Obama's "Civilian Security Force".....WhatTheHeck is that?

[FD828 77]

Really? Come on.......

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!

[CPAGE 2]

I have 30 in the clip and 1 in the pipe...........get them ready boys

[Guest]

I may be wrong and i'm sure some one will correct me if i am but didn't iraq have one of these ?????

[AFS1970 504]

(Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake)

Really? I think that whatever statistics you are using must be seriously inaccurate if you think that the majority of gun owners have mistakenly killed a family member. Even without seeing the real numbers I would venture that this number is not only a minority but so much of a minority that it is statistically insignifigant (although all human life is signifigant, so statistics should not be the standard we use to measure such things) I would also bet that in just about all of the cases of tragedies like this, there is a failure to secure or other safety violation, that if not present, easily could have prevented the death and maintained the right to gun ownership at the same time.

[Guest feraldan]

Really? Come on....... rolleyes.gif

The only thing he's gonna do is enforce the assault weapons ban. Good! Should you be able to have guns to hunt and sport shoot? Sure. Should you have the right to keep a gun for protection in your home? Sure (Even though most people just kill a family member by mistake). Do you need a .50 Cal sniper rifle or some sort of automatic rifle? NO, YOU DON'T.

Stop with the 2nd amendment stuff. It was written when we needed citizen militia to defend the counrty......200 years ago!

I'm all for guns, guns in reality and with HUGE safeguards and background checks.

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

This type of ignorance of the actual laws and facts is why we have such pointless and trite gun laws, especially in NY!

As pointed out by BFD182, most people do NOT kill family members with home defense guns. Taking in how many people in this country own firearms and how many cause unintentional fatalities, the percent is statistically insignificant, better chance of being mauled to death by a bear or struck by lightning. Liberal groups such as the Brady Campaign would like you to believe such things are true by padding the statistics with intentional homicides (who by majority do so with illegally obtain pistols, rifles and shotguns) and suicides (who by vast majority do so with legally obtained pistols, rifles and shotguns and very likely would have killed themselves by another method were a firearm not available.)

If we include suicides, let's ban the Tapan Zee Bridge! I'm fairly certain the number of those who have committed suicide by jumping off that bridge rivals the number who used a firearm to commit suicide in Westchester county.

"Assault weapon" is a misconstrued word used to scare people into voting for anti-gun candidates. Liberals, leftists and anti-gun voters generally have very little experience with firearms. This fact can be cited in no greater light than Rep. Carolyn McCarthy NY-D who has been one of New York's greatest anti-gun politicians and who rode anti-gun legislation to Congress. In a now famous interview on MSNBC last year, she was asked why the regulation of barrel shrouds was necessary. After trying to dodge the question multiple times, she was asked if she even knew what a barrel shroud was, to which she ventured a guess "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." Not even close.

This is the measure of most anti-gun politicians who seek only to ride public insecurity and hysteria to greater positions of power or gain re-election.

As pointed out by someone else, automatic firearms have been under restriction for many, many years and are not legal to own by civilians without a special federal permit (and even then, only in certain states, New York is NOT one of them.) The percentage of these automatic firearms used in crimes is of course, beyond statistically insignificant. "Silencers" and explosive devices also fall under this federal regulation.

This "2nd amendment stuff" has been one of this country's greatest traditions for over 200 years. While it initially helped us to win our independence, defense against foreign enemies was never the sole purpose.

One point I must concede, gun laws do one thing very well; they detour law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Citizens such as those on these forums and myself who have never committed a crime in their life and yet bear the weight of the individuals who wish to strip them of basic rights.

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Edited November 13, 2008 by feraldan

[Guest]

In 2003, there were 13,229 Gun deaths in America, not including suicide (including homicide, unknown cause, and accidental)

There are over 250 million guns

A conservative study puts the number of Americans killed by medical errors at 44,000, but a NY study found that number to be 98,000

There are 301,000 Doctors

1 gun death for every .00005 Guns

1 Medical death for every .14617 Doctors

[gamewell45 258]

Taking in how many people in this country own firearms and how many cause unintentional fatalities, the percent is statistically insignificant,

True, its insignificant, until its one of your own family members or loved ones.

[Guest feraldan]

True, its insignificant, until its one of your own family members or loved ones.

Your point, please? If anyone truly wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without access to a firearm. If its not a gun its a knife. If its not a knife, its pills. If its not pills, its jumping off a bridge. While it might be emotionally traumatic, it would remain statistically insignificant. One's emotions on a subject never change fact.

What you've described is an irrational thought process. You've described the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or "with this, therefore because of this".

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

Where was this talk about a civilian security force?

[gamewell45 258]

Your point, please? If anyone truly wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without access to a firearm. If its not a gun its a knife. If its not a knife, its pills. If its not pills, its jumping off a bridge. While it might be emotionally traumatic, it would remain statistically insignificant. One's emotions on a subject never change fact.

What you've described is an irrational thought process. You've described the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or "with this, therefore because of this".

Point is, deaths, whether by suicide or accidental discharge, or by other means, are significant to those who've lost loved ones.

[x635 4,066]

Talk about "overreacting"!!! How is this different from the Civil Defense corps of the 50's and 60's?

Are you all worried about domestic security, or going after those terrorists on foreign soil? What is "Homeland Security"??

I really can't believe how ignorant some of the public can be when they watch these TV news talk shows. People really need to start doing their homework before making some of the comments I've seen here.

[calhobs 110]

Talk about "overreacting"!!! How is this different from the Civil Defense corps of the 50's and 60's?

Are you all worried about domestic security, or going after those terrorists on foreign soil? What is "Homeland Security"??

I really can't believe how ignorant some of the public can be when they watch these TV news talk shows. People really need to start doing their homework before making some of the comments I've seen here.

This whole thread is a perfect example of monkey see monkey do

Edited November 14, 2008 by calhobs

[27east 19]

Talk about "overreacting"!!! How is this different from the Civil Defense corps of the 50's and 60's?

Are you all worried about domestic security, or going after those terrorists on foreign soil? What is "Homeland Security"??

I really can't believe how ignorant some of the public can be when they watch these TV news talk shows. People really need to start doing their homework before making some of the comments I've seen here.

I'm not ignorant, I'm scared. This came from the Messiah's own teachings back in July. I'm not making this up. And until the Messiah clarifies these teachings, there is no way to know what he means.

Homeland Secuity is to protect the country from terrorists.

Having done my homework, other countries have had "security forces." Some of those fine nations inclue East Germany, Nazi Germany, and The Soviet Union.

.........Hmmmmm........

[Guest feraldan]

Point is, deaths, whether by suicide or accidental discharge, or by other means, are significant to those who've lost loved ones.

Point is, statistics don't change based on how someone feels about it.

If you want to discuss the emotional impact of suicide, we should include all methods of self-termination and not just firearms.

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm not ignorant, I'm scared. This came from the Messiah's own teachings back in July. I'm not making this up. And until the Messiah clarifies these teachings, there is no way to know what he means.

Homeland Secuity is to protect the country from terrorists.

Having done my homework, other countries have had "security forces." Some of those fine nations inclue East Germany, Nazi Germany, and The Soviet Union.

.........Hmmmmm........

Exactly !!

And in the case of Hitler remember that he was ELECTED and won by a narrow margin, but the Nazi Party also had a slim majority in the Riechstag (i.e. German Congress), and it was they who enacted the Enabling Laws.

For those who don't know these laws gave him total control after a "national emergency". It was then that the "civilian security forces" developed by the Nazis swung into high gear.

May all be just a prudent call to help make the nation safer, but then again maybe not.

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

Cogs

[gamewell45 258]

Point is, statistics don't change based on how someone feels about it.

If you want to discuss the emotional impact of suicide, we should include all methods of self-termination and not just firearms.

I have no interest in discussing the emotional impact of suicide; just pointing out that there is an important human element that I felt you left out on your original post.

[AFS1970 504]

I was the one who used the phrase "statistically insignificant" in this discussion. I should also not that I followed it with the statement: (although all human life is signifigant, so statistics should not be the standard we use to measure such things)

I don't think that many people would want me responding to their calls for help if I felt otherwise.

[Guest feraldan]

Statistics and logic should govern a lot of things although not all.

If someone is trapped in a burning structure and there is a 95% chance you'll be killed if you attempt to enter the building, the risk outweighs the benefit. This is taught in basic firefighting. Big benefit, big risk. Little benefit, little risk. What good does a downed responder do for a victim? If anything, it dooms them.

In fact, we're increasingly taught to measure our efforts on statistical probability. We're not robots but we shouldn't be stupid either.

The person I want responding to help me is well trained with a large depth of experience and the logic not to get him or herself killed on my behalf, essentially assuring I'll never be properly helped. Does the person I described measure statistics as insignificant or does he/she measure human life as insignificant?

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

I posted earlier in this asking about where someone heard of this plan Just got back and saw the short clip from Youtube. So now for my more informed opinion. RUN!!! If this is the crap we are to expect. We need to move. A Civilian Security Force? It's called the National Guard. Citizen soldiers. I don't know if anyone has heard of this term before. But the recruitment posters years ago had them when they were looking to build the ranks of the National Guard. If that's not what he means. Should we expect the reimergance of the Department of Civil Defense? Bring back our trained civilians, who are ready to lend hand at the time of emergency. Civil Defense turned into Office of Emergency Management, and kind of left the path it was once following. Back in the day. Members of the Civil Defense were trained in light search and rescue, first aid and fire fighting. This is very much like the CERT teams of today. These teams are emerging all over the county, and in diffrent parts of the state. Unless we are expecting the military to revolt on the citizens of this country. Like some third world nation. Lets use this money to build up the military and our already established "security forces" like Fire and police agencies and our CERT teams. Because our fighting men and women will perform better abroad, knowing that their loved ones are safe at home.

Stay alert for America!!!

[Stepjam 118]

Talk about "overreacting"!!! How is this different from the Civil Defense corps of the 50's and 60's?

Are you all worried about domestic security, or going after those terrorists on foreign soil? What is "Homeland Security"??

I really can't believe how ignorant some of the public can be when they watch these TV news talk shows. People really need to start doing their homework before making some of the comments I've seen here.

Seth, I respect your opinions and give them their due because you are the primary owner and moderator of this site. Since you have revealed your political and social opinions in past threads, I won't debate philosophy with you here.

What I will take exception to is any inference from ANYBODY that my concerns are based on ignorance. With that kind of attitude, can I expect to be called a racist because I voted for McCain? If you have the facts about Obama's intentions, by all means post them. I raised a question by starting this thread, and I am somewhat relieved that I'm not the only educated, informed, and involved citizen who is concerned. Don't imply that those of us who aren't Obamamites are ignorant, especially since a very well-reasoned argument can be made for the opposite disposition.

AP article

YouTube video of O-man's speech

Edited November 14, 2008 by Stepjam

[turk182 37]

I really do not see why people are getting so worked up about this stuff, we have a great system in place, it is called checks and balances it has been working for 232 years. Why is no one talking about these corporations that board of directors are robbing us all blind. CEO's taking huge profits and leaving nothing for the rest of the company or it's employees, forcing companies into bankruptcy. And now we are all going to start paying for it. American Express has now changed to a bank so that they can get a piece of the 700 billion. This is the stuff that is affecting us ALL right now today. We should be up in arms about this, not some silly stuff that the American public will never stand for.

[INIT915 1,119]

Talk about "overreacting"!!! How is this different from the Civil Defense corps of the 50's and 60's?

Are you all worried about domestic security, or going after those terrorists on foreign soil? What is "Homeland Security"??

I really can't believe how ignorant some of the public can be when they watch these TV news talk shows. People really need to start doing their homework before making some of the comments I've seen here.

Second that. Isn't that why we agreed to stop discussing politics? Some of the posts on here are more like those from the “general public” that we expect to read on LoHud blogs.

No discussion of religion and politics among friends, that's the old adage.

[x635 4,066]

What I will take exception to is any inference from ANYBODY that my concerns are based on ignorance.

What I was saying is that there is a majority of the PUBLIC that votes without doing any sort of research on the canidate besides what they hear from the media. I apologize if I offended you and hope I clarified my stance, as you know I have great respect for you.

[ex-commish 490]

I really do not see why people are getting so worked up about this stuff, we have a great system in place, it is called checks and balances it has been working for 232 years. Why is no one talking about these corporations that board of directors are robbing us all blind. CEO's taking huge profits and leaving nothing for the rest of the company or it's employees, forcing companies into bankruptcy. And now we are all going to start paying for it. American Express has now changed to a bank so that they can get a piece of the 700 billion. This is the stuff that is affecting us ALL right now today. We should be up in arms about this, not some silly stuff that the American public will never stand for.

Excellent point. And don't forget where some of the profits go...to campaigns.

[FFPCogs 863]

I really do not see why people are getting so worked up about this stuff, we have a great system in place, it is called checks and balances it has been working for 232 years. Why is no one talking about these corporations that board of directors are robbing us all blind. CEO's taking huge profits and leaving nothing for the rest of the company or it's employees, forcing companies into bankruptcy. And now we are all going to start paying for it. American Express has now changed to a bank so that they can get a piece of the 700 billion. This is the stuff that is affecting us ALL right now today. We should be up in arms about this, not some silly stuff that the American public will never stand for.

My point exactly...the system of checks and balances is being circumvented or ignored by those in postions that should adhere to them. Otherwise all the self serving "big corporations" who are "robbing us blind" would never have been allowed to do so. It is all part and parcel of the decline of the liberties and equalities this country was founded on.

If you think me and others who agree paranoid just read up on your history, this type of decline has happened over and over again and those who benefit have always used "civilian security forces" to increase and maintain their positions and control.

Cogs

[helicopper 1,050]

Has anyone been able to find out exactly what he means by "civilian security force" or are we all just speculating?

I renew my previous comment on this subject. Do we have any idea what the heck he meant in that speech?

We don't know if he means the national guard, the existing agencies such as DHS/FEMA/CERT/MRC/etc., a completely new creation or what.

As for political discussions, this is more of a policy discussion than a political one so I'm in favor of keeping it. If people start bashing the people and not the issue then this topic will have to go.

Keep smiling guys, we've got four years to figure out what he means, right?

This is the quote that is generating all the debate:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

[27east 19]

What I was saying is that there is a majority of the PUBLIC that votes without doing any sort of research on the canidate besides what they hear from the media. I apologize if I offended you and hope I clarified my stance, as you know I have great respect for you.

ok that's great but......

The media didn't make this up. Obama actually said it. I did my research on the canidate and I found the clip of him saying it on youtube.

But I guess that makes me ignorant.

[Guest]

I would hope he doesn't mean that the National Guard is the force he is talking about. It is a military organization, not civilian, falling ultimately under DoD. Maybe someone will let him know before he become CIC of them...

[INIT915 1,119]

ok that's great but......

The media didn't make this up. Obama actually said it. I did my research on the canidate and I found the clip of him saying it on youtube.

But I guess that makes me ignorant.

Do you believe that *your* interpetation of the speech is the only correct one?

From The American Thinker (a Conservative outlet):

...plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps...

I'm just not sure why, with this President, everyone is so quick and vile with their repsonses. I must have read the word Hitler dozens of times in this threads. Not everyone can/will agree on everything, but we need to be a little more open minded and willing to research and educate ourselves.

Anyone who commented on this thread (and you know who you are) without first doing a little research into this quote/clip/idea, is, in my OPINION, part of the problem, not part of the solution.

We can all agree to disagree on ideas and policy, but lets be educated about it.

[27east 19]

Do you believe that *your* interpetation of the speech is the only correct one?

From The American Thinker (a Conservative outlet):

I'm just not sure why, with this President, everyone is so quick and vile with their repsonses. I must have read the word Hitler dozens of times in this threads. Not everyone can/will agree on everything, but we need to be a little more open minded and willing to research and educate ourselves.

Anyone who commented on this thread (and you know who you are) without first doing a little research into this quote/clip/idea, is, in my OPINION, part of the problem, not part of the solution.

We can all agree to disagree on ideas and policy, but lets be educated about it.

No, I don't believe that my interpetation of this speech is the only correct one. Do you believe that *your* interpetation of the speech is the only correct one?

All he said was "civilian domestic security force." I don't know what that means. History gives one possible interpetation. My research into that (yes, I said research) didn't turn much up. I don't know if his plans to increase the size of various citizen service corps that you listed above. I hope he does, I think it would be excellent. But only he can clarify what he meant.

And I've always been part of the problem....