Program in Newark, NJ: Turn in your neighbor, get $1,000

reply to post by beezzer

Dear beezzer,

I seem to remember that you were wrong once, '92 wasn't it? Don't worry, you're not wrong now, either.

All laws and programmes start out for the betterment of the people. No law is initiated with the overt intent of restricting freedoms.

I'm willing to agree with that, but note how much can be hidden in the phrase "for the betterment of the people." Remember Mayor Bloomberg and his order that soft drinks can't be served in containers larger than 16 ounces? Or the food rules in schools, inspired by Mrs. Obama?

The general principle behind all these laws seems to be "The people are too dumb or rebellious to do what is good for them on their own, so we, the gifted and elite rulers, will tell them what they have to do." The rulers believe that using energy is bad, so we end up with new CAFE standards of 53.5 miles per gallon. That will force us into cars which nobody will want to drive, and in which no one will be safe, but the environment will be protected, and that's all that matters.

What needs to be looked at is not how the law is used, but how far it can be abused. Because, most certainly, someone who has written it, has already gone the next step.

I believe the people writing these laws do not envision them ever being misused, partially because they are being written and administered by government employees who have only "the betterment of the people in mind," and partially because the goal of the environment (or the children, or whatever) is so vital that it has to be dealt with whatever the cost.

For me, the problem occurs earlier in the process. I think any law designed to force, or even strongly encourage, the people into a particular behavior should be looked at three or four times with a very skeptical eye. Almost any law can be misused, and will be, when it's in someone's interest to do so.

I must admit I was worried when I saw your beginning of "with all due respect." I still have vivid memories of that phrase coming through a non-com's clenched teeth just before telling an officer that the officer was, well, "blankity, blank blank." But I think we're more or less in agreement here, so I will unstrap my armor and relax. Nobody in their right mind wants to fight the mighty beezzer.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952




Me fight? I'm just a wee little ball of fluff!

I think we are on the same page as far as abuses go. The 'intent" may differ in what they want versus what they SAY they want.

Ronald Reagan once said, "The scariest words in the English language are; I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Originally posted by Trueman
I am in Newark too and I think the program is right. There is nothing to do with NWO bs. No nazis in Newark, your comments are misleading 100%. Sorry, but I have to stop your snowball before it gets bigger.

How much money have you made so far? joking...

Even if you see what is so right with it, I hope you can see what is so wrong with it too.

I bet they don't turn in the real criminals like gangs. If they did i bet they don't even attempt to confiscate their guns. Which leaves mostly law abiding citizens labeled criminals for trying to protect their family.

I guess what has to made perfectly clear about this type of thing is that what goes around, comes around.

Won't this just end up being a witch hunt where friends turn against friends for the sake of $1000 ?

I don't agree with owning guns unless its for hunting, but i do not think this is the right way to go about getting guns off the streets. All that is going to happen is a bunch of people are going to start name dropping people in the hope the own a gun for $1000.

I don't think any good can come from this scheme.

A responsible gun owner doesn't let his neighbors know he carries a gun. A responsible gun owner also wouldn't apply to this program as a gun-related arrest must be made in order for the reward to be paid.

The idea is to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Why would any responsible gun owner be opposed to this?