Scott Conklin
New member
Yeah. Zero.
We are watching you
- Thread starter redhawk41
- Start date
gunslinger555
New member
Start a revolution and many will follow. Many will not want to be around if it is like this unless they are fighting against it, many follow the saying "Live Free or Die". Freedom and even the thaught of freedom gives people one powerfull thing..hope.
Doubletaptap
New member
Another not too well thought out plan.
How will it help stop crime if everybody splits the scene when they hear voices??
They see someone breaking into someplace and yell at them over the loudspeakers. The BG splits and tries again where there ain't no cameras.
Best use of the cams is to send LEOS to the scene while observing with the camera.
"You,walking down 5th Avenue, yes you with the blue shorts, stop scratching your b===s!"
"Ya say ya want a revolution,well ya know, we all want to change the world"
The Beatles
How will it help stop crime if everybody splits the scene when they hear voices??
They see someone breaking into someplace and yell at them over the loudspeakers. The BG splits and tries again where there ain't no cameras.
Best use of the cams is to send LEOS to the scene while observing with the camera.
"You,walking down 5th Avenue, yes you with the blue shorts, stop scratching your b===s!"
"Ya say ya want a revolution,well ya know, we all want to change the world"
The Beatles
Azurefly, this is not leftist thinking, believe me. Maybe some ignorant apologist so-called liberals or self-proclaimed Stalinists may support this sort of government intrusion, but no true leftist would. Intrusive, power-abusing governments are no friend to leftists, who by the way are NOT Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians or Communists. True leftists wish for true democracy which is government by the people for the people, protected from the abuses of power by the elite: conservative and liberal, who are actually quite similar to each other, save for some relatively frivolous debated issues which are high-lighted by the cooperative corporate-owned press in order to distract us peasants into in-fighting. Through all of this, we are side-lined from knowing the truth about most huge issues, which occasionally only get a mention in the mainstream press.
To underscore the original point: Leftists know that such intrusion as what is happening in England is yet another government tool which will only lead to abuse by the power elite to keep us peasants at bay. Of course the arguments will flow from the elites through the media they control about how it is for own safety. Obvously you won't buy it and neither will I. True leftists are not stupid, believe me.
To underscore the original point: Leftists know that such intrusion as what is happening in England is yet another government tool which will only lead to abuse by the power elite to keep us peasants at bay. Of course the arguments will flow from the elites through the media they control about how it is for own safety. Obvously you won't buy it and neither will I. True leftists are not stupid, believe me.
I thought that what you're describing (as far as wanting true democracy and individual rights protection) is the definition of a "classic liberal," not a "classic leftist."
I never heard of a "right" definition for what is "truly" a "leftist."
I tend to not be pigeon-hole-able, politically, but these friends of mine are truly the types to think that government is the desirable solution to every problem. And I had a text-message exchange with my friend about this camera/speaker thing, and he went into the "lack of expectation of privacy in public" rationale. I said that I understand that, but don't think that it means we should encourage or allow the police to keep constant watch on us, much less to the point of telling us over loudspeakers to get the hell back in line.
My two friends of whom I speak don't ever seem to object to handing the government more power over the people.
-azurefly
I never heard of a "right" definition for what is "truly" a "leftist."
I tend to not be pigeon-hole-able, politically, but these friends of mine are truly the types to think that government is the desirable solution to every problem. And I had a text-message exchange with my friend about this camera/speaker thing, and he went into the "lack of expectation of privacy in public" rationale. I said that I understand that, but don't think that it means we should encourage or allow the police to keep constant watch on us, much less to the point of telling us over loudspeakers to get the hell back in line.
My two friends of whom I speak don't ever seem to object to handing the government more power over the people.
-azurefly
invention_45
New member
Note to self: No more nose picking when in Middlesbrough.
Classic liberal or leftist thinking is that government should be as democratic as possible and therefore does what is good for the majority (as agreed upon by the majority). That is after all what democracy is all about. Unfortunately, things get convoluted when a small few gain more power than others through wealth and influence and then proceed to go beyond protecting their own personal interests, all the way into protecting any abuses by them of the less fortunate , inspired by their own greed. They can do this most easily by controlling the truth, first by hiding it and then manipulating it through the media they control and or heavily influence (through their ownership or financial sponsorship of it).
When all else fails, they give the government more power and direction to protect their own interests by getting the representatives they own to pass laws which would not be popular in the slightest if an honest debate were allowed in the mainstream media. This means more favorable laws (to them), protected by more police with ever-increasing power, weapons capability, numbers, and privileges to make them (the police) feel special as compared to us mere "civilians". And it means more surveillance and "legalized" invasion of our privacy and usurpation of our individual rights by them. So we civilians sit idly (sp) as more and more of our rights disappear slowly but surely.
Sadly many are brainwashed into voluntarily handing our rights over, usually because of irrational fear fostered by the media. Even more sad is that doing so is considered by many to be "patriotic" and are ironically some of the most anti-American and anti-Constitutional laws ever passed. But most sad of all to me is how many dedicated and well-intentioned people in the military are completely used to die for the interests of the elites, and yet errantly (through no fault of their own) believe that they are doing it for their country.
So who believes in more intrusive, individual-rights depleting government? The answer is both sides of the narrow spectrum of allowable debate. Both Democrats and Republicans, today's liberals and conservatives are part of that elite who fear the people and therefore wish to control them. I can't speak for classic conservatives as I am not one of them, but I can say that I am VERY liberal in the classic sense you (Azurefly) spoke of. And I own more guns than any conservative I personally know. I also staunchly support RKBA and would never justify any BS the Democrats try to pull on this or any other issue. Obviously I detest the Republicans. The fact is that they are both horrible. And the depletion of our individual rights, including privacy is allowed and encouraged by both parties.
When all else fails, they give the government more power and direction to protect their own interests by getting the representatives they own to pass laws which would not be popular in the slightest if an honest debate were allowed in the mainstream media. This means more favorable laws (to them), protected by more police with ever-increasing power, weapons capability, numbers, and privileges to make them (the police) feel special as compared to us mere "civilians". And it means more surveillance and "legalized" invasion of our privacy and usurpation of our individual rights by them. So we civilians sit idly (sp) as more and more of our rights disappear slowly but surely.
Sadly many are brainwashed into voluntarily handing our rights over, usually because of irrational fear fostered by the media. Even more sad is that doing so is considered by many to be "patriotic" and are ironically some of the most anti-American and anti-Constitutional laws ever passed. But most sad of all to me is how many dedicated and well-intentioned people in the military are completely used to die for the interests of the elites, and yet errantly (through no fault of their own) believe that they are doing it for their country.
So who believes in more intrusive, individual-rights depleting government? The answer is both sides of the narrow spectrum of allowable debate. Both Democrats and Republicans, today's liberals and conservatives are part of that elite who fear the people and therefore wish to control them. I can't speak for classic conservatives as I am not one of them, but I can say that I am VERY liberal in the classic sense you (Azurefly) spoke of. And I own more guns than any conservative I personally know. I also staunchly support RKBA and would never justify any BS the Democrats try to pull on this or any other issue. Obviously I detest the Republicans. The fact is that they are both horrible. And the depletion of our individual rights, including privacy is allowed and encouraged by both parties.
Thanks Epyon. And I also hope for the same. But when I visit some other gun forum sites, I am not at all encouraged. I don't want to bash the site, however suffice it to say that the biggest one of them all, having a title of a major gun manufacturer as part of its name is filled with the most reactionary, Republican party-line followers you could ever have the mispleasure of encountering. Not all of the users are so indoctrinated, but the most vocal ones are. I used to debate them from time to time, but my buddy talked some sense into me and I finally refrained. He also encouraged me to come back to such sites as TFL and THR, along with some gun manufacturer-specific sites. Very sound advice. Already, I notice the difference in quality. That other site is handy at times, but I mostly stick to strictly gun-specific threads...which is difficult because it is so filled with forums that have nothing to do with guns.
But I digress. The fact is that even Orwell would be doing cart-wheels in his grave over all of this BS we are encountering. All too often, I hear about the argument by wannabe leftists that such government intrustions are necessary. I'm here to say that no true leftist believes in it. Furthermore, it is argued just as vehemently, if not more so by self-declared so-called patriotic, Red-state dwelling, Bush-backing neo-cons that it is "unAmerican" to challenge the Orwellian "security" measures being done to protect us from terrorists or whatever bogeymen are allegedly lurking about. Additionally, it is conveniently ignored by these same people that as Bush and others have done everything they can to undermine the goals of agencies assigned to protect such things as the environment, worker's rights, patient's rights, etc, by infiltrating them all the way to the top with industry insiders who for years fought against these same agencies, he has NOT done that with the ATF. Add to that the fact that he would absolutely sign any anti-gun bill that comes across his desk, by his own admission. The fact that they don't come across his desk has more to do with legislators who have to answer to their constituencies than it does with any sort of real official pro-gun GOP stance. Plus, why blow votes if your idiot opponents (Democrats) so willingly continuously shoot themselves in the foot with their openly anti-RKBA platform?
Anyway, sorry if I accidentally come across as confrontational...That is not my goal.
But I digress. The fact is that even Orwell would be doing cart-wheels in his grave over all of this BS we are encountering. All too often, I hear about the argument by wannabe leftists that such government intrustions are necessary. I'm here to say that no true leftist believes in it. Furthermore, it is argued just as vehemently, if not more so by self-declared so-called patriotic, Red-state dwelling, Bush-backing neo-cons that it is "unAmerican" to challenge the Orwellian "security" measures being done to protect us from terrorists or whatever bogeymen are allegedly lurking about. Additionally, it is conveniently ignored by these same people that as Bush and others have done everything they can to undermine the goals of agencies assigned to protect such things as the environment, worker's rights, patient's rights, etc, by infiltrating them all the way to the top with industry insiders who for years fought against these same agencies, he has NOT done that with the ATF. Add to that the fact that he would absolutely sign any anti-gun bill that comes across his desk, by his own admission. The fact that they don't come across his desk has more to do with legislators who have to answer to their constituencies than it does with any sort of real official pro-gun GOP stance. Plus, why blow votes if your idiot opponents (Democrats) so willingly continuously shoot themselves in the foot with their openly anti-RKBA platform?
Anyway, sorry if I accidentally come across as confrontational...That is not my goal.
What's the big deal?
Do any of you believe that you have an expectation of privacy what out in public? We don't. I think this is effective use of resources. Should authorities be meting out punishment, or aiming cameras into homes, or other private places, I might have a different opinion. In fact, I would have a different opinion. But this is not the case.
If there were police out and about, they would not warn people they were being observed. They would be (rightfully) arresting perps.
Convervatives argue they need their guns because police are not able to protect them. Yet when they try, as in this example, you are up in arms. Where's the logic?
Matt
Do any of you believe that you have an expectation of privacy what out in public? We don't. I think this is effective use of resources. Should authorities be meting out punishment, or aiming cameras into homes, or other private places, I might have a different opinion. In fact, I would have a different opinion. But this is not the case.
If there were police out and about, they would not warn people they were being observed. They would be (rightfully) arresting perps.
Convervatives argue they need their guns because police are not able to protect them. Yet when they try, as in this example, you are up in arms. Where's the logic?
Matt
Matt, that reply is breathtakingly disingenuous.
Actually, yes. It's the same expectation of privacy that prevents Joe Random Cop from stopping and shaking down people who are committing no crimes (you might know this better as "Comrade! Your papers!"). This system is simply a higher-tech version of a shakedown.
For hundreds (if not thousands) of years, cops have gotten by on genuine policework. Circumventing the rights of everyone to nail that .1% of the population is idiotic and shortsighted, and makes otherwise sympathetic people resentful. Why should we be treated like criminals by default and forced to prove our bona fides when we're simply going about our business?
Since you're new here, you may be forgiven for this particular strawman. TFLers are not uniformly conservative; a fair proportion of us are libertarians. We despise the left and the right equally, because they despise us equally. Furthermore, if you think the authorities are doing this because they care about the citizenry, you're delusional. It's a way of keeping tabs on everyone. "Crime prevention" is a red herring.
Actually, yes. It's the same expectation of privacy that prevents Joe Random Cop from stopping and shaking down people who are committing no crimes (you might know this better as "Comrade! Your papers!"). This system is simply a higher-tech version of a shakedown.
For hundreds (if not thousands) of years, cops have gotten by on genuine policework. Circumventing the rights of everyone to nail that .1% of the population is idiotic and shortsighted, and makes otherwise sympathetic people resentful. Why should we be treated like criminals by default and forced to prove our bona fides when we're simply going about our business?
Since you're new here, you may be forgiven for this particular strawman. TFLers are not uniformly conservative; a fair proportion of us are libertarians. We despise the left and the right equally, because they despise us equally. Furthermore, if you think the authorities are doing this because they care about the citizenry, you're delusional. It's a way of keeping tabs on everyone. "Crime prevention" is a red herring.
gunslinger555
New member
dude get off the right wing left wing crap. you realize that stuff wont cut it hire (well with some it will). And protection from street criminals isn't the only reason we have the second.
Yes I do because I wont be treated like a criminal its the same as a cop searching me just to make sure, it would help (maybe) but its a violation of my rights. The government should fear the people not the other way around.
The comment about the photo camera's was on target, they are or should I say they were the first as I have read of some towns that have the entire main downtown area on camera. It is incouraging that in rual England the half life of these camera's is becoming about "just after dark. In fact there is a web site dedicated to pictures of the destroyed cameras, rats can't find the link but you can google it. Of course google will record your looking for the sight and .................
Scott Conklin
New member
Sorry, "leftist" IS Socialistic. Liberal OTOH, is a word/position co-opted by leftists to gain legitimacy for themselves. There is NO relationship between Classical Liberalism(ie the Founders of this nation) and "modern" leftism. This is why I and many others have been trying for years to get the average conservative/constitutionalist to stop using the term liberal: Correctly defining the terms and the players. Liberal no more corresponds to Democrat than Conservative to Republican, but the Dem Party today IS leftist, socialist, and thus does seek maximum government power(ie, leftism).
I've never before seen anyone attempt to seriously link leftism to Classical Liberalism in such a way. It just don't fit. Sorry.
I've never before seen anyone attempt to seriously link leftism to Classical Liberalism in such a way. It just don't fit. Sorry.