Quote:

---

You learn quickly.

---

Quote:

---

The “war on poverty” could also be called an excuse to expand the powers of the government, and that has certainly been filled with its own brand of fear mongering. Gun control is also an attempt to expand the powers of government, and that is definitely an assault on Constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
What war on poverty, I don't see the government fighting a war on poverty, we are a rich country if we didn't want poverty there would be no poverty....this country is set up to have poverty a captialist society cannot function without poor people!!


as for gun control nobody is trying to take away a persons right to bare arms, just certain kind of guns like oozies and machine guns etc...

so that argument really doesn't hold up!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xenocide:
Actually the civil war was fought to preserve the union, and effectively ruined the federal system in which the national governement was limited to enumerated powers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Staggerly:
I'm new to the board (and a liberal probably opposed to you on most issues), but Finn, I've got to say you're a credit to your political affiliation. Congratulations on apparently being a fair and rational individual.

---

Quote:

---

And the Patriot Act isn’t taking away any of your rights either; it’s just there to battle terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xenocide:
Gun control does take away rights. Apparently it prevents us from having slime (oozies?) Gun control in america effectively subjugates the population and prevents uprising... because it doesn't matter how many handguns citizens have, they do not have (are not allowed to have) true weapons of modern warfare. In that area iraqi's are more free than we are (ed to add), they at least have AK's and RPG's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

What I'm saying is that the Patriot Act ITSELF "legalizes" unreasonable search and seizure and that it violates both the spirit and the text of the Constitution. And I question why ANYONE would support a law that allows "relevant to ongoing investigation" surveillance of non-suspects and for trivial reasons such as cyber crimes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yet, the Left doesn’t seem to have any problem curtailing or in some cases completely eliminating our Constitutional right to bear arms if it means we can be safe from criminals.

---

Quote:

---

{b]Why does the Left have a problem curtailing an, at best, implied right to privacy if it means we can be safe from massive terrorist attacks in which thousands of people could conceivably be killed?

---

Quote:

---

Now several people in this thread feel that the Patriot Act violates their “right” to “privacy,” in fact at one point Signym referred to “constitutional privacy rights.” First of all, the Constitution does not specify any such right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment suggests or implies such a right, but to my knowledge there is nothing in the Constitution pertaining to a “right” to privacy like the 2nd Amendment pertaining to a right to bear arms. So the right to keep and bear automatic weapons would seem to be, perhaps, more clearly what one might call a “Constitutional right” then any such “right to privacy.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I used to own a couple myself (an old Remington 0.22 for plinking and the shortest-possible-and-still-be-legal barrel shotgun for home defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I personally don't have a problem with people keeping guns. I used to own a couple myself (an old Remington 0.22 for plinking and the shortest-possible-and-still-be-legal barrel shotgun for home defense. I put THOSE deeply away, in pieces, once our daughter started walking around.) I will disagree with you though that the "right to bear arms" will keep any of us free. Back in the day, when the army's weapons were pretty much equal to what everybody else had, that might have been a valid viewpoint. But a shotgun is no match against a 50-caliber machine gun, tank, or any other modern military weapon, and thinking that the "right to bear arms" keeps you free is a fantasy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
REAL freedom comes from freedom of thought. If a large portion of any population comes a different paradigm than the government, the government will not stand. That is the basis of the many "velvet revolutions" that happened in the past decade or so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
'Cause it doesn't mean we can be safe- these acts are written by the same IDIOTS that let (YES, LET) 911 happen. Y'know, film-makers don't usually get to do a Part II when Part I failed so miserably, so why do people in government get a second chance to f-up (Uh-oh, I'm about to use the 'C' word...I'd better go).

---

Quote:

---

However, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says that the right of the People to have and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Now why oh why didn't you include that little condition at the fornt of the second amendment. I'm sure you know it's there:

Quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xenocide:
Geezer's Point: Don't worry, governments get bigger, but they are the good guys so it's OK.

Well, I don't think history or current events back him up on this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Someone else might say that after several years we have seen no terrorists attacks like the one on 9/ll. That suggests that it may very well help to keep us safe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I suppose it depends on what "well-regulated" means.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And as SignyM pointed out, one would need anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc to fight the US army.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But there is another flaw with your position, which I didn't want to bring up and potentially derail the discussion. It is a logical flaw. If ANYONE can have ANY ARMS - completely unrestricted for any reason whatsoever, as you seem to want - do you believe an infant should be given a thermonuclear trigger (a red button) to teethe on?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, it's not off the mark. You obviously understand that SOME restrictions must be placed on who can own what types of arms. That puts you in the same category as liberals. The only thing that you disagree on in where the line should be drawn. So instead of railing aginst "them", why don't YOU tell US- who can own what kidns of weapons?

---

Quote:

---

However, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says that the right of the People to have and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say that the right of the People to have and bear non-automatic guns shall not be infringed. It does not specify the type of weapon. So not only does the Constitution not prevent a person from keeping and bearing automatic weapons, it doesn’t even prevent the People from keeping and bearing artillery or missiles etc, all of which fall under the category of arms. Yet, you will find hundreds of laws curtailing our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, just on non-automatic guns alone, to say nothing of more powerful arms, most of which are strictly forbidden.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Well gosh, exsqueeze me if I took your words at face value. How could I have been so foolish as to think you actually meant what you wrote?

---

Quote:

---

Because that’s not the point. Whether I think some restrictions should be applied is immaterial.

---

Quote:

---

I’m not the one claiming that curtailing implied Constitutional rights will lead to the end of our democracy.So the question is, what do you think of gun control?

---

Quote:

---

Do you think we should restrict what is obviously an explicit Constitutional right in favor of the safety of the public from the threat of automatic weapons (or conceivable other arms), and if so, how do you reconcile that with your insistence that our democracy will end if we curtail implied Constitutional rights in favor of the safety of the public from terrorism to include the use of explosives, chemical, biological and nuclear threats, all of which are possibilities?

---

Quote:

---

the government was lying to us 140 years ago, with the "This war is about slavery" rationale, but we're still bumbling along as a democracy. The fact that we could go from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush leads me to believe that whatever you think of he currnet administration, "This too shall pass."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To take this phrase and assume that it means that the only guns the People should have are those that are essentially useless against the weaponry these Militias will face in the advent of their necessity is to render such “well-regulated Militias” and the 2nd Amendment obsolete.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Is this a loaded question or a false analogy or an off-topic diversion or just plain bad writing demonstrated by a run-on sentence? Gee, I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned I WAS talking about the right to privacy, and how it may be resticted to further restict the right to free speech and free assembly, both of which are...er... explicit. But apparently irrelevant in Finn's hierarchy of Constitutional rights.

However- and just to prove what a good sport I am, I will- if Finn insists- demonstrate how his argument is fundamentally flawed. But Finn has to insist that I adress this, because it really was not my point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Personally, I take 'the people' to mean those who are not insane, criminal-minded, or too young to know the difference, so right there we have to interpret a little, And it was written at a time when weapons that could vaporize a city, or the ability to have a shootout on our moon (if two factions so desired)were so impossible it wasn't even in fantasy novels of the time, so again we are forced to interpret a little more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

the government was lying to us 140 years ago, with the "This war is about slavery" rationale, but we're still bumbling along as a democracy. The fact that we could go from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush leads me to believe that whatever you think of he currnet administration, "This too shall pass."

---

Thank you for that bit of wisdom. Now tell it to the 30,000+ dead and disabled American soldiers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Oh, and what about the fact that our clunky, imperfect, irrational democracy has been bumping along for 200 years, with folks even less honorable that your concept of Dubya at the helm? Was that just an aberration?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.

---

Flexability is almost always a virtue, so I agree with you on that.
Finn, do you ever RANT? You know, use multiple exclamation points and the like? You're so gorram calm and easy goin' most of the time! Let loose sometimes, man! Flame a little! It could be fun.
(and let the 'C' word into your ideas of how things work, dude, lack of such leads to neatness and tidieness, and ultimatly a view of things that is less whole, and less realistic, IMNSHO.)

How to be a more exciting poster in 2 easy steps Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

the "right to bear arms" will keep any of us free. Back in the day, when the army's weapons were pretty much equal to what everybody else had, that might have been a valid viewpoint. But a shotgun is no match against a 50-caliber machine gun, tank, or any other modern military weapon, and thinking that the "right to bear arms" keeps you free is a fantasy.


REAL freedom comes from freedom of thought. If a large portion of any population comes to a different paradigm than the government, the government will not stand. That is the basis of the many "velvet revolutions" that happened in the past decade or so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
They already know. They volunteered to fight for a system that, while obviously imperfect, works well enough to inspire their loyalty. Works better, in their minds, than anything else available.

---

Quote:

---

Is this a loaded question or a false analogy or an off-topic diversion or just plain bad writing demonstrated by a run-on sentence? Gee, I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned I WAS talking about the right to privacy, and how it may be resticted to further restict the right to free speech and free assembly, both of which are...er... explicit. But apparently irrelevant in Finn's hierarchy of Constitutional rights.

However- and just to prove what a good sport I am, I will- if Finn insists- demonstrate how his argument is fundamentally flawed. But Finn has to insist that I adress this, because it really was not my point.--- SignyM

That’s what I thought. I figured that you would stall and avoid the question. Because it puts you in a corner. Your argument lacks perspective.--- Finn

---

Quote:

---

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
There is a reason why the Founding Fathers limited searches and seizures to "probable cause" and that was to prevent wholesale searches of suspect (or even non-suspect) populations. Wholesale searches are a waste of time and resources, and do not increase internal security.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Your question was a little like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I avoided the question because it was not only a diversionary tactic, it was stupid question (false analogy, false dilemna). Why discuss flawed aruments? So- BTW- here is notice that I will probably not respond to such flawed arguments in the future. Be assured that I'm not "stalling", I just refuse to waste my time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I guess the democracy-ending aspect of the loss of a particular freedom depends largely on point of view. The first time a democratic administration employs the Patriot Act, I have a feeling you might decide that our democracy is much stronger.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your argument lacks perspective.

---

Quote:

---

Death By A Thousand Cuts: The Many Ways Our Rights Have Been Usurped Since 9/11

Wednesday, Sep 13, 2023 - 08:40 PM

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” - Abraham Lincoln

---