Are we truly the Land of the Free?
0
-
+1 0 -
+2 0 -
+3 0 -
Hell, if those planes (with the exception of one) hadn't been full of a bunch of cowards, it wouldn't have happened anyway, guns or not.
It may not be the most popular or PC thing to say, but it's true.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Hell, if those planes (with the exception of one) hadn't been full of a bunch of cowards, it wouldn't have happened anyway, guns or not.
It may not be the most popular or PC thing to say, but it's true.
Unfortunately, it might be true, however, people on those planes had no idea what was going to happen. I bet that if anyone suspected the outcome, they enough people would have acted accordingly.0 -
We live in a land of "Limited Privleges". I suppose this land began with Freedom. 0 -
If we were going to die anyways, I would have TRIED to stop them, 0 -
No, we're not totally free. We're not even as free as the law of the land (that would be the Constitution, regarded by many as merely the National Suggestion) dictates we ought to be. For some perspective, though -- the insistence that we're on the verge of being slaves, that freedom in this country is in jeopardy or already gone, has been with us from the word go. Samuel Adams bitterly opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its adoption would destroy freedom as he defined it. I believe Thomas Paine did, also, though on this point I'm not positive and I'll happily accept valid correction. A certain degree of strong central government is necessary, and will, also of necessity, make impositions on personal freedom. The stance some take -- "I, and not the government, will decide what I will or will not give to the common good" -- was the law of the land during the Revolution and up to the adoption of the Constitution, and was nearly the death of this nation before it had really even come into being. Seems that individuals and states/colonies being left to decide what they will or will not give -- don't.
None of which justifies clear violations of the Constitution, or actions by our government which seem to serve little purpose but to attempt to change the rules as to who's actually in charge in this country. Like I said, just some historical perspective on what looks to be an unending debate.0 -
we may not be free in all aspects, but any that dont like it are FREE to get on aplane and leave the country 0 -
quote:we may not be free in all aspects, but any that dont like it are FREE to get on aplane and leave the country
Yeah! This is much easier than fixing it!
Lazy^^^ sleepwalking^^^^ pseudo-americans^^^^^^ make me want to puke!0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Hell, if those planes (with the exception of one) hadn't been full of a bunch of cowards, it wouldn't have happened anyway, guns or not.
It may not be the most popular or PC thing to say, but it's true.
I have to disagree with this. The prime reason there was no resistance on the first two planes is that prior to 9-11 the S.O.P. was to not resist highjackers.That was part of the training given to flight crews mandated by the FAA. The reasoning was that if you didn't resist, you would be flown somewere and your release would be peacefully negociated, as had happened in the past. The terrorists counted on this, which is the only way that they were able to take over the planes. Now the flight crews know differently, and I don't believe that that senario will ever happen again, just because nobody will sit there quietly and let the terrorists take over.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:we may not be free in all aspects, but any that dont like it are FREE to get on aplane and leave the country
Yeah! This is much easier than fixing it!
Lazy^^^ sleepwalking^^^^ pseudo-americans^^^^^^ make me want to puke!
not quite sure i understand your post. your not free to rob, rape,or kill that is what i was refering to0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
12 comments