Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2001 7:22:04 PM EDT
Do you think that airport security should be run by the government or private industry? Government : 63% Private Industry : 19% CCW With Training : 18%
View Quote
I thought the CCW with training would have rated higher with our members.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 2:59:45 AM EDT
What, you want airport security to be *run* by CCW holders? What, are they going to hang out at the airport and scan people's bags?
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 3:54:01 AM EDT
Maybe our members are just being realistic.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 4:20:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By alexanderredhook: Maybe our members are just being realistic.
View Quote
Yeah I think I know what you mean. I honestly want the "Pro's" guarding my life in the airports. The Federal Gubmint record on security is stellar, after all the fed's were in charge of security for our east African embassies (you know the ones that were remodeled free of charge), the USS Cole (the one with the hole in it), the marine barracks in Beirut, the military barracks in Saudi Arabia...etc. I wonder if the above points will be on the resume of the Feds that want to run this sector of the private economy. I doubt it. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 5:03:43 AM EDT
And don't forget the 1000's of ships that sail safeely every day year in and out. Or the 100,000's of soldiers that sleep soundly every day year in and year out. Or the millions of acres of US land that has been safe for well over 225 years!! Invictus, your remork was more of an insult toward the military than the elected oficials and that I resent. Why don't you leaarn to look at the whole picture once in a while. And maybe grow a little before you open your mouth and disgrace the American Soldier. sgtar15
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 5:37:02 AM EDT
Never talk badly of your government, never talk badly of the military. You have been warned. (and they are the ones with the guns)
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 6:46:36 AM EDT
I find it odd that the government rated so high; these are the people that will decide in the near future who meets the definition of a terrorist, who should be armed and with what, if they should give you the courtesy of a court order to wiretap your communications or knock before they kick in your door, arrest and hold you indefinately, use military against citizens-as in airport security with the authority to randomly search vehicles and luggage or if you can carry that pen knife or nail file legally at any time. American citizens have already endured these abuses of power before 9-11, now many WANT to let the government exercise this power as an approved daily part of our lives. Once this vice becomes habit, what is the next step? Once government is allowed to intrude in your life, how do you stop it or even curb it? The government should not be in the business of policing the lives of citizens at an airport or anywhere else. Is there anyone that would not agree that once you give up a right to government that it is gone foreever? Government oversight on private industry is as restrictive as anyone should be willing to allow, especially when basic rights are in question. There are private firms that could accomplish this more efficiently and less expensively than government, and be bound by the rule of law. Government makes up the rule of law to meet its current need. just my $.02 worth.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 7:11:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: Invictus, your remork was more of an insult toward the military than the elected oficials and that I resent. Why don't you leaarn to look at the whole picture once in a while. And maybe grow a little before you open your mouth and disgrace the American Soldier. sgtar15
View Quote
I disagree. I read no disrespect for the military. I read the post for what it was-the people responsible for making the decisions that the military follow - the elected officials - have done a dismal job in deciding what and how the military CAN respond, such as don't return fire until you are shot and killed. These same elected officials that put the military in harm's way and does not do everything possible to protect them first, the elected officials that forget them when they are taken prisoner..... The elected officials in charge of setting direction for intel gathering that decided that it was no longer PC. The elected officials that decided that the U.N. should have more control over your life than you. The elected officials that have decided that you should be an unarmed victim because the BoR is no longer PC and interferes with the new world order of socialism and government dependancy for all. The list goes on and on. These same elected officials - THAT ARE ELECTED BY US WHEN WE VOTE OR WHEN WE DECIDE NOT TO VOTE - always seem to know what is best for everyone.
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 8:01:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: And don't forget the 1000's of ships that sail safeely every day year in and out. Or the 100,000's of soldiers that sleep soundly every day year in and year out. Or the millions of acres of US land that has been safe for well over 225 years!! Invictus, your remork was more of an insult toward the military than the elected oficials and that I resent. Why don't you leaarn to look at the whole picture once in a while. And maybe grow a little before you open your mouth and disgrace the American Soldier. sgtar15
View Quote
"Sarge", I find it odd that you give credit to millions of acres of land beings safe to the government, while not appearing to accept responsibility for keeping the Pentagon, or a block in Manhattan safe? It only takes one "Aw Shit" to wipe out a thousand "At-a-Boy's" Resent? What’s the matter? You can't stand some mere "Civilian" having something less than hero-worship for the military? Not that I even insulted anyone. Where you came up with that is beyond me, I merely brought up a small fraction of the botched intell/security jobs from the Department of Defense. I never said "the military is a bunch of F*!K-UP's"....that would be an insult, and of course untrue. BTW- I don't need any growing and I don't need to disgrace any American soldiers, they seem to do an incredibly good job of disgracing America by committing crimes while stationed overseas. The rapes the people of Okinawa have to put up with are beyond me. When you live under a microscope you would think that behaving yourself would be at least second nature. It is very unfortunate that just a few men in uniform can tarnish the reputation of a nation. Don't talk to me about disgracing anyone until the personal conduct of our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines overseas greatly improves. I wonder if I will be labeled a "military-basher" because I bring up the off duty habits of some of those in uniform. I know most soldiers are great guys but you can't let predators loose on a foreign country and still maintain respectability. Never the less I still think the Federales need to stay out of the private security business. If you can't keep drugs from the F'ing inmates at a "Federal" maximum security prison, you sure as hell can't keep anyone safe from terrorism. It is a job ill suited for the Feds. I *DO* see the big picture, why can't you? rDAm
Link Posted: 10/6/2001 2:15:10 PM EDT
Invictus, you're are way off on that B.S. about the conduct of U.S. military personnel. Do you have any idea how many G.I.'s we have over seas? probably nearly 100,000 or more. Now consider the crimes committed by an equal number of civilians, mostly male of the 18 to 40 age group. The ratio will be well in favor of the G.I.'s. You're using media and politically charged sensationalism instead of reason to make a silly ass point on an internet discussion site. I shake my cyber finger at you! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 10:56:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe: Invictus, you're are way off on that B.S. about the conduct of U.S. military personnel. Do you have any idea how many G.I.'s we have over seas? probably nearly 100,000 or more. Now consider the crimes committed by an equal number of civilians, mostly male of the 18 to 40 age group. The ratio will be well in favor of the G.I.'s. You're using media and politically charged sensationalism instead of reason to make a silly ass point on an internet discussion site. I shake my cyber finger at you! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
View Quote
No offence Suka, I think your methodology will skew the results to what you want it to be. Since the military doesn't recruit convicted felons (at least lately), and your suggestion of using all males 18-40 will include convicted felons the end result may be as you suggest. I on the other hand would prefer to compare the man-days or man-hours of the average 18-40 year old male American visitor to the same location, be it Okinawa, or Munich until a crime is committed. This would be a more accurate comparison of non-convicted criminals in the exact same environment over the same time frame. If we compared these two groups, (non-felon Americans at overseas locations) we both know what the unfortunate outcome would be. Just another reason many around the world haven't a good thing to say about Americans. If your only exposure to the United States was in this way, you too may have the same feelings as others. I am using reason here, with no attempt to skew things in the mind of others. I humbly feel I am the one less likely to be under the influence of media induced politically charged sensationalism. No offence just my observation. rDAm
Top Top