www.kirotv.com/news/5553503/detail.html

Extension POSTED: 9:46 am PST December 16, 2005 UPDATED: 11:37 am PST December 16, 2005 WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Friday refused to reauthorize major portions of the USA Patriot Act after critics complained they infringed too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders. In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47. President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent. They also supported new safeguards and expiration dates to the act's two most controversial parts: authorization for roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor multiple devices to keep a target from evading detection by switching phones or computers; and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries. Feingold, Craig and other critics said those efforts weren't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law. If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31, but the expirations have enormous exceptions. Investigators will still be able to use those powers to complete any investigation that began before the expiration date and to initiate new investigations of any alleged crime that began before Dec. 31, according to a provision in the original law. There are ongoing investigations of every known terrorist group, including al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad and the Zarqawi group in Iraq, and all the Patriot Act tools could continue to be used in those investigations. Five Republicans voted against the reauthorization: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Craig and Frist. Two Democrats voted to extend the provisions: Sens. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it. "We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned. If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come." But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. "I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001. "It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that." Most of the Patriot Act - which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers - was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. Making the rest of it permanent was a priority for both the Bush administration and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill before Congress adjourns for the year. The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the expiring portions of the Patriot Act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law. Its Senate supporters say that compromise is the only thing that has a chance to pass Congress before 2006. "This is a defining moment. There are no more compromises to be made, no more extensions of time. The bill is what it is," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. The bill's opponents say the original act was rushed into law, and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded before making the expiring provisions permanent. "Those that would give up essential liberties in pursuit in a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security," said Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H. They suggested a short extension so negotiations could continue, but the Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to renew the USA Patriot Act for just three months before the vote began. "Today, fair-minded senators stood firm in their commitment to the Constitution and rejected the White House's call to pass a faulty law," said Caroline Fredrickson, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office. "This was a victory for the privacy and liberty of all Americans."

I would support a lot of the Patriot Act if I knew there wouldn't be abuse. There however will be abuse.

Quoted: I would support a lot of the Patriot Act if I knew there wouldn't be abuse. There however will be abuse.

+1 on that

Quoted: Quoted: I would support a lot of the Patriot Act if I knew there wouldn't be abuse. There however will be abuse. +1 on that

That is the thing, It is not all BAD, there are some parts that I dont agree with (roving wiretap's, sneak and peak warrantless searches ect...) and after seeing Clintons time in office and how heavy handed his term was, and the way they made Militia's into terrorists, and anyone that owned a firearm a Evil Militia member, Im more into how Clinton 2 will use it against the citizens of this country. It is better to get rid of it, than to keep it...

The gov't doesn't need this kind of power.

Quoted: The gov't doesn't need this kind of power.

Nope, it sure doesn't.  The twin towers didn't have to fall.  It has been reported already that FBI HQ quashed an initial investigation into the guys who were reportedly taking jumbo-jet flight training.  Time & again someone in civil service screws the pooch & the only "solution" they can come up w/ is more draconian laws - kinda' like gun control laws/lies.

Gov't - not law - is the problem.  No law can solve the corrupt, career-bent mentality that dominates the beltway.  I don't care what party controls what branch of gov't at any level.  It's all about the power, folks.

Oh man, yet again I am the sole dissenter. I wish I could find something I agree with everyone on.

I back the Patriot Act, only for the WOT. We are already so into the .gov from everything from CPL to DOL.

Without this, they have no way to investigate the bad guys. Without this there is nothing they could have done with it that they cant do to me without it.

When the Man is out to get you, he is going to get you. They dont need a warrant to search my car, PC pulls me over, a Terry frisk follows. They can take any one, or all of us, any time they want and they need no Patriot Act to do it. Hell, half of you never pay with anything but a CC/Debit Card, how personal is your information already?

Al Sadar Bin Asshole is under the radar though, and this tool allows wider info gathering. A few of would resist.

I love my country, hate my government, but I support the Patriot Act. An if it had been in place on 9/11......perhaps.....

Quoted: I back the Patriot Act, only for the WOT.

I think that is fair, that is about the extent im willing to go, I have some probs with parts of it, and how the potential for abuse is there..

Ya gotta think about this...

Repub's and Demon's are agreeing on this...

Quoted: Ya gotta think about this... Repub's and Demon's are agreeing on this...

The looney left moved left, and the former right moved into their old spot.

Even todays conservatives are liberal by most standards.

Case in point- How many conservatives do you hear saying "Happy Holidays".

Quoted: Nope, it sure doesn't.  The twin towers didn't have to fall.  It has been reported already that FBI HQ quashed an initial investigation into the guys who were reportedly taking jumbo-jet flight training.  Time & again someone in civil service screws the pooch & the only "solution" they can come up w/ is more draconian laws - kinda' like gun control laws/lies. Gov't - not law - is the problem.  No law can solve the corrupt, career-bent mentality that dominates the beltway.  I don't care what party controls what branch of gov't at any level.  It's all about the power, folks.

Yes, it is all about the power.  The power to control people.  But the people of America have given the power over them to others.  There is ONLY one reason that the terrorists were successful on 9/11.  It wasn't a failing of the government to discover the plans and stop it.  It wasn't the failing of the security screeners to stop them at the airport.  It wasn't an intelligence breakdown of the FBI, CIA or other alphabet soup federal agency.  IT WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE INACTION OF THE PEOPLE ON THOSE PLANES!  THEY DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION!!!  We've all been feed a line of shit for a long time, and most of America has swallowed it.  We've been hearing this line for a long, long time, and we continue to hear it today.

That line is "when the bad men come, do not resist, do as they say, and you won't be hurt.  Give them whatever they ask for.  Your wallet, your jewelry, your dignity, whatever it is, just give it to them.  DO NOT RESIST THEM.  Let the professionals come in and negotiate your release.  DO NOT RESIST THEM!  That will only get you and others around you hurt.  Turn the other cheek, act meek, non-aggressive, whatever it takes to make the bad men feel like they are in control.  DO NOT RESIST THEM!  If you don't resist them, they won't hurt you."

THAT is why the terrorists were successful on 9/11, and that is the only reason.  One plane of passengers did eventually resist, and they foiled the plans of those bad men.  Did they pay the ultimate price?  Yes they did, but in making such a sacrifice, they saved the lives of countless others.  

Would all the others in the hijacked planes pay the ultimate price had they resisted?  Maybe, maybe not.  But by sitting in their seats, doing as the bad men said, and not resisting with everything at their disposal, they condemned themselves to die, as well as those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

In my opinion, there were many heros on 9/11.  Not many, if any at all, were on the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  For the most part, "America's Sheeple" were the passengers on those planes, sitting quietly and meekly in their seats, flying to their death.  That attitude is what enabled the terrorists to achieve their goals.  They KNEW the passengers would just sit in their seats, too afraid to get hurt or killed if they moved against them.  They KNEW Americans had become soft and selfish, preferring to sit by and watch instead of getting involved.  Waiting for someone to come to their rescue, instead of rescuing themselves.

Post 9/11, I don't think many people will sit idly by during a hijacking.  But that lesson has been a bitter pill to swallow.  A hard lesson learned, paid for by the blood of all those victims.  And that price continues to be paid by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But you know what?  It is much "cheaper" and easier to maintain eternal vigilance, paying a little blood as you go, instead of having to learn the lesson in a crash course, requiring the blood of many.  That crash course also tends to require more blood than would have been needed, had it been paid along the way.....

Do we need some of the provisions of the Patriot Act?  Maybe, but I feel there are far too many intrusions in it.  Far too many ways that the power can be corrupted, abused and turned against the America people for other purposes than the WOT.  We are on a precarious precipice, and must carefully pick our path.  The Patriot Act is trading some liberties in the attempt to gain some security.  And we all know how that turns out.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope, it sure doesn't.  The twin towers didn't have to fall.  It has been reported already that FBI HQ quashed an initial investigation into the guys who were reportedly taking jumbo-jet flight training.  Time & again someone in civil service screws the pooch & the only "solution" they can come up w/ is more draconian laws - kinda' like gun control laws/lies. Gov't - not law - is the problem.  No law can solve the corrupt, career-bent mentality that dominates the beltway.  I don't care what party controls what branch of gov't at any level.  It's all about the power, folks. Yes, it is all about the power.  The power to control people.  But the people of America have given the power over them to others.  There is ONLY one reason that the terrorists were successful on 9/11.  It wasn't a failing of the government to discover the plans and stop it.  It wasn't the failing of the security screeners to stop them at the airport.  It wasn't an intelligence breakdown of the FBI, CIA or other alphabet soup federal agency.  IT WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE INACTION OF THE PEOPLE ON THOSE PLANES!  THEY DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION!!!  We've all been feed a line of shit for a long time, and most of America has swallowed it.  We've been hearing this line for a long, long time, and we continue to hear it today. That line is "when the bad men come, do not resist, do as they say, and you won't be hurt.  Give them whatever they ask for.  Your wallet, your jewelry, your dignity, whatever it is, just give it to them.  DO NOT RESIST THEM.  Let the professionals come in and negotiate your release.  DO NOT RESIST THEM!  That will only get you and others around you hurt.  Turn the other cheek, act meek, non-aggressive, whatever it takes to make the bad men feel like they are in control.  DO NOT RESIST THEM!  If you don't resist them, they won't hurt you." THAT is why the terrorists were successful on 9/11, and that is the only reason.  One plane of passengers did eventually resist, and they foiled the plans of those bad men.  Did they pay the ultimate price?  Yes they did, but in making such a sacrifice, they saved the lives of countless others.   Would all the others in the hijacked planes pay the ultimate price had they resisted?  Maybe, maybe not.  But by sitting in their seats, doing as the bad men said, and not resisting with everything at their disposal, they condemned themselves to die, as well as those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. In my opinion, there were many heros on 9/11.  Not many, if any at all, were on the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.  For the most part, "America's Sheeple" were the passengers on those planes, sitting quietly and meekly in their seats, flying to their death.  That attitude is what enabled the terrorists to achieve their goals.  They KNEW the passengers would just sit in their seats, too afraid to get hurt or killed if they moved against them.  They KNEW Americans had become soft and selfish, preferring to sit by and watch instead of getting involved.  Waiting for someone to come to their rescue, instead of rescuing themselves. Post 9/11, I don't think many people will sit idly by during a hijacking.  But that lesson has been a bitter pill to swallow.  A hard lesson learned, paid for by the blood of all those victims.  And that price continues to be paid by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But you know what?  It is much "cheaper" and easier to maintain eternal vigilance, paying a little blood as you go, instead of having to learn the lesson in a crash course, requiring the blood of many.  That crash course also tends to require more blood than would have been needed, had it been paid along the way..... Do we need some of the provisions of the Patriot Act?  Maybe, but I feel there are far too many intrusions in it.  Far too many ways that the power can be corrupted, abused and turned against the America people for other purposes than the WOT.  We are on a precarious precipice, and must carefully pick our path.  The Patriot Act is trading some liberties in the attempt to gain some security.  And we all know how that turns out.

Wow, that is pretty harsh.  You are condemning people as cowards and sheeple because they weren't heroes.  There had never been a suicide hyjacking like that before.  All previous experience would point to the conclusion that there would eventually be a negotiated release.  They were presumably being told something to that effect by their captors.  (Because as a captor, that would be the smart thing to tell them).  Hindsight is 20/20.  It makes me sad that you are placing all the blame on these victims.

About the plane where the passengers overtook the captors...  They had more information.  The other crashes had already happenned.  People started using their cell phones and got info about the other plane crashes.  THEIR captors were running late.  They knew what was going to happen.

Everything that happened on those planes was human nature, not cowardice.

Quoted: Wow, that is pretty harsh.  You are condemning people as cowards and sheeple because they weren't heroes.  There had never been a suicide hyjacking like that before.  All previous experience would point to the conclusion that there would eventually be a negotiated release.  They were presumably being told something to that effect by their captors.  (Because as a captor, that would be the smart thing to tell them).  Hindsight is 20/20.  It makes me sad that you are placing all the blame on these victims. About the plane where the passengers overtook the captors...  They had more information.  The other crashes had already happenned.  People started using their cell phones and got info about the other plane crashes.  THEIR captors were running late.  They knew what was going to happen. Everything that happened on those planes was human nature, not cowardice.

Maybe it is harsh, but these hijackings were very different from the on-set.  In all previous hijackings, the terrorists take over the plane but never killed the pilots.  They divert the plane somewhere and make their demands.  I think they should have figured something seriously wrong was taking place when the pilots were killed and they took over the controls.  When the people trained to fly and land the plane are killed, then it should become apparent that the intent of the hijackers isn't to divert and negotiate, but much more sinister.

Quoted: Quoted: Wow, that is pretty harsh.  You are condemning people as cowards and sheeple because they weren't heroes.  There had never been a suicide hyjacking like that before.  All previous experience would point to the conclusion that there would eventually be a negotiated release.  They were presumably being told something to that effect by their captors.  (Because as a captor, that would be the smart thing to tell them).  Hindsight is 20/20.  It makes me sad that you are placing all the blame on these victims. About the plane where the passengers overtook the captors...  They had more information.  The other crashes had already happenned.  People started using their cell phones and got info about the other plane crashes.  THEIR captors were running late.  They knew what was going to happen. Everything that happened on those planes was human nature, not cowardice. Maybe it is harsh, but these hijackings were very different from the on-set.  In all previous hijackings, the terrorists take over the plane but never killed the pilots.  They divert the plane somewhere and make their demands.  I think they should have figured something seriously wrong was taking place when the pilots were killed and they took over the controls.  When the people trained to fly and land the plane are killed, then it should become apparent that the intent of the hijackers isn't to divert and negotiate, but much more sinister.

I disagree.  Crew members HAVE been killed in former hijackings.  There was a hijacking that happenned in the late 70's early 80's, where the hijackers took over the flying and beat the captain to death to subdue the passengers from acting up.  I'm sorry I don't know the specifics, it was a long time ago.

But even if a crew had never been killed before...  These hijackers kill the crew.  You can't predict that what they are going to do is going to be any different than ALL other hijackings in the past.  They established themselves as more lethal, and capable of flying a plane, that is all.  They DID divert the plane somewhere.  The passengers couldn't know their motives.

I'm sorry, I just don't think that you or I would have acted any differently if we had been in that plane at the time, with the knowledge that was available to us.

Quoted: Quoted: Wow, that is pretty harsh.  You are condemning people as cowards and sheeple because they weren't heroes.  There had never been a suicide hyjacking like that before.  All previous experience would point to the conclusion that there would eventually be a negotiated release.  They were presumably being told something to that effect by their captors.  (Because as a captor, that would be the smart thing to tell them).  Hindsight is 20/20.  It makes me sad that you are placing all the blame on these victims. About the plane where the passengers overtook the captors...  They had more information.  The other crashes had already happenned.  People started using their cell phones and got info about the other plane crashes.  THEIR captors were running late.  They knew what was going to happen. Everything that happened on those planes was human nature, not cowardice. Maybe it is harsh, but these hijackings were very different from the on-set.  In all previous hijackings, the terrorists take over the plane but never killed the pilots.  They divert the plane somewhere and make their demands.  I think they should have figured something seriously wrong was taking place when the pilots were killed and they took over the controls.  When the people trained to fly and land the plane are killed, then it should become apparent that the intent of the hijackers isn't to divert and negotiate, but much more sinister.

I could understand the "wait and see" attitude. You don't go shooting down airliners willey-nilley. Nobody was prepared for that scenario. I would have found it hard to choose a course of action in that situation. I sure wouldn't have authorized anybody to shoot down the airliners until it was too late. Nothing like it has happened before and nobody has come close to pulling it off since. A few bombs, maybe, but nothing like 9/11. The only reason they pulled it off with three planes is because they did it all at once. With a half-hour warning, the last plane thwarted their attackers. One lousy pistol for the pilot on each plane would have saved thousands of lives that day.

How stupid of people to think that disarming the public will save lives. Every driver in every car faces a carjacking/kidnapping threat.

Letting the government have the power to get anything on anybody is just a ticket to totalitarianism. The "no-fly" list is 80,000 names now. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people share 80,000 names?

These days, it's the Democrats going after the Republicans. Indictments without a crime. The Republicans are willing to do the same. It's gotten too abusive.

Shit rolls downhill, and these tactics will come to plague us. Like semi-automatic gun owners, it is assumed by many that we only want these weapons so we can kill lots of people. We are forced to defend ourselves, even though we have committed no crimes. The assumption is, we are guilty of SOMETHING! Somebody, somewhere misused their rifle, so we are all potentially guilty of the same crime.

So now to add my $0.02.


I'm curious, at what point would you take up arms against an oppressive gov't? I mean, what "big" action would it take? I hear a lot of talk about this on the forum from time to time.  "Civil war is right around the corner" and "we need to prepare for the worst".  

Patriot Act. Thats the start of our liberties being blurred. NSA illegally spying on US citizens domestically.  mmmkay...Big Brother.


Would it be the complete disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act?
Or due process being overlooked?
How about free speech on the grounds it could incite terrorist acts?
Complete ban on all future firearms sales? Gun roundup?

-Rob

Quoted: So now to add my $0.02. I'm curious, at what point would you take up arms against an oppressive gov't? I mean, what "big" action would it take? I hear a lot of talk about this on the forum from time to time.  "Civil war is right around the corner" and "we need to prepare for the worst".   Patriot Act. Thats the start of our liberties being blurred. NSA illegally spying on US citizens domestically.  mmmkay...Big Brother. Would it be the complete disregard for the Posse Comitatus Act? Or due process being overlooked? How about free speech on the grounds it could incite terrorist acts? Complete ban on all future firearms sales? Gun roundup? -Rob

Personally, I am not one of the ones that talk about taking up arms against an oppressive government.  But, I think it would take a lot for that to happen.  The most important part of that eventuality would be organized leadership.

SOMEONE with amazing intelligence, character, charisma and energy would have to take up the reigns as leader of the movement.  It would have to start with talking, getting people educated to the wool that has been pulled over their eyes.

George Washington was one of those people.  So was Hitler.  (I'm not saying Hitler was right, he was an incarnation of the devil as far as I'm concerned, but he was an amazing leader all the same)

Quoted: Quoted: SOMEONE with amazing intelligence, character, charisma and energy would have to take up the reigns as leader of the movement.  It would have to start with talking, getting people educated to the wool that has been pulled over their eyes. George Washington was one of those people.  So was Hitler.  (I'm not saying Hitler was right, he was an incarnation of the devil as far as I'm concerned, but he was an amazing leader all the same) These "someones" that you speak of were all somebody AFTERwards. Looking for a hero, a martyr, a leader, is wise, but not realistic. We are all here NOW. Everyone seems to be looking outside of themselves for the answers these days.... but maybe that time is up....?

You think there is no such thing as a great leader until after the battle has been fought?

I disagree.  I know that I could never organize people like that, I could never speak with such persuasion.  I see kids in the classes that I teach that show amazing leadership qualities.  There are people out there.  I'm just not one of them.

I agree with CavVet on this one, and add that the 'govt' already HAS this kind of power.
DID; DO; & WILL.

The 'Act' is merely the Public's allotted view and chance to say 'something about something' that they really don't have a clue about and couldn't fully understand anyway.

Don't have 'blind faith', but understand there are things going on the People can't or shouldn't know about in order to maintain National Security.
Were the People to have that knowledge, they may very well be in full agreement with those that protect our country behind the scenes.

That's my understanding of this situation.

Quoted: Don't have 'blind faith', but understand there are things going on the People can't or shouldn't know about in order to maintain National Security. Were the People to have that knowledge, they may very well be in full agreement with those that protect our country behind the scenes.

I totally agree.  If we could say with certainty that the patriot act solely operated within the boundaries for which it was originally intended  (terrorists...the dictionary definition) then we'd really have something good.  But it's like anything, the gov't is not as self regulating as one would be led to believe.  I know, as many of you also probably know, that once the gov't gets that bug in them they'll go further.  Case and point the recent FBI ATF 4473 form.

Yes, I agree, they will use this act to apprehend the bad people of the world in the way the act was originally intended.  But I guarantee you that lawmakers will push the boundaries and the gov't will ask for a little more, and a little more.

And yes, I agree... the gov’t could've done all this stuff before the subsequent 9/11 legislation (illegally) albeit with little or no consequence What needs to be mentioned is that what the gov’t is doing is bringing it to public consciousness.  It's called testing the waters.  There will ALWAYS be vocal persons initially. Persons fighting to be heard and persons fighting against the gov't but the sad fact of the matter is that eventually the mainstream news media squelches them out.  My theory regarding this is not one of gov’t conspiracy. The news media blocks “unsavory” individuals because of self-image.  If they didn’t report “unsavory” characters at all they might be accused of one-sided reporting (HA!) and it’s a façade they try to maintain.  The news media will tell you they strive to reveal the truth, though what I often see in the news is not the truth but the “official” account.  
When you follow mainstream media do you see any real investigative reporting going on?  They hang on the every word of LEO/Prosecutors/Judges like a bunch of blood suckers and pay little to no attention to private folks like you and I.
The part that is still a mystery to me is “why?”  Is news media just becoming lackadaisical in their “investigative reporting” and choosing to settle for the official account?  Are the companies that own these stations preventing their employees from reporting the truth because of their own self-preservation interests (parent companies, partnerships with other companies, etc)? Are they simply choosing to leave out critical issues that might result in gov’t retribution (such as the down side of proposed legislation... patriot act, national gun registry, etc)? Or are they attempting to sensationalize everything for a larger viewer audience and profit margin?
And when officials get caught what was once the unofficial “official” policy now becomes “this was just a rogue individual”. “Officials do get caught!” Uh huh…and watch how fast everyone jumps ship, burns bridges, and cuts ties to those people when they do.  The majority of people that follow mainstream media don't think too much about the details...don't read between the lines... and if ever something doesn't sound quite right, of those people that recognize it, how many actually take the time to get other opinions and views?

Getting to the point in a free society you can never take away someone’s freedoms abruptly.  We as gun owners KNOW this.  So do people in power.  You have to disassemble individual freedoms piece by piece.  By disassembling it in small pieces you also soften people’s resolve to fight. “Fighting a losing battle” is a familiar term.  I understand, who wants to fight every single individual battle when the people on the other side of the table have what seems like boundless power and endless resources. I for one will fight every battle even if it is statistically a losing proposition because when I give up the bad people win.

Whats the breaking point though?  If they are disassembling your freedoms piece by piece, is there any ONE issue that you could rally the troops around or would it be a bunch of issues collectively?


Anyway...from my point of view only a small majority of people in power abuse it.  99% of the encounters I've had personally with judges and law enforcement officers has been positive.  They are just people like you and I.  I know the bad ones are out there, I just have yet to encounter them.  I have respect for the law, I don't have respect for people that abuse it.

-Rob