Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

I think we should distinguish between the right to investigate and the ability to investigate effectively.In Canada, we keep all of our national secrets in the trunk of a car parked outside a hockey arena. If our security agencies are trying to investigate you, they're liable to wind up in my back yard by mistake.In other words, I'd worry more about stupidity than about intentional violation of rights.Edited by ringo, : pelling.

There's a saying that, "Nothing is ever foolproof because fools are so ingenious." Unfortunately, random stupidity often trumps the best-laid plans of civil rights advocates. Oh oh. You're not one of those "They're going to take our guns!" nuts, are you? Frankly, I find your attitude - the "requirement" for violence - more frightening.

Shall I quote Martin Niemoller?

quote:

---

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

​

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

​

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

​

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

---

It's easy to sacrifice somebody else's freedom to protect our own security. That isn't likely to change. Do you have an example from history where that has happened? I can't think of one off-hand. Most of the Great Losses of Freedom that I can recall came from revolutions, the very thing you're advocating.

I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying we don't. Niemoller wasn't refering only to one specific situation. It seems to be human nature not to oil the wheel until the squeak annoys us personally. I asked you for an historical example where that worked.If we "should" protest threats to our freedom, maybe we "should" also protest the idea that freedom can be won through violence. Well, that slope is slippery in both directions. Should we let people drive drunk because they haven't killed anybody yet?

I don't think trade unionists won the freedom to bargain collectively, etc. by violence. Violence was used against them and sometimes violence was met with violence but labour rights were gained through democratic means.

You semed to imply that it was necessary. I personally don't consider something necesary if it doesn't work. When we use violence against our fellow humans, it usually makes bad things happen.Compare the American Revolution with its Canadaina equivalent. We achieved basically the same freedom without the violence, though it took a little longer. What crime has a drunk driver committed?

On the contrary, you seem to have moved the goalpoasts from "They want to take away our guns!" to "Let's go down and wave flowers in front of the legislature."The Canadian equivalent is that there is a free democracy in Canada which is very similar to the free democracy in the USA. Nobody would deny the influence of the violent revolution in the USA or the English Civil War.My point is that the same result was achieved in Canada with (virtually) no violence. Maybe it wouldn't have happened without violence elsewhere. Maybe it would have. When you can figure out how to put time into reverse and replay both scenarios, I'll be interested in the results. So you are in favour of letting people drive drunk?

See, there you go again. What do you mean by withdrawing your submission? I don't see the difference.

If they're already unlawfully searching or otherwise abusing you, what's to prevent them from unlawfully going upside your head for refusing to submit? Cutting to the chase, where's the line between protesting and becoming a criminal yourself? At what point does your behaviour become unacceptable and theirs becomes acceptable?

It's easy to make demands but they seldom have any effect. Violence has an effect but as often as not it's a bad one. So what constitutes an actual solution?

But "we" don't all agree what the volume should be. At one end of the spectrum we have you "demanding" that your civil rights be acknowledged - and at the other end of the spectrum we have MADD and SADD clamouring for tougher treatment of drunk drivers who haven't harmed anybody yet. That sounds more like empty rhetoric than a solution.

But we don't agree. Drunk driving laws have been geting tougher since the 1930s because of people speaking out for harsher laws. It seems that most people are willing to give up their own right to drive drunk in return for a little added security. Let's think this through:Criminals had guns before there even were police forces. The public clamours for police to protect them from criminals and the police ask for the means to do so.We hire and equip police as specialists to deal with crime just as we hire and equip doctors as specialists to deal with disease and injury. If we didn't have armed police, more of us would have to arm ourselves for protection. By giving up a little freedom for the security of armed police, we're also gaining freedom from having to shoot it out ourselves.It's what the public wants. You're swimmng upstream.

But most people do seem to agree with it. They're asking for more stringent definitions of "drunk", not less. You're telling people that they "should" protest against what they want. They don't do that. For every police officer who kills a suspect there are likely a dozen who are hurt or killed because they didn't use lethal force when they should have.

We are forever reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator. Since you can't do it, I won't feel obligated to do it either. Just out of curiosity, how many police officers have you met and spoken to face to face? (And not just when they were writing you a ticket.) As far as the RCMP is concerned, at least, it is true that far more members die in car accidents, drownings, etc. than by "human intervention". I have personally never heard of a case of a police officer accidentally killing another.

I just googled "backpack pressure cooker". I was hoping for ads about lightweight pressure cookers for hikers but I got a whole page of references to this news story. I'd hate to have to actually buy a backpack pressure cooker over the Internet.Then I googled "build your own hydrogen bomb".I'll try to report back when my freedom starts ebbing away.