We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18666
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:You could be right. Would it bother you? Is there something wrong with getting rid of a few violent gangs that attempt to control entire neighborhoods in order to exercise their criminal enterprise?
Originally posted by piratejenny:
just because gangs or people involved in tagger shoot-outs and drive by's arent considered terrorist, are we assuming that the laws in the patriot Act won't apply to them. because I would bet my last dollar that it does apply to them or will apply to them!!
Quote:Yes, well, by “eco-terrorism” I don’t think anyone is referring to the Animal Rights groups who act in a lawful manner.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
on the other hand these eniviromental groups and Animal rights groups for the most part act in a lawful manner and their activities are public....even if they commit an unlawful act such as stageing a protest and someone gets arrested for blocking a street, these groups activities are public, they have the will and the motivation to effect change and can do it in a lawful manner....so it makes sense that the Patriot Act would target such groups, its the 1rst step in setting the ground work to take away peoples rights.
It doesn’t make any sense to compare violent gangs with lawful Animal Rights groups.-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sarge Re: fascism
I suppose it depends on how you define it. If you mean a system in which an individual's economic and political rights are far inferior to those of the government and corporations, in which individuals need to be educated in military-style school and learn the received cultural wisdom, then that's the word I mean. Possibly your definition is different. It's surely something to discuss.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:You could be right. Would it bother you? Is there something wrong with getting rid of a few violent gangs that attempt to control entire neighborhoods in order to exercise their criminal enterprise?
Originally posted by piratejenny:
just because gangs or people involved in tagger shoot-outs and drive by's arent considered terrorist, are we assuming that the laws in the patriot Act won't apply to them. because I would bet my last dollar that it does apply to them or will apply to them!!Quote:Yes, well, by “eco-terrorism” I don’t think anyone is referring to the Animal Rights groups who act in a lawful manner.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
on the other hand these eniviromental groups and Animal rights groups for the most part act in a lawful manner and their activities are public....even if they commit an unlawful act such as stageing a protest and someone gets arrested for blocking a street, these groups activities are public, they have the will and the motivation to effect change and can do it in a lawful manner....so it makes sense that the Patriot Act would target such groups, its the 1rst step in setting the ground work to take away peoples rights.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
The only problem I have with it, is the label of terrorism who is a terrorist, if enviromental groups and animal rights groups can be labeld terrorist...whats the next step, who is to say that I'm not a terrorist for handing out papers and speaking out publicly denouncing a government I think is turning Facist....
The issue here isn't about gangs, its about targeting groups and treating them like terrorist, not because they are but because the government says they are...you keep mentioning violent acts..but the Patriot act isn't limited to violent crimnal acts and as we've seen from above stated examples of people being monitered etc..you don't have to be doing anything illeagle to be targeted as a terroist!!
So the big question that everyone including yourself should be asking since The Patriot Act has already passed... is WHY??????? why would the government be targeting such groups as /terrorist..Why are these groups being made a prority
Why not make Drug Cartels, or Supremist groups, or even gangs a prority all of which pose a greater threat then do these groups!!!.....SO WHY!!!!!
I can answer that question!!....it just brings the government one step closer to creating an atomsphere that makes it that much easier for them to be in a position to strip away peoples rights .. this is just the 1rst step.
How many of or freedoms and rights are we going to have to give up in the name of so called security.. and why should we even have to!!???
and where does it end we now have the National I.D card on its way!! and we have the Patriot Act...where is the buck going to stop or is it going to stop?????? do you have a limit of how much of your rights its ok for the government to take away before you start be concerned...
when does the bubble burst, I think one of the biggest things the government has to its advantage is the fact that the American people don't think it can happen to us
IMO.... it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!
You're not the first person to have said that. One person at work, first thing he said when he heard that Bush was spending a lot of time at Crawford was... "That would be a good time to get rid of Washington and declare a national emergency." And yeah, I know ppl call him a conspiracy nut (including me sometimes
) but if you would have told me six years ago that the Republicans would have rigged two elections in a row, invaded two countries, bankrupted the Federal budget, and passed the Patriot Act (which BTW they had sitting in draft form BEFORE 9-11), attacked Social Security, created a department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security! I mean, how Tuetonic can you get???) and leapt into the arms of the religious right I would have said you were even more paranoid than me. So, I guess I've learned not to dscount ANYTHING from this administration. NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m aware of the issue.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?
Quote:That has nothing to do with terrorism or the Patriot Act. If you don’t believe me just as Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, there was no threat of terrorism or Patriot Act then.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
The only problem I have with it, is the label of terrorism who is a terrorist, if enviromental groups and animal rights groups can be labeld terrorist...whats the next step, who is to say that I'm not a terrorist for handing out papers and speaking out publicly denouncing a government I think is turning Facist....
Quote:Actually the Patriot Act is quite clear in stating that domestic terrorism is limited to violent acts.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
The issue here isn't about gangs, its about targeting groups and treating them like terrorist, not because they are but because the government says they are...you keep mentioning violent acts..but the Patriot act isn't limited to violent crimnal acts and as we've seen from above stated examples of people being monitered etc..you don't have to be doing anything illeagle to be targeted as a terroist!!
Quote:The only groups that I have seen the government label as terrorist do clearly seem to be quite terrorist in nature. So the government basically seems to be going after terrorist as they said they would, that’s why.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
So the big question that everyone including yourself should be asking since The Patriot Act has already passed... is WHY??????? why would the government be targeting such groups as /terrorist..Why are these groups being made a prority
Quote:We are going after them. In fact, I think that if you examine the resources used by law enforcement, you would find that a vastly larger among of resource is used to go after Drug Cartels then environmental terrorist groups. I don’t know about supremacy groups since they are not even a big issue anymore, but I still hear about arrests in that area as well.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Why not make Drug Cartels, or Supremist groups, or even gangs a prority all of which pose a greater threat then do these groups!!!.....SO WHY!!!!!
Quote:Imaginative rant, but I'm not sure it's helping your clarity of vision in this case.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
I can answer that question!!....it just brings the government one step closer to creating an atomsphere that makes it that much easier for them to be in a position to strip away peoples rights .. this is just the 1rst step.
How many of or freedoms and rights are we going to have to give up in the name of so called security.. and why should we even have to!!???
and where does it end we now have the National I.D card on its way!! and we have the Patriot Act...where is the buck going to stop or is it going to stop?????? do you have a limit of how much of your rights its ok for the government to take away before you start be concerned...
when does the bubble burst, I think one of the biggest things the government has to its advantage is the fact that the American people don't think it can happen to us
IMO.... it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm. Let's see If I have this right.
-Republican president
-Elected by a narrow majority
-Drums up war fever based on a goal that's not his real goal
-Invades a poorer, less powerful country
-Destroys entire cities and reduces the civilian population to poverty
-Suspends Constitutional rights in the name of security
-After the war a government of occupation is installed, with perks for the conquerors
And this despoiler of democracy would be?
Select to view spoiler:
Why Abraham Lincoln, of course.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:I’m aware of the issue.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Finn, one thing that maybe you're not getting. You keep suggesting we'd prefer not going after violent criminals. That's really not the issue. No one thinks that those burning and looting or committing other acts of violence should be ignored. The question is whether the same tactics being used against Al-Queda sleeper cells should be applied to these other groups. See the difference?
Hmmmm. Then I'm not sure what to make of that. If you're aware of the issue, why won't you address it? Are you just playing dumb to get Jenny and Signym all worked up?
I'm not trying to be rude, I just see a lot of pointless exchange here and I'm wondering whether you're being evasive on purpose or what?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hmmm. Let's see If I have this right.
-Republican president
-Elected by a narrow majority
-Drums up war fever based on a goal that's not his real goal
-Invades a poorer, less powerful country
-Destroys entire cities and reduces the civilian population to poverty
-Suspends Constitutional rights in the name of security
-After the war a government of occupation is installed, with perks for the conquerors
And this despoiler of democracy would be?
Why Abraham Lincoln, of course.
The parallels are indeed disturbing. Dubya seems to have borrowed 'honest' Abe's playbook.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My guess is that Jenny and Signym are going to get worked up either way. What makes you think that I'm not addressing it? It sounds to me like I am addressing it. If violent gangs are as bad as Rue and others have suggested, and I don’t necessarily disagree, is there really something wrong with using the expanded tools of the Patriot Act to deal with them?
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Hmmmm. Then I'm not sure what to make of that. If you're aware of the issue, why won't you address it? Are you just playing dumb to get Jenny and Signym all worked up?
Perhaps you’ve never considered the issue, maybe? Perhaps you’ve not stopped to consider that maybe it might be a good use of the Patriot Act to help get rid of some of these violent gangs that have caused so many neighborhoods so much problem?
The argument that Jenny and Signym are trying to make is that the Patriot Act represents some kind of mythical evil, but is that really the case? Is there really some evil intent ingrained in it? Jenny seems to think that there is something ominous about using the Patriot Act to deal with violent gangs, but is that really the case, or is that simply part of the myth?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...If violent gangs are as bad as Rue and others have suggested, and I don’t necessarily disagree, is there really something wrong with using the expanded tools of the Patriot Act to deal with them?
Perhaps you’ve never considered the issue, maybe? Perhaps you’ve not stopped to consider that maybe it might be a good use of the Patriot Act to help get rid of some of these violent gangs that have caused so many neighborhoods so much problem?
Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.
You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And now you know why I didn’t come out and say it. Rhetorical questions should be rhetorical questions, not ammunition.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, this is the first time you've been clear. You're suggesting that the constitutional exceptions made in the Patriot Act, specifically to address the terrorist threat, be made the general rule. That's pretty extreme and I doubt you'd even get many Bush supporters to back you on that one.
You might want to take a little closer look at what you're actually supporting here. But you seem reticent to do that.
The threats from violent crime whether it be terrorists or gangs are real. Not fear mongering designed to expand the powers of the government.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
huh?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
all I see here is you trying to rationalize giving up your freedom. I can't help but think of that Benjermin Franklin Quote!! Those who give up their freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor liberty..or something to that effect!!!
I don't really want to get into this conversation as it doesn't pretain directly to my country, but if you want a t-shirt with that quote on:
http://www.openbsd.org/tshirts.html#7
It's more to do with crypto, but still on the freedom topic.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
The parallels are indeed disturbing. Dubya seems to have borrowed 'honest' Abe's playbook.
Yet we've managed 140 years of democracy since Lincoln's time, with improvements such as universal sufferage, equal rights, inclusion of a plethora of immigrants, etc. Somehow this gives me reason to believe that the democratic process is stronger than relatively slight (in the overall scheme of things) swings one way or the other.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll drink to that!
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, just a response to your title of this thread:
We are NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic. We practice representative democracy, not true full-on democracy. We elect folks to make decisions for us. Could you imagine everyone in the US having to vote on every single issue (down to the little House rules and such)? It would be a mess.
Just a little note from a history buff.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)
BTW- thank you for that distinction. In California we do have a path for "true" democracy called the initiative process. I'm not sure that it results in good laws, but is sure keeps politics interesting!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why should anyone argue in favor of reducing civil rights? (There are reasons)
Hmm...
There are many reasons, cases actually. I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.
Here's my favorite example.
Man beats wife. Wife gets an order of protection barring Man from making threats, following, harrassing, etc. Man makes threats against wife. At trial for violating the order, Man asserts his 1st Amendment Rights. Are threats against an abused spouse protected speech? (My answer was damned clever, I argued that he should have challanged the validity of the order at the time it was issued, not later in a subsequent criminal action, its a legal thing about respecting prior judgements, very slick, but the fracking court ignored it and instead adopted my 'valid limitation on free speech' argument.)
There's another similar case where the courts barred a man from picketing his wife's residence in protest of his child support payments, because his "otherwise acceptable behaivor" was inappropriate and threatening in this context.
Or the classic example: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
What about requiring a permit before holding a demonstration?
Or taxing a church enganged in political action or for-profit ventures?
Or using infrared technology to watch the goings on in a private home? Come on, its non-invasive.
How bout walking a drug sniffing dog around the outside of a car during a routine traffic stop and without any cause to suspect the presense of drugs?
Is it reasonable for the police to 'stop and frisk' random people on the sidewalk?
Should a business have to provide all of its business records on request to a State's Consumer Protection Agency?
Can police use your name and ID as the alias provided to an undercover stripper?
Can they take your home and build mini-mall or maybe a recycling center?
The law books are filled with reasons. Instead we should take a look at the standards each of these reasons must meet to be found valid. Is a legitimate govt purpose being served? Is the rule/law/whatever narrowly tailored to meet that interest? Etc, etc. This country has been around along time. In that time the courts have found a LOT of laws to be unconstitutional. Others have been overturned by the legislators or by shifting public opinion.
The Sedition Act, the Alien and Sedition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Red Scare, the 18th Amendment, Senate Unamerican Activites Committee, Jim Crowe laws, etc, etc, and so and hey, didn't the House used to Filibuster stuff too? The Patriot Act fits right in. But the further we get from 9/11 the more we seek to reign in our understandubly zealous efforts. Detainees now get lawyers and hearings. Some get trials and charges. Patriot II will probably pass, but unlike Partiot I it will be successfully chalanged in court, because it goes too far. So stop worrying and let the Contitution work its magic like its been doing for 200 or so years. If it doesn't...I'll be right there with you, with my legal semi-automatic assault weapon in hand.
Thats the ultimate beauty of our system. We can change it. How about we scrap our present system and adopt a new one based upon 'The Apprentice' TV show? This weeks challange, two teams of aspiring lawmakers try to reform social security. One will succeed, the other faces a jury of randomly selected voters in the boardroom where one person will be "impeached". We can call it "The Legislator".
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the government manufactured some type of incident 9/11 like to really get the ball rolling!!!
You're not the first person to have said that. One person at work, first thing he said when he heard that Bush was spending a lot of time at Crawford was... "That would be a good time to get rid of Washington and declare a national emergency." And yeah, I know ppl call him a conspiracy nut (including me sometimes
I knew it would be bad when the Bush administration got into office, I said two years before Bush was even elected , that if he got into office, we would be going to war with Iraq I also knew that some incident would precurse it
On the day of 9/11 when I turned on my T.v....I said My Gawd what have they done!! those were my exact words...meaning( Bush Administration) and no it didn't come as any shock or surprise to me when the country found out the Bush administration knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing to stop it!!
I personally would be willing to take it a step further and say not only did they know about it, but they had a hand in it..but thats just me!!
I also said before Bush Jr. got into office that the economy would get bad, that one was a no brainer!!!..what I didn't foresee was the stolen elections and the black box voting and I was so naive that I didn't think it would happen a 2nd time!!
As for the PATRIOT ACT!! your absolutely right it was sitting in Draft before 9/11 Bush Sr. had already started implementing parts of it as early as 1990 through National Security Directives.
They've been planning all of this for years, Clinton getting elected was a fluke that they didn't Plan on or exspect to happen!! and his being elected interrupted their Plan for 8 years but they were going to make damn sure it didn't happen again, thats why in 2000 they made sure Bush was going to get into office one way or another and they succeeded
now my only question is, are they going to cause and declare a state of emergency before George Bush jr. term is up..or are they going to wait until Jeb Bush is in office before they do it
and I can garuntee you right now, that if a state of emergency isn't declared before Bush Jr. is out of office that Jeb Bush will get into office one way or another..just like George Bush jr. got into office one way or another, and sometime during his time in office they will Declare a state of Emergency, and thats when the crap really is going to hit the fan..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Orginal post by
Finn mac Cumhal
[qoute]Imaginative rant, but I'm not sure it's helping your clarity of vision in this case.
Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
all I see here is you trying to rationalize giving up your freedom. I can't help but think of that Benjermin Franklin Quote!! Those who give up their freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor liberty..or something to that effect!!!
I don't really want to get into this conversation as it doesn't pretain directly to my country, but if you want a t-shirt with that quote on:
http://www.openbsd.org/tshirts.html#7
oh thanks and the orginal quote is
They that can give up liberty to obtain a little tempory safety, deserve neither liberty or safety
Benjermin Franklin 1706-1790
wise words from a wise man we should all take heed!!
It's more to do with crypto, but still on the freedom topic.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pirate Don't you hate it when you keep predicting bad stuff and you wind up being unerringly, depressingly correct? B4 2000, my SO predicted that we would be in a recession and a war.
One of the ways of testing a hypothesis is if your hypothesis can be used to amke accurately predictions. My hypothesis is that Bush&Co are lying SOBs who only have their selfish interests at heart, and that they think NOTHING of sending kids to die- or get pieces of them blown off- in unecessary wars, saddling the future generations with mountains of debt, abridging the Consitution and reducing individual rights until we are all subservient to coporate/state interests, and rigging elections and destroying our political insitutions as long as they get to line their pockets and control the oil. Meanwhile, those who believe in the great father's benevolence are more or less left to rationalize each new outrage as best they can.
DANG I hate it when I'm right!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- As usual, I don't have time to get into great detail about your reply. The throttle of my life is stuck wide open again. I have a couple of questions/ comments tho.
Your reply refers to both rulings/ verdicts and laws/ legislation. Unless a case achieves such notoriety that it works its way up thru the court system and becomes precedent, a ruling only affects an individual.
Which leads me to my first questions:
At what point does a ruling achieve sufficient status to become precedent? At the Supreme Court level?
It seems actually relatively straightforward to change legislation. But how are "precedents" modified, and at what level? By changing the nature of the ppl sitting on the bench?
To sum up the cases/ rulings that you list, would it be fair to say that it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.
As far as the "rights" of business- As far as I know, the only reason why businesses were granted "due process" was because of some preamble to a ruling about some railroad case vis a vis the 14th amendment. In MY view, companies should NOT have the same free speech, privacy etc. rights as individuals. So, yes, in my opnion a business should be forced to turn over their records as required- EXCEPT when it becomes PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE. At that point, you are impinging on the privacy rights of individuals.
And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And if it doesn’t happen, there’s always tomorrow, or the next day to worry about. That’s why global warming and the book of Revelations are so popular.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Call it a rant or whatever you want..but just remember my post, because all this stuff is happening and will happen..and I'll get no pleasure in having the last laugh!!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And, to refine my initial question: What are the reasons for limiting civil liberties BY LAW? (Finn alluded to one already.)
Maybe not Hero's POV, but this states it pretty well for me.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...it is correct to abridge the rights of one person (eg. liberty, free speech) if they impinge on a greater right of another individual. Got no problem there.
Sort of like the old saw, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
My right to keep and bear arms may end if I use arms in the commission of a crime.
My group's right to peaceably assemble may lose out if we can't provide enough facilities to insure their health and safety, or the safety of others in the area.
My freedom of religion does not allow me to sacrifice virgins to the sun god, or kill unbelievers, even if that's what my belief requires.
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I myself, as a prosecutor, have successfully argued in favor of reducing civil rights.
Hero, you can be amusing, even downright hi-larious. But sometimes I can't tell if you're serious or not.
That bit on another thread 'bout gettin' back at your ex-girlfriend or whatever usin' the law, I didn't know whether to chuckle, or wince in disgust...
Some folks grow up in a dangerous (physical or otherwise) environment and see rules as protection to the common man. Others grow up the same way, and see rules as something that serve the enforcers, not the common man. Both can be true at different times, but one thing is constant...
Power corrupts, dude, and you know the rest.
It's a balancing act Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
Well, that's THE question. Traditionally, we've required a judge to look at the grounds for the suspicion before any substantial change in the rules is allowed. The agency requesting special allowances had to show valid reason to suspect that the person whose rights were at stake had committed a crime.
With the Patriot Act, all the investigators have to show is that the particular surveillance might provide information 'relevant to an ongoing investigation'. That's a pretty wide door in my opinion. Much more open to abuse than the previous requirements.
Still, it's supposed to be limited terrorism investigations, which was the emergency rationale that justified the passage of the Patriot Act in the first place. The tricky part is how to keep this focused on terrorism. The topic of this thread, and the attitudes of 'people like Finn' make it clear that there are those who would like to see these new rules applied to a wider range of problems.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- your right to privacy ends if you are SUSPECTED of being a terrorist or aiding terrorism. I could say- "Geezer, I suspect you of being a right-wing terrorist." Now- you're a suspect. So who judges whether the SUSPICION has enough merit to waive your rights, and on what grounds is that decision made?
You probably have neither the training or the skills to identify possible criminal conspiracy, nor the authority to do anything about it, so I'm not too worried about your accusition.
In real life, this judgement is usually made by law enforcement officers at local, state, and federal levels based on the information they have. They have been doing it this way for quite a while. I'm not going to try and enumerate all the possible reasons because it would take a while and there's probably some I'd miss.
Up until Patriot Act I, any warrant for such surveillance was supposed to be signed by a judge. Now, in some circumstances relating to terrorism (possibly where quick action or possibly great discretion are involved), instead of having to find a compliant judge at midnight, a high-ranking (Federal, I think)law enforcement officer can issue the warrant. All such are (if I read the law right), subject to mandatory review.
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.
Dang! I was with ya up to that part! What if I suspect you of being a 'witch terrorist' who conjurs up sentient firearms to spontaniously kill poodles and heads of state?
Suspicion should be backed up by evidence before infringing on your right of privacy. Like pictures of you at criminal meetings, your arrest at criminal operations, your dead body at criminal shoot outs, that sort of thing. All of this may be obtained without peeping into your home or tapping your phones.
Criminal Motel, criminals check in, but they don't check out Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My right of privacy may be impinged upon if I'm suspected of supporting or belonging to a criminal organization, whether it be just plain crooks or terrorists.
Dang! I was with ya up to that part! What if I suspect you of being a 'witch terrorist' who conjurs up sentient firearms to spontaniously kill poodles and heads of state?
Suspicion should be backed up by evidence before infringing on your right of privacy. Like pictures of you at criminal meetings, your arrest at criminal operations, your dead body at criminal shoot outs, that sort of thing. All of this may be obtained without peeping into your home or tapping your phones.
Criminal Motel, criminals check in, but they don't check out Chrisisall
Suspicion in this case doesn't mean anyone's suspicion, but law enforcement judgement, backed up by enough evidence to either convince a judge to sign a warrant, or in the case of the Patriot Act, to stand up to a later review.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Geezer, you're wrong on your intepretation of the Patriot Act. Among other things, it lowers the standard for pen/trap and internet surveillance from "probable cause" to "relevant to an ongoing investigation" (in other words, the person is not necessarily suspected of anything at all), allows wiretapping people who are "proximate" to the target under FISA (again, probable cause is not required), and access to records of non-suspect individuals.
www.911-strike.com/ACLU-surveillance.htm
You should see what it says about cyber crime (nothing to do with terrorism at all). In fact, it's probably more dangerous (for you, since it would seem more likely) if you are suspected of cyber crime.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.
Of course. So why don't we just do away with the Constitution? Why bother with what our laws say? Why fuss about the Patriot Act? Let's quit pretending to be a nation of laws. Let's just trust our government or accede to their power, lay back and enjoy the sex or rape- however you view it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And if it doesn’t happen, there’s always tomorrow, or the next day to worry about. That’s why global warming and the book of Revelations are so popular.
yes there always is something to worry about, that is if you don't take action, Global warming is real..as for the book of revalation that is tied up in someone's faith so I really can't comment on that..nor do I desire to, but what this administration is doing to our country is real all you have to do look around and see whats happening..and it will happen not because I say so..but based on the actions of the Bush administration!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
Of course, this assumes you believe that law enforcement officers are actually obeying the law. If you don't, it doesn't really matter, does it? They could watch you illegally and you'd never know it.
Of course. So why don't we just do away with the Constitution? Why bother with what our laws say? Why fuss about the Patriot Act? Let's quit pretending to be a nation of laws. Let's just trust our government or accede to their power, lay back and enjoy the sex or rape- however you view it.
If you don't trust the government, it doesn't matter what laws there are in place, since the government is the protector and enforcer of the laws. You apparently believe that the government, at all levels, is just a bunch of evil, greedy, proto-nazis. In that case you're already lost, no matter what the laws. So you might as well either lay back and enjoy it, or leave.
For no better reason than it's been working pretty well for 200+ years, plus the fact that I worked in Civil Service for 36 years and have a pretty good idea who the average government employee is, I think that the system pretty much turns out to be self-correcting, and that swings one way or another are to be expected.
Frankly, I consider you pretty paranoid about this whole thing, and you probably consider that I see it through rose-colored glasses. We each have a right to our opinions, and ,dispite your fears, will probably continue to have that right.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If you don't trust the government, it doesn't matter what laws there are in place, since the government is the protector and enforcer of the laws
So- why have laws at all? Why have laws against murder? Laws don't stop criminal action because the people committing the crimes are, well, criminals. If they payed attention to the law, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?
In any case, I think you're missing an essential point about democracy as the Founding Fathers envisioned. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to leave the functioning of the goverment to the whims of those in government, no matter how benign those whims might be or whether different levels of government are playing by different rules. What do you suppose it is?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The threats from violent crime whether it be terrorists or gangs are real. Not fear mongering designed to expand the powers of the government.
but isn't it ironic that its being used for just that purpose,fear mongering to exspand the powers of government!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So- why have laws at all? Why have laws against murder? Laws don't stop criminal action because the people committing the crimes are, well, criminals. If they payed attention to the law, they wouldn't be criminals, would they?
This question is so silly I suspect you of being purposely obtuse.
Criminal laws are there to let people know what is not acceptible. The government enforces these laws. Even bad governments which don't obey the law themselves make at least a pass at enforcing criminal laws. Duh.
Quote:
In any case, I think you're missing an essential point about democracy as the Founding Fathers envisioned. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to leave the functioning of the goverment to the whims of those in government, no matter how benign those whims might be or whether different levels of government are playing by different rules. What do you suppose it is?
I think it's you who doesn't understand the Founding Fathers vision. They expected the government to serve the people and the people to let the government know what they wanted it to do. The people's method of letting the government know what they want it to do is the ballot box. For good or ill, the policy of the government reflects the vote of the people, not the result of a magazine poll, the pronouncements of pundits, or the fears of the ACLU.
The people's elected representatives passed the Patriot Act. Sorry that you don't like it. If you believe that Congress is so easily fooled, you've pretty much written off our form of government anyway.
Even if Bush "stole" the election, you have another chance in a couple of years to elect someone more to your liking. If you don't believe this is true, then you have no recourse, and might as well give up, get out, or try revolution.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Geezer. Pretty much agreeing with most of what you're saying here. I still think some major portions of the Patriot Act were ill conceived, but there are worthwhile portions as well.
Quote:
The people's elected representatives passed the Patriot Act. Sorry that you don't like it. If you believe that Congress is so easily fooled, you've pretty much written off our form of government anyway.
This comment got me thinking. I don't think Congress is easily fooled, but I think it was, and has often been, pushed into foolhardy action because the voting public IS relatively easily fooled. This bothers me a great deal and is something that seems to be getting worse.
This was my main complaint with the last election. None of the elections I've seen (the first one I remember is Carter's victory) have featured highbrowed discussion of the issues, but this last campaign was just embarassing. Kerry and his group dished out the same old scare tactics and liberal nonsense, but Bush/Rove just went over-the-top in terms of dumbing everything down to three or four word phrases that were then repeated doggedly.
The slogans and phrases were carefully researched to provoke various reactions in people, often contradictory reactions in different groups, but the common thread is that they didn't mean much at all and usually served to blur an issue more than to clarify it. The fact that this style of campaigning was so effective truly makes me worry about the future of democracy in this country. I honestly don't know how intelligent Bush supporters could stomach hearing it.
I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Originally posted by piratejenny:
but isn't it ironic that its being used for just that purpose,fear mongering to exspand the powers of government!!
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
As for you guys here on my team: "moderation" is the word 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Criminal laws are there to let people know what is not acceptible.
Exactly. Among other things, laws tell law enforcment officials what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm sure you're old enough to remember Nixon examining the tax records of ppl he didn't like (protestors and politicians). And warrantless spies sneaking into people's houses and offices. At one point, an intelligence agency (CIA or NSA) admitted to attempting to track a certain notorious but legal protestor with spy satellites. Spy satellites, for god's sake!
Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
That's how I was brought up, and it wasn't 'till I was thirteen that I suspected Government of not having the public's interest foremost on it's agenda. And it wasn't 'till my mid twenties that I realized the depth and breadth of corruption and conspiracy in most governments. Took me a while to wake up. Unfortunatly most people have busy lives tryin' to get food on the table, and sound bites will be all they can make judgements on.
All we can do, I'm afraid, is keep barkin' out the truth of it all, to hopefully enlighten a sleeping soul here and there...it might add up.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the election; it's SHOWTIME! Now vote Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
Good point, Geezer.
As I see it, there is no alternative.
This here's our ride, let's make her run the best she can.
Yeah, I yell at my car, too Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Neither laws nor ethics will stop SOME people in government from abusing their powers, if they are intent on doing so. But if indiscriminate spying is legfalized, then not only will nosy-minded, politically-motivated officials start snooping and peeping, so will everyone else in law enforcment. Why not? It's legal!
Hardly indiscriminate, as there is quite a bit of oversight involved. Do you think there is no one in Congress who will go over the required reports with a fine-tooth comb looking for something in the least bit bogus so they can attack the administration?
It's an interesting way that you parse it. Everyone in law enforcement is unethical enough to use the law in ways it is obviously not intended to be used, with no fear of eventual review, but not unethical enough to just ignore it altogether.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I guess what I'm saying is how worthwhile can democracy be when it comes down to manipulating a population weened on public education and television? It just seems like bread and circuses from here on out.
Could be, but remember that the Civil War was fought to "end slavery". Politicians have been trying to manipulate the public since forever. Things keep on wobbling along.
And besides, what's your alternative?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
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.
-Eli
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do you think there is no one in Congress who will go over the required reports with a fine-tooth comb looking for something in the least bit bogus so they can attack the administration?
Your question has two parts. (1) No, I'm not particularly expecting anyone in Congress to look through all those reports. If they couldn't be bothered to read the Act in the first place, why should I think that they will actively pursue its implementation? and (2) Under the Patriot Act, VERY LITTLE is "bogus". You can't prosecute on something "looking bogus". I've ALSO been in civil service for a good number of year (25 years in the Enforcement end of a regulatory agency) and it would be a rare civil servant who would go out on a limb to raise a fuss about something that was formally legal.
Quote:
It's an interesting way that you parse it. Everyone in law enforcement is unethical enough to use the law in ways it is obviously not intended to be used, with no fear of eventual review, but not unethical enough to just ignore it altogether.
Actually, that's the way you parsed it. What I'm hearing you say (or THINK I'm hearing you say) is "Don't worry about the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officials will still more-or-less adhere to pre-Patriot Act ethics and carry out the least amount of surveillance necessary, even though indiscriminate surveillance is now legal." It seems to me that on the one hand, you're agreeing that the Patriot Act scope is too broad and surveillance should not be implemented using the full scope, but on the other hand we should trust our government not to test the margins of the new law.
What I'm saying is that the Patriot Act ITSELF "legalizes" unreasonable search and seizure (it has not been fully tested in the Supreme Court) 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. I also wonder where you will stand on Patriot II, which even Hero says "goes too far". (Don't forget, he was the one who was joking- at least I hope he WAS joking about serving a 2 AM subpoena to his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend.)
So far, I've heard a lot of excuses about the Patriot Act. Some of them are inaccurate, and some of them even contradict each other: It only applies to suspected terrorists (not true), it'll all work out in the end, it's happened before, "trust the government to look out for your rights"... argued back to back with "It won't stop abusive invasion of privacy anyway" (A reassuring comment, if I ever heard one!). I'm not hearing any compelling reasons why I should give up my constitutional privacy rights under Patriot Act I. And if I can't rationalize Patriot Act I, why I should give up even more privacy rights under Patriot Act II?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRISISALL
Quote:It took me a lot longer to get there. You learn quickly.
And it wasn't 'till my mid twenties that I realized the depth and breadth of corruption and conspiracy in most governments.
On the general topic of why we should trust the government to restrain itself under the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT II, it reminds me of a joke:
how do people say 'f*ck you' ?
......
'trust me.'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You learn quickly.
You should have said {whoosh whoosh} "You learn quickly, young Jedi."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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!!
and for Geezer, this is just another example of bad education, just another myth thats been fed to Americans!!...the civil war wasn't fought to end Slavery!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And the Patriot Act isn’t taking away any of your rights either; it’s just there to battle terrorism.
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:It think that is part of Geezers point.
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:Thank you.
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.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i hardly ever post on this board about firefly related things, and then i started reading this thread, and i tried to stop myself, because i get myself all worked up and sometimes lose conscienceness or burst a blood vessel in my eye. but lucky for me, there is Finn, who agrues well and doesn't seem to loose his cool.
you are my hero.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
If that is part of geezer's point then I fail to see where he is going. My point: giving goverment power, even for the best reasons (ending slavery, perserving the union, fighting terrorism) makes government bigger and individuals less free. If you keep on that trajectory you end up at facism, or as modern facists like to call it; technocracy. 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.
Also
Quote:
And the Patriot Act isn’t taking away any of your rights either; it’s just there to battle terrorism.
I'm not really sure how to take this from you... either this is weak sarcasm or horribly flawed analogy. 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.
The same is true of the Patriot act. It limits freedom of assembly, makes subversive or revolutionary speech more easily trackable (and possibly 'terrorist' if it is imflammatory) and gives broad powers to law enforcment officials who (generally) are at best remedial in their moral development. Ed to ad: It also destroys the sanctity of the home, a legal concept older than the magna carta.
So effectively these two sets of law are the tools necessary for a police state; the disarmament of the nation, and the unchecked monitoring of its people.
And somehow you have deluded yourself into thinking that this is not dangerous? Geezers old and senile ;-). What is your excuse?
-Eli
If voting mattered, they'd make it illegal.
www.civil-unrest.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Good. I agree.
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.
The gun control argument is perhaps a good example of what I am talking about. Let me use Jenny’s argument, since she brought it up.
“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...”
Evidently, according to Jenny, and in fact many on the Left (and Right) banning automatic weapons makes us a safer country because it (in theory) prevents these weapons from getting into the hands of criminals or at least prevents, supposedly, them from being widely used.
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.
Technically speaking the 1936 ban on automatic weapons could be interpreted as a violation of Constitutional rights, but generally the same people who complain about the Patriot Act limiting our rights don’t seem to have a problem this. The argument that is used is that by accepting this violation of Constitutional Rights, it is possible to prevent the danger from criminals using automatic weapons, and thereby make us, at least in theory, safer. In other words the threat from criminals, even petty criminal, using automatic weapons is considered to be worse then the threat of the government’s violation of Constitutional Rights.
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.”
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. 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?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Yeah, they could even punch up this site and read all my posts and decide that I'm a cyberterr-....uh,.... I'm going back to the Other Science Fiction Series forum now.
Who's political? I'm not political Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
You have a point, and I'm one to say the Constitution is to be upheld- ALL OF IT! It's no 'E-plebnista'(vague ST refrence).
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?
'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).
CONSPIRACY- oops, sorry Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.”
See, Finn, the whole left/ right thing leads your arguments terribly astray because you ASSUME that if a person believes "X" they must be "leftist" and therefore they also must believe "Y" and "Z".
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
I prefer the Plasma Rifle in 40 watt range.
Other than that, I agree with you entirely.
Hey pal, just what you see Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, the way the 2nd Amendment has been framed by gun control advocates and the courts that may be true. The 2nd Amendment may no longer function in its stated purpose, because gun control advocates (largely Left-wing) have been so successful in curtailing it. Your argument is wholly circular, which demonstrates my point that the Left has no problem rendering a Constitutional Right basically null and void, so what is the problem with the Patriot Act?
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:People imprisoned in Concentration Camps in the Soviet Union had “freedom of thought.” You’ll excuse me if my definition of “REAL freedom” extends beyond simply what I think.
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:That’s your interpretation. 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.
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).
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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:
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep, I know it’s there. What’s your point? When was the Last time a Left-wing group defended the right of the People to form armed militias? If you make it illegal to keep and bear arms, then a “well regulated Militia” becomes nothing more then a bunch of defenseless people.
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.
Do you support the Minutemen, rue?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Actually, my point was the 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."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suppose it depends on what "well-regulated" means. Likely it doesn't mean a lynch mob, a posse, a renegade group of CIA and FBI agents, or a supremacist compound all chock-full of weapons, ammo and explosives. I would imagine that the militia would have to be subject to the laws of the state a Federal governments and to the political requirement of democracy, by being subject to the "consent of the governed". (I know I'm leaping thtu a number of arguments but the point of the Consitution was to place government authority under the conset of the governed, and if the basis of governance is force... adn I disagree with that... then the assembled force must be under civilian control.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
It might also mean those Gorram punks shot their wad and it's gonna take 'em another couple decades to come up with a plan, the financing, and the fools to carry it out! 911 didn't work 'cause it was the work of masterminds, it worked 'cause rocket scientists work at NASA, while 100 IQ'd politically motivated dweebs run our government! Most of the facts were out there, political bickering and 'chain of command' one-upsmanship let the worst happen!
But let's all of us give 'em a hand for how bad they all feel, after the fact.
George W! F@#k 'em, at least his dad had brains!!!
Don't take this rant personal, you're still my favourite conservative-like Browncoat Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. It’s amazing how quickly we come to parse the Constitution when it doesn’t say what we want it to say. But the 2nd Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not to the militias or a government regulated militia. In other words, the phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” does not as Rue implies, qualify the right to bear arms, but simply justifies it. And suggests that the reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people can form Militias to defend themselves in the absence of the government or against it. 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.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I suppose it depends on what "well-regulated" means.
Also this thread is becoming tiresome to refresh, and I’ve got a major delivery due on Wednesday that I need to work on.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't assume what you think I do. But in the face of a standing army, it would be hard to either justify the need for a militia, or presume one could defend against it. And as SignyM pointed out, one would need anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc to fight the US army.
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?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, one might.
Originally posted by rue:
And as SignyM pointed out, one would need anti-aircraft missiles, tanks etc to fight the US army.
Quote:That’s not a flaw with my position.
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?
That’s a ridiculous and intentional misinterpretation in order to deflect from real arguments. When you have a reasonable and intelligent argument to share, then I may elaborate. Until then, this thread just takes too long to refresh just to read some nonsense about infants teething on nuclear bombs.Sometimes I think ridiculous hyperbole has become the mainstay of the Postmodern Liberal argument.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
To get you going on the topic, let's start by exempting babies. (restriction based on age)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because that’s not the point. Whether I think some restrictions should be applied is immaterial. 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? 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?
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?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Face value, huh? If by “Face value” you mean, doesn’t remotely resemble, then perhaps. If you can justify to yourself this kind of imaginative conclusion, does it even matter what I write? You didn't take what I said at face value, you distorted it.
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?
Anyway, I'm tired. I'm going to stick a fork in it and call it a night.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whaaa....??? OH MAN, I'm going to need a double espresso just to figure this one out! OK, maybe if I look at this piece by piece....
Quote:Hmmm... that means that anything you say on the topic of gun control is immaterial to this discussion. I agree.
Because that’s not the point. Whether I think some restrictions should be applied is immaterial.
Quote:Since I wasn't talking about gun control either, anything I say on the topic is immaterial. I agree with that too. The topic is immaterial to my point, so why am I supposed to talk about it? Ooooh, I know Because Finn wants to change the topic to his idee fixe!
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: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.
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?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, if Finn were to respond with a straight up answer something like: "I am personally comfortable with the government restricting or suspending my free speech and privacy rights as it sees fit for any reason however seemingly unconnected to terrorist activities because, by and large, I trust it to do mainly the right thing, and the rest of the country would do well to see it the same way.", would you be okay with that?
It seems to me that straight questions are answered with more questions and examples of things more than actual answers. Or is it just me?
Perplexed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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.
If you look at it that way, yeah, I guess some part are, de facto, obsolete.
Keepin' it real (shiny)Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s what I thought.
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.
I figured that you would stall and avoid the question. Because it puts you in a corner. Your argument lacks perspective.-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would say that is probably a reasonable interpretation. And many people in both camps could find some agreement with that.
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.
The Constitution has always been interpreted to fit our society. We're not always going to see eye-to-eye on the interpretations, but that is part of what makes us a democracy in theory. One might argue (and unless I’m mistake Hero already did) that flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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.
Remember we're working with actual people here, not machines or textbook concepts. And even if our government and population were all 100% totally rational (depending on your definition of "rational"), we'd still have to deal with other governments and populations that weren't.
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?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
Many have been at her helm, and some have run her into reefs and storms, but she's well designed, and can take some abuse.
Dubya is veering toward a huge iceberg, but she ain't no puny Titanic. You're right, she'll survive even him.
But it is gonna hurt. More than it had to.
Thar he BLOWS Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not a big ranter. I tend to be kind of stoic. Although I have ranted before; it just depends on something getting my dander up. Usually it takes some kind of hard evidence though; I’m not likely to rant based on speculation. I realize that makes my posts somewhat boring, but I’m a scientist; I’m supposed to be boring.
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
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
excellent point and people also have to realize, that they didn't have the kinds of weapons we have today
the fact that some people think that somehow, their guns is going to be a match for a machine gun or tank baffles me, we are not living in the 1700s, the times they have a changed, it would be a chicken shoot, its fantasy!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
I would say they volunteered to preserve and protect your constitution ( if I read the oath right )
Read in further they volunteered to defend the United States...
Now, my question is what about the guys who feel that the government has overstepped self-defence, and are now pursueing more imperialistic intents...
Does their commitment to protect and preserve the United States mean they must fight for a system which they feel is overstepping the limits for which they actually volunteered...
Should this be a two step process, volunteer to serve, then again for overseas service ?
In your own history, that has served to limit your ability to conduct " acts of aggression "
For example, during the war of 1812. Much of your milita decided they shouldn't cross the Niagra river during the battle of Queentown heights, and they were not legally obligated to at the time. Other such examples occured during the Spanish American war, or even to a lesser extent to that reserve unit who didn't feel they should take their fuel trucks into harms way for the sake of this cause.
In addition, many who did serve and are trying to get out are finding it difficult to do so...
I guess what I am saying is many of those who " volunteered to fight for a system that, while obviously imperfect, works well enough to inspire their loyalty " didn't volunteer for this circumstance.
Many still would, but of those... how many tours would they volunteer for ?
" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
I presume you are requesting my arguments? Nah, you wouldn't be that straighforward, would you? You have to try to provoke them out of me.
Actually Finn I have three arguments. The first one is logical: you pose safety/gun ownership dichotomy as an anlogy to the safety/"privacy" dichotomy. This is a false analogy. While both gun ownership and privacy{see below} are constitutional rights, they can't be used to analogize each other because they have asymmetric relations with other laws and rights. The right to privacy- I'll get to that in a a bit- is a perfect right, no matter how technology changes. Gun ownership may become ineffective with time... not because of some vast left-wing conspiracy to deprive people of "effective" weapons against the government (Your argument, not mine. Just try not to get labelled as a terrorist- OK?) but simply because the technology of much modern weaponry is far beyond what a person can support. (Think about maintaining an aircraft carrier or a fighter jet, for example.)
The second argument is a quibble about the red herring that you tossed out about privacy rights being "implicit". I am using the term privacy as shorthand for the rights listed in the Fourth Amendment because I simply didn't want to have to repeat the phrases each time. However, if you knew about some other amendment OTHER THAN the second amendment, you would know that I am talking EXACTLY about the EXPLICIT rights in the Fourth Amendment, which provide protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" For your information, since you seem unfamilair with the Fourth Amendment, here it is:
Quote:The so-called Patriot Act violates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Fourth Amendment's explicit rights. That is what I have been arguing all along, you chose to misrepresent me.
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.
The third gets to the heart of one of your arguments, and that is that you can have safety OR privacy, but not both. By and large, what you pose is a FALSE DILEMNA that has already been worked out in the Constitution itself. 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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is also a reason why the founding fathers granted the people the right to keep and bear arms. One could say that gun control law violates every single aspect of the 2nd Amendment; not only are we still a democracy, but you are surprising on board with this example of a violation of our Constitution.
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:You avoid the question because you can’t answer it without dismissing your whole ‘fear mongering’ about the end of our democracy, or aligning yourself with the Right. Two things I know you’re not going to do. The fact of the matter is that these are two examples of violations of the Constitution; if one of them leads to the end of our democracy why don’t both of them? I guess the democracy-ending aspect of the loss of a particular freedom depends largely on point of view.
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.
The first time a democratic administration employs the Patriot Act, I have a feeling you might decide that our democracy is much stronger. Your argument lacks perspective. That's my point, in case anyone missed it. That’s Geezers point also.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, here's another related theory:
Since the late fifties the American economy has been in decline. When oil becomes too expensive to retrieve due to tapped out planetary resources (2012 some say) the world economy will change drastically, and relativly quickly. Our government (the shadow government, the Firm, whatever; the guys that stay) are planning for that day of possible anarchy. They are putting in place all the police state-like short leash options they will need under such circumstances.
Freedoms are secondary to survival, and from their point of view they are simply 'bringing order to the galaxy '.
A theory I do not fully subscribe to, yet cannot by any means dismiss (I might just be too afraid of it to want to really buy it).
Do you think this might be why we're waving goodbye to the fourth amendment these days?
P.S., can you start a part 2 for this thread? It is really long.
Too terrified for the capacity of rational thought Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It lacks YOUR perspective, or Geezers'. Do you want me to get into what those perspectives are? Better ask Geezer before you drag him into this.
AFA the Second Amendment: If you want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, feel free to start another thread. As of this point, you really don't know what my opinion is on the topic, do you? But you presume a whole lot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Do I detect flamage here? That was pretty colourful, Finn. I think we all have more in common here, politically, that merely reading this thread would have some believe.
I sense the good in you, the conflict. The American media hasn't driven it from you fully.
He's no Jedi Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your argument lacks perspective.
SignyM is taking a step back, and trying to connect the dots to make sense of the bigger picture, with all of it's ramifications. I'd call that perspective.
Monkey in the wrench Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Please go to the new thread- Part duex. Thanks!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's 2023: What's Your Plan B?
https://www.emerald.tv/p/its-2023-whats-your-plan-b
Too many people have pinned all their hopes on winning in 2024
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hollywood quote
'Hard Reality: For our Democracy to survive, two things have to happen. Donald Trump needs to be Convicted for Jan. 6th and there can be no Third Party Candidate.'
https://twitter.com/robreiner/status/1700185819330523212
acted in the All in the Family television series. He directed movies, such as This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally and The Bucket List
all the Tucker Carlson vs Rob Reiner heated debates 6-7 years go over RussiaRussia Pissgate Russia election Over 'War With Russia' Claims seem to have been removed from u tube shameless in their censorship
Yahoo still have the headlines
https://news.yahoo.com/news/tucker-v-rob-reiner-russias-002641958.html
maybe the vids are still on bitchute or rumble or brighteon or odysee
and
Rob Reiner Says He Won’t Shoot in North Carolina Because of Anti-Trans Law
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/03/26/rob-reiner-says-wont-sho
ot-north-carolina-anti-trans-law/
' Tucker vs. Rob Reiner '
https://rumble.com/v2kg88k-tucker-vs.-rob-reiner.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/death-thousand-cuts-many-ways-our-
rights-have-been-usurped-911
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." - Henry Kissinger
Loving America is like loving an addicted spouse - SIGNYM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jan. 6 rioter convicted, sentenced in secret
https://www.telegraphherald.com/ap/national/article_ab4aa980-4aa9-548e
-8182-9a56ba7c45f8.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
and so it moves from the Bush junior surveillance state, to the Obama surveillance state, Trump surveillance state, to the Orwellian enforced Joe Biden and Kamala Harris surveillance state, finally to JD Vance State?
JD Vance Deep Ties To The Surveillance State!
The REAL Reason Behind J.D. Vance’s VP Pick - Whitney Webb & Mark Goodwin
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RFK still banned?
Biden Talks About Dem Pressure, Dropping Out of the Race
https://ijr.com/biden-talks-about-dem-pressure-dropping-out-of-the-rac
e/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the left got angry
while RFK and Tusli joined the team
Trump announces strategic crypto reserve including bitcoin, Solana, XRP and more
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/02/trump-announces-strategic-crypto-reser
ve-including-bitcoin-solana-xrp-and-more.html
Israel Restarts Large-Scale Bombing of Gaza, Over 400 Killed
https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/17/israel-restarts-large-scale-bombin
g-of-gaza-over-100-killed/
but they want criticism of the Jewish-Israeli perverts to be banned
The Israeli-American mega-donor behind speech crackdowns
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/miriam-adelson-trump/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
did he break any Laws? alien sandbox politics, the people in Palestine, Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli politician
Anti-Trump Streamer Hasan Piker Was Detained by CBP at Airport: 'Insane'
https://www.newsweek.com/hasan-piker-cbp-border-detention-questioning-
chicago-watch-2071261
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME