Rember when...

Gonz said:
I've given up no rights. Historically, during war time, Americans have given up rights & freedoms that have been completely restored at a later date, following the war, not always willingly or easily (what gov't relinquishes power easily) but they have been returned to the people.

Aain, I ask, what freedom have I, or you, lost in the last 7 years?
Click to expand...

Do you happen to remember which freedoms we were talking about that you assured us would be restored later?
 
2minkey said:
hey, if it hasn't happened to YOU, specifically, why would you ever object?
Click to expand...

As an American, if I haven't lost 'em, nobody else has either. Remember that thing about equal justice for all?

No, spike, off hand, I don't. Remind me.
 
If you make an excuse that freedoms might be restored at some vague later date then by definition you have admitted that you gave up those freedoms.

I'm not sure what's happened to you that you keep putting these freedoms out of your mind. Warrantless wiretaps and searches and the ability of the government to hold citizens without trial indefinitely would be a good place to start.
 
spike said:
If you make an excuse that freedoms might be restored at some vague later date then by definition you have admitted that you gave up those freedoms.

I'm not sure what's happened to you that you keep putting these freedoms out of your mind. Warrantless wiretaps and searches and the ability of the government to hold citizens without trial indefinitely would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...

You don't need a warrant to tape the phone call of a non-U.S. citizen over seas. Exec Order 12333 states that the Intel community can not monitor U.S. citizens here or abroad. If they are doing surveilence and they discover that U.S. persons are involved, they much cease immediately. An exception has been made (which Obama voted for after much bluster and ranting) that allows the Intel community to keep monitoring a call made by a suspected terrorist overseas to someone in the U.S. A wise move by any rational yardstick. If the wacko left had their way, the Intel folks would have to shutoff their monitoring of the call between suspected Terrorist and person inside our borders until they get a warrant. By then, the call is over and we have no idea what is being ploted. BTW, if you think the U.S. is the only ones that monitor phone calls, think again. I never say anything on the phone that might be used against me.

I don't suppose you have any examples of a warrantless search, do you?

As for the Jose Padilla case, yeah, not too happy about that one. Not that I have any simpathy for him, but as a U.S. citizen, he should have been tried for treason.
 
What US CITIZEN has been, or is being held, indefintately, without trial? There are several enemy combatants that fit that bill but all the Americans have beed tried.
 
Frodo said:
You don't need a warrant to tape the phone call of a non-U.S. citizen over seas. Exec Order 12333 states that the Intel community can not monitor U.S. citizens here or abroad. If they are doing surveilence and they discover that U.S. persons are involved, they much cease immediately. An exception has been made (which Obama voted for after much bluster and ranting) that allows the Intel community to keep monitoring a call made by a suspected terrorist overseas to someone in the U.S.
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/18/WIRETAP.TMP

I don't suppose you have any examples of a warrantless search, do you?
Click to expand...

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

As for the Jose Padilla case, yeah, not too happy about that one. Not that I have any simpathy for him, but as a U.S. citizen, he should have been tried for treason.
Click to expand...

Yes, he should have got the speedy trial the law provides for.
 
The Judicial branch backed the Executive branch. Where is the Legislative branch on this?

One question...has it happened?
 
Gonz said:
One question...has it happened?
Click to expand...

Sure, padilla was held for over 3 years without charges. The government can now do it to anyone. You keep making excuses for it.

Keep handing away your rights & yawning.
 
Padilla was held for over 3 years without charges. That is not ok.

The government can now do it to anyone. You keep making excuses for it.

Keep handing away your rights & yawning.
 
Frodo said:
You don't need a warrant to tape the phone call of a non-U.S. citizen over seas. Exec Order 12333 states that the Intel community can not monitor U.S. citizens here or abroad. If they are doing surveilence and they discover that U.S. persons are involved, they much cease immediately.
Click to expand...

"Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Brian Ross reveals what the government heard on wiretaps.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), called the allegations "extremely disturbing" and said the committee has begun its own examination."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5987804&page=1
 
Don't get me wrong I am not in any way saying I am for the changes you mention about guns Cerise, but I also can't see anything a responsible owner should have a big problem with, with the exception of the added cost. It's not a bad thing to know what gun is owned by who unless their reasons for owning it are somewhat less than pure. If you had a close friend or family member dead of gun violence and the case was unsolved, then how would you think?

It may seem like Big Brother, but unless we want to throw out modern technology I see no way around it. I would strike a lot of that that added cost both for government and the owner of the gun, but beyond that, in today's society, only a criminal or someone who wants to go kill someone should have a problem with the government knowing who owns what gun. And the one part I do agree with is that a gun that is stolen should be reported, but it also needs to be 100% provable the exact time the owner actually discovers the theft.

I am not sure I see anything that says this is retroactive to guns already owned, and such websites play of being alarmists. I guess I do ave issue with the bill, but not really the ideas behind it.
 
randomJACKASS said:
I also can't see anything a responsible owner should have a big problem with
Click to expand...

You are aware of what happend to legal & responsible gun owners in Louisiana (New Orleans to be specific) immedialtey following Katrina aren't you?
 
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T. Jefferson.

Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner's address in America.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of tracking the firearms of law-abiding citizens while criminals sit back untouched and laugh?

"Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians."
 
Cerise said:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." T. Jefferson.



What is the purpose of tracking the firearms of law-abiding citizens while criminals sit back untouched and laugh?

"Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians."
Click to expand...


Yeah this is why I can't stand politics because you are absolutely right. There is no easy solution to this one issue except to leave things as they are. Too bad so many of the politicians with that goal in mind have so many other horrible ideas they shove in their with this one. And don't get me wrong there are many democratic ideas I like but were to vote for them I get a whole different load of bullshit.

I have been getting the feeling that some of you might think that my Shrek donkey is somehow symbolic of the democratic party.....I guess I should have thought about that longer before I chose it because that was not the point at all, but if you can't figure out why I chose it now, I am surprised you can even read. I vote lesser of two evils only and try rarely to admit which mistake I made in my ballot LOL!

But all the same registering newly purchased weapons should be a law, at least then when crimes happen police have a place to start. It just shouldn't require more than a driver's license, perhaps a thumb print a very minimal fee (less than $5 twords keeping the database).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top