Scott wrote:
So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will just be a metter of time
before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my
original belief that the knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover
to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...


No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either.
You don't know who the terrorists are.

A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of
a story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
middle-Eastern decent?

The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and
'War on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for
terrorist that does not include the standard high-school bully.

BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we
ever start.