RE: Bell vs. Woodward--ju

17 Dec 2003

      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=-

 In> As for Australia, your countrymen acted like sheep in giving
 In> up their guns. If they try that kind of shit here in this
 In> country, a *lot* of cops are going to get killed.

Hmm, I somewhat doubt that. After all, restricting guns more and
more has also been happening in the US for quite a while now and
overall resistance has been rather minimal.

While there may be a few, who'd actually take up guns "in the
defense of liberty" the gross majority of Americans seems just as
"sheepish" as people anywhere else. Too many hours of watching (the
good) "Cops" has left an imprint in many minds...

Granted, America does have a constitution establishing civil rights
for it's citizens, but America is also the country (among others)
of "But I have nothing to hide" and "If it just saves one child"...

 In> (Not necessarily by me, though I'll defend my property and my
 In> constitutional rights as best I can. But the militia and
 In> patriot and anti-New World Order movements are preparing for
 In> war.)

"Defending my property" is probably one of the more clear
situations, where it is fairly easy to make a judgement call, and I
support having the choice over necessary actions to take, if your
property gets forcefully invaded by whomever and your personal
freedom is being threatened.

But on a more general basis things tend to become more complicated,
IMHO. What if it's somebody else's liberty being taken? How many
people would then take up arms (see Waco, Ruby Ridge, Roby/Ill.
etc.)? It is much harder then to decide, if it's time for action or
not.

Especially because of pre-filtered information, that make it hard
to base such a decision on "available" facts. When Reuters reported
about the Shirley Allen Siege, in the first line they mentioned her
to be "mentally disturbed" (implying for many, that the
police-action was justified and correct in order "to save her").

People not immediately within the vicinity will have a hard time to
decide, if the media-information is correct and subsequently, if
"the war has now begun".
(In Shirley Allens case, her fellow neighbors _did_ protest the
police-action because they _knew better_, but people further away
had other information and thus no incentive to defend her in any
way.)

The same happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge etc.etc., even with Jim Bell
to a degree. Thus the .gov is able to pick us off one by one and I
doubt, that a lot of "cops are going to get killed" because of it.

It'd be rather interesting to devise a "Cypherpunks-911" system,
that immediately provides others all over the country/world with
necessary information, if something happens, and more importantly,
_what_ happens (before the media faithfully recites the
police-stories of "what happened")

Ciao

Harka

/*************************************************************/
/* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */
/* PGP public key available upon request.  [KeyID: 04174301] */
/* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5  28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */
/*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/
/* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve  */
/* and may all living beings find the way to happiness...    */
/*************************************************************/

... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!"

If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

RE: Bell vs. Woodward--ju

harka＠nycmetro.com