History is not my avocation, but I think
this is not just a recent thing. It may be
that, only recently, does modern society
expect that mass killings will "never again" happen.

There are common threads.
Excuses: greed, envy, rightousness etc.
Opportunity: weak adversary, unaware adversary,
guilt-ridden adversary.
Other non-violent outlets for solutions appear to be blocked.
Coalescing of ethnic or political groups; and greivances,
scirmishes between groups, that enhance group identity
and hatred of the other group(s).

But, not to worry, there are no examples of this going on.
It can't happen here.

We've addressed this issue before here, and it comes down to the same conclusions.

There's no point in running away, the problem will only follow you and grow.

There's no hope of defending against it. Firsthand experience in Baghdad showed me that a well armed minority still has no hope of surviving a determined attack of greater numbers. The best you can hope for is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), with the chance of some survivors leaning in favor of the majority. I got plenty of firsthand stories from the locals there about homes being ambushed in the middle of the night by 50 or more well armed thugs. The result was always the same. The occupants were terminated, taking many of the assailants with them.

So the conclusion I reached was that I would prepare for the possibility that I could be challenged by an irresistable force, and the only objective would be to take as many of them with me as possible, make them pay as great a price as I can in what will be my last effort. Also to form my own alliances so that retribution would be inevitable and considerable.

It is almost impossible to stop someone who is willing to die to take you out as well. Your only option is pre-emptive strike, which usually comes with a high price anyways. The moment you go on the defensive you start to lose. If you can accept that a stalemate wherein you still perish is the best outcome you can hope for, then you can prepare at least for a realistic chance of success in any confrontation.

Let me put it another way. Say I am out with my family and we are accosted by a group of thugs. I will be armed, but if I lose the initiative, then it is likely one of my girls will be directly threatened with harm should I attempt to defend myself. That being the case, my girls understand that I will attack the threat, going through the girls if need be. I will not submit to threats if I am able to wield force against them. In my mind the girls have already been compromised, and the best I can hope for is to prevent the attackers from inflicting maximum damage to all of us.

Seems pretty cold, but that's life I reckon.

Of course, I've trained my girls to use lethal force as well, so the attacker may be quite surprised to find that I am not his greatest opponent after all (he he he). Don't mess with Daddy's little girls.

Not only do I agree with what you said, but I agree with your tactics. In my case - don't fear the armed man in front of you, fear the armed man and wife that are both well trained (former cops and miliary).

and on that note it is time once again to bring up this ETS reminder:

Law Enforcement Agencies and Officers are not there to protect the public, despite the claim in their motto "To Protect and Serve". In the vast majority of the cases, they are there to clean up the mess after the fact. If you want to be secure, you had best plan on taking care of it yourself, otherwise you are at the mercy of your enemies. What's more, you really don't want the police to have that kind of power and control either.

I am not an advocate of violence. I am a firm believer in being responsible for my own welfare. Same reason why I don't count on the government to take care of any of my other more personal needs either.

Let's see a show of hands, how many here believe the government is still working in our best interests and is a better custodian of our welfare than we are?

Suddenly I hear nothing but crickets chirping in the crowd. Must be a group of amputees I am addressing. Ha ha ha ha

What you've described is the US of A. People are no longer polite. There is an exponentially increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. There is a highly disturbing trend in government to ride roughshod over our constitutional rights. And the burden on the middle class has gotten to the point where the middle class is starting to disappear.

In the face of all of this, the easy answer is "Pack up and go while you can." But the question arises, "Go where?"

Where can you think of that is better?

In my opinion, the better answer is "Protect my family, and work to change things."

We talk endlessly here about protecting your family.

How do you change things? Vote. Learn about the people who are trying to get elected, and help the ones who support measures that will return our freedoms.

Meet with the candidates and get to know them on a one-on-one basis. Not so easy with Senators and Congressmen, but local, county and state level people are pretty accessible.

Join or form citizens' groups to add the weight of numbers. Can't think of any? How about the NRA to start.

Less than 40% of the population votes in any given election. And less than that vote in the primaries. Yet the primaries determine ultimately who is going to run for President. I find it frightening that our President is elected by less than 25% of the population.

What should you do? Do something positive. Don't run away. Don't hide. The grass is just not greener over there.

It's less frightening when you consider that that is the literate portion. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The most important thing is that you maintain universal suffrage. We don't want to vote but we care for our right to vote.

Hmm. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe we should let the Canadians vote in the US elections. I'd bet we'd get a better turnout, more rational voting and donuts at the voting centers.

Wouldn't work, on second thought. They'd have to vote 1.4 times each.

Quickly as I can so as to be minimally political here.

I'm ever Tired of hearing many complain of "Erosion of our Freedoms"!

You Advise what you Advise here, -in Interests of our Survivibility. I so also Advise from the Same and towards that Same. Though on the very Opposite Side of your "Preference" and Coin.

Security / Safety / Survival just Trumps this! That Preference of your's and many Other's. *It*, -Security and the like, -is what must come First!

Like I've said elsewhere and before, -They're like Plants on the Path. However "Pretty" and Desireable in their own Right, -there *often* just Isn't Room for the Both of them!

This said, -and Hopefully Remembered and Understood, -I Amend myself to say that up to a Point, -there *is* Room for a certain measure of Both. Its *not* *totally* Either/Or, -at least not as of yet.

But things like Watering Down the Patriot Act, -*are* Stepping Over and Beyond this Line!

This *can* come to eventually make things Worse for us in the World. Which can in turn move to make things Totally "Either/Or", -and this in "Security First's" favor.

How via your Preference and Route, -you may end up getting the very thing that you *Don't* Want!

Beyond the present Line and Point that I speak of, -There just *Isn't* Room for Both!!!

Yet all too many continually Pine for a Measure of Both, -*Beyond* this all round Point and Line!

Very Understandable and all!, -on its own Right and Grounds!

But we're Far from Limited to the Luxury of such Grounds Alone, anymore! We just Can't be Having, -such "Both Ways Luxury"!

A Greater "Erosion of our Freedoms" than we'd Prefer or Like!, -for the Time Being and Duration (but for No Longer), -is just the Price we must now Pay, -*for* our Freedom and its Survival. *For* those Very Freedoms that we wish Not to see Eroded!

Guys like you speak of Freedom "Shooting Itself in the Foot", -*by* a putting of Security First. I rather beleive that that very Characterization, -lies on the Exact Opposite side of that Coin!

Important, Special, and Priceless as these are in themselves, -All too Many of us are Pining for them / Lamenting their Actual or Potential Loss, -"Over and Beyond that Line"!

We've *got* to for once and for all Make Up our Minds! We Can't be having Both! Which of the Two is it going to be?!

The Answer should be only Obvious. "Freedoms First" only leaves an otherwise Securely Locked Gate, -Wide and Open!We can come to *not* have Freedoms to be Caring about!

So in the total all round Scale Weighing here, -Security's obviously got to Come First! Whats Truly in our Security, Safety, and Survival.

Any "Watering Down Less", and "Entertainment of Both", -and we're only *Still* in Pre Sept *10th* of Mindset and Times! I thought we were suspossed to have "Learned on such" by now!....

We *CAN'T* be Having Both! Over and Beyond that Line that I speak of. Thats All thats TO it!

Until via our *Not* Shrinking so, -we someday will Truly Find ourselves *Out* of these Woods!

To paraphrase Robert Frost in "Telefon", -"Those Woods that we Pine for, -are Lovely, Dark, and Deep!, -but We've got Miles!, -*Before* we again Comfortably Sleep!"

We are still a Long Ways!, -from being Out of those Woods!

We Sure ain't gonna Get There, -by *PRE*-Sleeping on the Job!

Or by Deciding on "Unadulterated Freedoms over Security"! In any sort of "Either/Or", "Which is it Gonna Be?", -of a Choice.

We just *CAN'T* Afford to be Having Both! When here are we Finally gonna Learn?!

And then Follow Through with the Requisite "Stick to it edness"! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Farmer[/email]