Poll
What do you thik about this?
| I like it. | 30% | 30% - 8 | ||||
| Wat? | 19% | 19% - 5 | ||||
| Seriously! What is he thinking? | 42% | 42% - 11 | ||||
| Dismantle all US Armed Forces, except Civilian Forces. | 3% | 3% - 1 | ||||
| Null > and your why. | 3% | 3% - 1 | ||||
| Total: 26 | ||||||
civilian national security force? Oh god...its...starting...
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
FF to 1:50
I hate it when George Fat Lucas has a point.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=113763
Should I merge?
I need around tree fiddy.
seriously, if we go into a police state and shit starts gettin all socialist then I'm really gonna be glad i decided not to vote.
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
My parents taught me one thing. It's not like I always follow it, but I have nothing nice to say.Im_Dooomed wrote:
seriously, if we go into a police state and shit starts gettin all socialist then I'm really gonna be glad i decided not to vote.
So I won't say anything.
Erm, what's the problem here? You guys had two passenger planes hit the world trade centre, one hit the Pentagon and one crashed and burned in Pennsylvania countryside and yet you still have thousands of people pouring over your southern border. National security is not your forté... You don't seem to have specifically focused any significant human resources on actually combatting the issue of domestic national security. You were just content to illegally wiretap and introduce air marshals, and that was basically it.
PS Civilian National Security Force = The Police (in case anyone is confused)
PS Civilian National Security Force = The Police (in case anyone is confused)
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-04 01:19:01)
Sounds like a civilian paramilitary organization is in the works!!!
Hey if I'm allowed to round up and boot illegals, then I'm all for it!!!
edit: JUST KIDDING!! Obama needs to stop this thought immediately!
Hey if I'm allowed to round up and boot illegals, then I'm all for it!!!
edit: JUST KIDDING!! Obama needs to stop this thought immediately!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-11-04 01:52:55)
Home guard?
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.
its hard to say without the rest of the speech. This could be out of context..but still
SS anyone?
SS anyone?
Two threads merged, so sorry if it seems messed up
I need around tree fiddy.
All those 2nd Amendment people should be happy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_o … nscription
Everyone likes to emphasize part 2 of that multi-part but very simple sentence. Part 1 is every bit as important. With the freedom to own and operate a firearm should come a sense of responsibility. Quite a bit of difference when the whole thing is read than the image of Joe Redneck getting methed up and popping a few squirrels with his SKS. Switzerland has the right idea, everyone gets a SIG SG 550 handed to them a bit after their 18th birthday to keep in their closet. If you're nice to your Swiss buddies when visiting their house they'll let you touch itUS Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_o … nscription
Famously, members of the armed forces keep their rifles and uniforms in their homes for immediate mobilisation, as well as 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed tin, to be used for self defence while traveling to the mobilisation points, though the ammunition is no longer issued. Additional ammunition is kept at military bases where the militia are supposed to report. Swiss military doctrines are arranged in ways that make this organisation very effective and rapid. Switzerland claims to be able to mobilise the entire population for warfare within 12 hours.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-11-04 02:37:00)
what the hell Teflon Warrior who hijacked my thread? whatever.
Poe could be right, this could be Polize but really it don't sound good.
Police are protectors of LAW within out borders, not a National "security" force.
it's true though Homeland security a National security force in some regard, but they are normally hired by the GOVERNMENT.
when your work for the GOV you are no longer truly a civilian
maybe Obama just don't know what the hell he is talking about.
Poe could be right, this could be Polize but really it don't sound good.
Police are protectors of LAW within out borders, not a National "security" force.
it's true though Homeland security a National security force in some regard, but they are normally hired by the GOVERNMENT.
when your work for the GOV you are no longer truly a civilian
maybe Obama just don't know what the hell he is talking about.
Last edited by beerface702 (2008-11-04 03:29:03)
interesting about the Swiss, never knew that.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
All those 2nd Amendment people should be happy...Everyone likes to emphasize part 2 of that multi-part but very simple sentence. Part 1 is every bit as important. With the freedom to own and operate a firearm should come a sense of responsibility. Quite a bit of difference when the whole thing is read than the image of Joe Redneck getting methed up and popping a few squirrels with his SKS. Switzerland has the right idea, everyone gets a SIG SG 550 handed to them a bit after their 18th birthday to keep in their closet. If you're nice to your Swiss buddies when visiting their house they'll let you touch itUS Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_o … nscriptionFamously, members of the armed forces keep their rifles and uniforms in their homes for immediate mobilisation, as well as 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed tin, to be used for self defence while traveling to the mobilisation points, though the ammunition is no longer issued. Additional ammunition is kept at military bases where the militia are supposed to report. Swiss military doctrines are arranged in ways that make this organisation very effective and rapid. Switzerland claims to be able to mobilise the entire population for warfare within 12 hours.
anyway the whole point is this isn't in OB's image, most supporters would not stand for guns in the home mandated by the Government, hell most libs are anti-gun..not all but most of them.
it just don't fit his whole image at all, this guy slips alot of scary shit in here and there..and it goes by under the Radar.
Going to be an interesting 4 years
A civilian security force should not have the same funding as the army. That's what the army is for =.= Imagine if billy bob gets his hands on an Abrams GG. But for small arms, sure why not tbh.
Perhaps it is you who is confused. The key word ther is national Cam. Police are municipal and have no jurisdiction over anything outside of their town. They are actually not even supposed to make arrests in other towns unless there is an exteme circumstance. The only police even close to what you are talking about are State Police and they are not a civilian force.CameronPoe wrote:
PS Civilian National Security Force = The Police (in case anyone is confused)
Example: Have you guys ever had one of those DUI checkpoints in your town? One of those roadblocks where there are like 90 fucking cops and they are from a bunch of different towns all piled into one area, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Anyways, the only way they can make those happen is to secure federal money for it so it can be deemed as a task force. If it is considered a "Federal Task Force" municipal cops operating within the spectrum of the "Task Force" can make an arrest outside of the town they were hired by. Otherwise they are kind of limited in what they can do.
There are already civilian forces out there: Blackwater, Civilian Police International, etc. . Ok, bad exapmles right? Well, that is what hapens when it is civilian. Just because the govt provides the money does not necessarily mean much. It is still private and does whatever it wants to, or doesnt want to do. There has to be accountability and standards and when privatized those two things dissapear more often than not.
Malloy must go
OK. I still think the idea of a 'national' police force (not contracted - government funded and administered) might be worth investigating. If cops hands are tied over county boundaries then there is definitely something majorly wrong with the system.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Perhaps it is you who is confused. The key word ther is national Cam. Police are municipal and have no jurisdiction over anything outside of their town. They are actually not even supposed to make arrests in other towns unless there is an exteme circumstance. The only police even close to what you are talking about are State Police and they are not a civilian force.
Example: Have you guys ever had one of those DUI checkpoints in your town? One of those roadblocks where there are like 90 fucking cops and they are from a bunch of different towns all piled into one area, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Anyways, the only way they can make those happen is to secure federal money for it so it can be deemed as a task force. If it is considered a "Federal Task Force" municipal cops operating within the spectrum of the "Task Force" can make an arrest outside of the town they were hired by. Otherwise they are kind of limited in what they can do.
There are already civilian forces out there: Blackwater, Civilian Police International, etc. . Ok, bad exapmles right? Well, that is what hapens when it is civilian. Just because the govt provides the money does not necessarily mean much. It is still private and does whatever it wants to, or doesnt want to do. There has to be accountability and standards and when privatized those two things dissapear more often than not.
Actually its worse than that!! They receive their certification for a specific state but are confined to their town, not even the county unless it is a county force like a sherrif's dept. What can we do though? I mean, what kind of force could you establish at this point in the game that would be effective?CameronPoe wrote:
OK. I still think the idea of a 'national' police force (not contracted - government funded and administered) might be worth investigating. If cops hands are tied over county boundaries then there is definitely something majorly wrong with the system.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Perhaps it is you who is confused. The key word ther is national Cam. Police are municipal and have no jurisdiction over anything outside of their town. They are actually not even supposed to make arrests in other towns unless there is an exteme circumstance. The only police even close to what you are talking about are State Police and they are not a civilian force.
Example: Have you guys ever had one of those DUI checkpoints in your town? One of those roadblocks where there are like 90 fucking cops and they are from a bunch of different towns all piled into one area, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Anyways, the only way they can make those happen is to secure federal money for it so it can be deemed as a task force. If it is considered a "Federal Task Force" municipal cops operating within the spectrum of the "Task Force" can make an arrest outside of the town they were hired by. Otherwise they are kind of limited in what they can do.
There are already civilian forces out there: Blackwater, Civilian Police International, etc. . Ok, bad exapmles right? Well, that is what hapens when it is civilian. Just because the govt provides the money does not necessarily mean much. It is still private and does whatever it wants to, or doesnt want to do. There has to be accountability and standards and when privatized those two things dissapear more often than not.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2008-11-04 03:56:36)
Malloy must go
No. Because I live in Europe where the region the police are in has no effect on their jurisdiction, other than they would have to report to someone else about it as well as their own superiors. In the UK we do have different police forces for different regions, but they can still perform arrests anywhere in the UK.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Example: Have you guys ever had one of those DUI checkpoints in your town? One of those roadblocks where there are like 90 fucking cops and they are from a bunch of different towns all piled into one area, I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Anyways, the only way they can make those happen is to secure federal money for it so it can be deemed as a task force. If it is considered a "Federal Task Force" municipal cops operating within the spectrum of the "Task Force" can make an arrest outside of the town they were hired by. Otherwise they are kind of limited in what they can do.
The whole localised police force thing in the states quite frankly seems a bit dated, archaic even. Reliance on federal bodies and task forces for the sort of example you give simply seems like an inefficient waste of resources.
Perhaps that is what Obama is on about.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-04 03:59:39)
They can, they just don't.Bertster7 wrote:
No. Because I live in Europe where the region the police are in has no effect on their jurisdiction, other than they would have to report to someone else about it as well as their own superiors. In the UK we do have different police forces for different regions, but they can still perform arrests anywhere in the UK.
ok first off, socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with police states - much the opposite really.Im_Dooomed wrote:
seriously, if we go into a police state and shit starts gettin all socialist then I'm really gonna be glad i decided not to vote.
and to the point: what does he mean by civilian security forces?
without knowing, this sounds bad...
ƒ³
Im sure you were just as mad when the DHS opened up.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Dismantle all US Armed Forces, except Civilian Forces.
Just to piss some people off.
Just to piss some people off.
failMGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Dismantle all US Armed Forces, except Civilian Forces.
Just to piss some people off.
Malloy must go
Hang on a minute... Doesn't the American constitution give you the right to bear arms in order to allow for the existence of a standing militia in the event of national security being compromised?
Anyone who agrees with gun ownership has no real right to complain about what Obama's suggesting here.
At the moment you have mass gun ownership and complete chaos when it comes to gun-related homicides; perhaps a more structured approach like this might instill a bit more pride and respect in gun ownership like they have in Switzerland, where everyone is required to keep a weapon and train for a number of weeks annually for national security purposes?
Anyone who agrees with gun ownership has no real right to complain about what Obama's suggesting here.
At the moment you have mass gun ownership and complete chaos when it comes to gun-related homicides; perhaps a more structured approach like this might instill a bit more pride and respect in gun ownership like they have in Switzerland, where everyone is required to keep a weapon and train for a number of weeks annually for national security purposes?