ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

Forums › Off topic › ZOMG we need those anti-terror surveillance laws right now!

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 27

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198937 17-Dec-2014 10:55

roobarb: Wasn't the most famous terrorist attack on New Zealand soil actually perpetrated by the French government?

You can't stop your house being burgled and you can't stop a drunk driver crashing into your car.

Why do people expect 100% immunity from terrorism?

Because sheeple would rather the government make them feel safe rather than take some god damn responsibility for their own safety and apply some logical thinking. There is no end to how much crap legislation and money they will be happy to spend \ authorise in order to provide that false sense of safety. All the time selling off the rights of their fellow countrymen and in some cases ostracizing them for not following the other sheeple.

JimmyC

726 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 82

#1198949 17-Dec-2014 11:07

Because sheeple would rather the government make them feel safe rather than take some god damn responsibility for their own safety and apply some logical thinking.

Time to ratchet back a few notches again...

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1198950 17-Dec-2014 11:07

heylinb4nz:
roobarb: Wasn't the most famous terrorist attack on New Zealand soil actually perpetrated by the French government?

You can't stop your house being burgled and you can't stop a drunk driver crashing into your car.

Why do people expect 100% immunity from terrorism?

Because sheeple would rather the government make them feel safe rather than take some god damn responsibility for their own safety and apply some logical thinking. There is no end to how much crap legislation and money they will be happy to spend \ authorise in order to provide that false sense of safety. All the time selling off the rights of their fellow countrymen and in some cases ostracizing them for not following the other sheeple.

However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1198952 17-Dec-2014 11:12

KiwiNZ: No, reactivate 14 and 75 squadrons and purchase some Fighters.

The SAM system would be a good deal cheaper!

Alternatively, why not enter into a defence pact with the USA and have them base some USAF or USN fighters and ships here? Good training opps and economic benefits (ask the people who run businesses around the USAF bases in the UK!) and 'free' air defence capability.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198954 17-Dec-2014 11:15

Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb: Wasn't the most famous terrorist attack on New Zealand soil actually perpetrated by the French government?

You can't stop your house being burgled and you can't stop a drunk driver crashing into your car.

Why do people expect 100% immunity from terrorism?

Because sheeple would rather the government make them feel safe rather than take some god damn responsibility for their own safety and apply some logical thinking. There is no end to how much crap legislation and money they will be happy to spend \ authorise in order to provide that false sense of safety. All the time selling off the rights of their fellow countrymen and in some cases ostracizing them for not following the other sheeple.

However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Very true and fair call, but

a) the government usually get it wrong and it costs much more for little impact

b) the government are usually the first deny citizens effective self defence

c) you always must question the bigger picture and true intention of the legislation

At the end of the day we the people elect the government so in a fair and equitable world citizens at home would be empowered to defend their home, property and lives. THEN once that trust was established we would allow (within reason) the government to implement what they needed to. The true power should always start and end with the people not the government.

The horse has already bolted though as most people these days rely blindly on the government soley for their protection and are happy to had over all reponsibility and ostricise though who would call for castle law and CCW permits. Be it though media influence, narrow mindedness or being social chameleons.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1198957 17-Dec-2014 11:16

Geektastic: However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Despite the colours on both the ISIS flag and the All Blacks kit, the world is not black and white.

You can deny concealed carry and not be able to stop all terrorist attacks. That's the situation now.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1198959 17-Dec-2014 11:22

roobarb:
Geektastic: However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Despite the colours on both the ISIS flag and the All Blacks kit, the world is not black and white.

You can deny concealed carry and not be able to stop all terrorist attacks. That's the situation now.

I don't think you can ever stop all terrorist attacks short of 100% genocide of the races that carry them out.

However, neither do I think that anyone has suggested that being able to defend yourself would stop all terrorist attacks.

Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1198967 17-Dec-2014 11:26

heylinb4nz:
Geektastic:
heylinb4nz:
roobarb: Wasn't the most famous terrorist attack on New Zealand soil actually perpetrated by the French government?

You can't stop your house being burgled and you can't stop a drunk driver crashing into your car.

Why do people expect 100% immunity from terrorism?

Because sheeple would rather the government make them feel safe rather than take some god damn responsibility for their own safety and apply some logical thinking. There is no end to how much crap legislation and money they will be happy to spend \ authorise in order to provide that false sense of safety. All the time selling off the rights of their fellow countrymen and in some cases ostracizing them for not following the other sheeple.

However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Very true and fair call, but

a) the government usually get it wrong and it costs much more for little impact b) the government are usually the first deny citizens effective self defence

c) you always must question the bigger picture and true intention of the legislation

At the end of the day we the people elect the government so in a fair and equitable world citizens at home would be empowered to defend their home, property and lives. THEN once that trust was established we would allow (within reason) the government to implement what they needed to. The true power should always start and end with the people not the government.

The horse has already bolted though as most people these days rely blindly on the government soley for their protection and are happy to had over all reponsibility and ostricise though who would call for castle law and CCW permits. Be it though media influence, narrow mindedness or being social chameleons.

I totally agree and have said many times that contracting out your personal safety to the Blue Gang is not a satisfactory solution, especially in a country like NZ where so many people live so far from a useful police presence.

It would be a good 40 minutes+ before they arrived at our place if I called them at 3am. What am I supposed to do to the Mongrel Mob nutters axing my front door - say "Now look here, you chaps, I have phoned the police and they will be here in three quarters of an hour or so - would you mind sitting down and waiting for them to get here? That would be terribly civil of you - can I perhaps offer you tea while we wait?"

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198972 17-Dec-2014 11:32

Geektastic:
roobarb:
Geektastic: However, you cannot have it both ways. If I am to take responsibility for my own safety, I want Castle Doctrine in NZ and the right to concealed carry. You cannot deny me the right to defend myself if necessary on the one hand, and then say that the government should not do it instead on the other.

Despite the colours on both the ISIS flag and the All Blacks kit, the world is not black and white.

You can deny concealed carry and not be able to stop all terrorist attacks. That's the situation now.

I don't think you can ever stop all terrorist attacks short of 100% genocide of the races that carry them out.

However, neither do I think that anyone has suggested that being able to defend yourself would stop all terrorist attacks.

Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

I think alot of people are scared at the very notion of non government people (ie joe public) having firearms in the course of their everyday lives, many people have been "conditioned" to think that this privileged falls on those in power, forgetting that they are just regular people like you and me and their rights are no greater than your rights under common law.

I see someone commented before on how great police are and all the training they do (conflict resolution pffft). Or how soldiers are so crash hot because they have been in war zones.

Well fact is any half switched on person can be trained to use a firearm very proficiently, safely and specifically for the purpose of conceal carry and self defence...none of this playing solider \ police conflict resolution BS...simply ending an obvious threat when \ if your life is threatened....plain and simple.

Those that would have you believe any different are just buying into the conditioning and making excuses. Denying your rights based on their own fears and insecurities.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1198983 17-Dec-2014 11:47

Geektastic:

Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

Yeah, right. 17 deaths instead of 2. Whoopie, cowboys rule!

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1198988 17-Dec-2014 11:51

Geektastic: Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

The NRA fantasy.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1198990 17-Dec-2014 11:55

Based on what I have seen over the last few days in Sydney, I am even more convinced that there new mass spying laws are not the answer to prevent terrorism.

We most certainly do need warrant based, targeted surveillance where there is a good reason to suspect someone or some group may do hard.

In the case of Sydney, there were SO MANY indicators already that this guy should have been on a watchlist and monitored that mass surveillance was absolutely not required.

Before the police and spy agencies come begging for such laws, they should be made to prove that the current system is not sufficient. All they have shown this week is that they do such a poor job with the information staring them in the face they already have, that they have a lot of work to do to work out how to better interpret and act on that first.

The same goes for the Boston marathon bombers. Police, CIA etc had people actively trying to get them to look into the guys and they still missed it.

Twitter: ajobbins

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198991 17-Dec-2014 11:56

Rikkitic:
Geektastic:

Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

Yeah, right. 17 deaths instead of 2. Whoopie, cowboys rule!

Spoken by someone who has most likely never fired a handgun in his life or had any training.

Why dont people get the word "Training" here ?

a young constable can be trusted with a Glock 17 and he gets about 100 rounds a year to shoot \ practice.

Yet your average CCW holder \ Competition Shooter in the states trains monthly in multiple tactics shoots IPSC, IDPA, Speed Steel, ServiceMatch 3gun, is multiple weapon disciplined and has thousands of rounds per year shot.

Which one would you want in a room ??

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1198993 17-Dec-2014 11:57

roobarb:
Geektastic: Imagine if a couple of the Sydney hostages had had Glocks and training. The outcome may have been a different one.

The NRA fantasy.

vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

at least said scenario the conceal carry holder has the element of surprise before the situation escalated and 5.56 rounds start flying around the room.

roobarb

705 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 659

Trusted

#1198999 17-Dec-2014 12:07

heylinb4nz: vs the stick your head in the sand approach ?

Let's add in all the classroom massacres, the stand-your-grounds, the "but I was only cleaning it", and the "but I thought he had a gun", the every dairy owners that now has to be armed because every villain has to now be armed.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 27