden]
"It does not?"

[Clapper:]
"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect -- but not wittingly."





We also now know that Clapper knew he was lying. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that aired this past Sunday, Clapper was asked why he answered Wyden the way he did. He replied:

“I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked [a] ‘when are you going to … stop beating your wife’ kind of question, which is … not answerable necessarily by a simple yes or no. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying, ‘No.’ ”

Let’s parse this passage. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden had been briefed on the top-secret-plus programs that we now all know about. That is, he knew that he was putting Clapper in a box; He knew that the true answer to his question was “Yes,” but he also knew that Clapper would have a hard time saying so without making headlines.
Advertisement

But the question was straightforward. It could be answered “yes” or “no,” and Clapper had to know this when he sat there in the witness chair. (Notice that, in his response to Mitchell, Clapper said he came up with the wife-beating analogy only “in retrospect.”) There are many ways that he could have finessed the question, as administration witnesses have done in such settings for decades, but Clapper chose simply to lie. “Truthful” and “untruthful” are not relative terms; a statement either is or isn’t; there’s no such thing as speaking in a “most truthful” or “least untruthful” manner.

Nor was this a spontaneous lie or a lie he regretted making. Wyden revealed in a statement today that he’d given Clapper advance notice that he would ask the question and that, after the hearing, he offered Clapper a chance to revise his answer. Clapper didn’t take the offer.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/fire_dni_...


--Steve

Look up Sociopath, then look at dc