I would rather see citizens empowered through concealed carry laws,
protection from frivolous lawsuits surrounding self defense,
requirements for gun training, etc. The problem is the underlying
message of all of the legislation is "let us take care of you". The
police (in most cases) cannot protect you. They can only punish those
who hurt you (ask the battered ex wives about the effectiveness of
restraining orders), if they can catch them. The only way to 'protect'
the people as most pundits seem to want is to move very substantially
towards a police state.
Did the clauses about disseminating information on computer security
holes stay in the legislation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wildman jim@rossberry.com
903-736-4393
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Maureen L. Thomas wrote:
> I for one have had this conversation at my work place on more than one
> occasion. Having survived the riots in Detroit (1966?), where the National
> Guard were on every corner, curfew at 6PM every night, shotgun at the front
> door and rifle at the back, my father on duty as a Police Officer, and my
> mother and myself home with no knowledge where he was or if he was even
> alive, say let them do what they have to do to catch every single one of
> them. I still remember the friends lost in Vietnam. My father fought in
> WWII. There are men and women ready, now, to give their lifes for our
> freedom.
>
> But, if we don't give up some of that almighty freedom now, will we remain
> the freedom loving country that we were before the Sept 11th horror? We
> need to allow the government to do the job they have to do now. Let them
> tap all phone lines of suspects. Let them do now what they must to ensure
> that our country stays free. I am willingly to give up what ever is
> necessary to erradacate these vile, cowardly, bastards from the face of the
> earth. I can always fight for my lost freedoms later. Maureen
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:37:17 EDT