NationStates Jolt Archive

Patriot Act Link for those who haven't yet read it (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:)

Yet again, we hear how it's ever so irresponsible for Congress to turn its back on the American people for utilizing so wicked in regards to our freedoms and liberties that are the cornerstones of our lifestyle.

For those who have actually read the Patriot Act, please explain how the expansion of information within Government municipalities and departments is a violation of your freedoms and liberties. For example, what's the difference between telling your friends who has borrowed your books and the FBI searching through the records of who has taken out certain books from public libraries?

For those who haven't, I urge you to do so for two reasons. First, don't turn your ignorance into stupidity by accepting everything you hear and see. Do your own research. Second, in case you are violated and the offenders claim they are backed up by the Patriot Act, you can rebuke it.

I can't stand FOX News any more than anyone else because it's only and extension of NewsCorp. which is one of the big 6 media corporations in the world (propaganda exploitation is another topic). You have to notice though that all radio and TV channels have some sort of link towards the big 6's resources and have to display information in order to comply with their policies.

My Sig explains the rest.

For example, what's the difference between telling your friends who has borrowed your books and the FBI searching through the records of who has taken out certain books from public libraries?

Ooooh, perhaps the Soviet Union wasn't so bad after all then, was it?

No further comment. I'm not a US citizen. This is not my fight, so I haven't read it. Suffice to say, I see some nasty parallels here.

I am not an American, so the question of whether their rights get eroded or not is of little interest to me. In any case, if you wish to fight a war, you must accept all consequences.

For example, what's the difference between telling your friends who has borrowed your books and the FBI searching through the records of who has taken out certain books from public libraries?



Errr, because one is a voluntary disclosure of information and the other isn't?


In other news, I also tend to let my friends into my house. I DON'T expect that to imply agreement to have the FBI randomly wandering through it on a whim....


Holy Bad Analogy you came up with there Batman!

Ooooh, perhaps the Soviet Union wasn't so bad after all then, was it?

No further comment. I'm not a US citizen. This is not my fight, so I haven't read it. Suffice to say, I see some nasty parallels here.
Yeah, you're Australian or something.


The Patriot Act, what a wondeful document. If only it kept on going.

Anyone else see the irony in him telling us to remember the Constitution, and then supporting a document that strips away several of the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights?

Wow these are some very embarrassing responses.

Communism has nothing to do with having a government review who's used it resources. Over extended authoritarianism would only apply if the government went after you for some bogus reason. So if the government were to incarcerate you only for looking up a book on bombs, then you could appeal and sue on grounds of discrimination and win SINCE the Patriot Act does not condone incarceration based solely on information determining information acquisition.

Also, a public library is public. If the FBI looked into its records, it would be the equivalent of you hiring a bookkeeper to look through your own accounts. There's nothing incurred about privacy violations there.

Comon, find a particular part of Patriot Act that target American citizenry rights.

Comon, find a particular part of Patriot Act that target American citizenry rights.

Counterquestion: find a particular part which is actually necessary and/or justified.

Or to rephrase: why is the act needed in the first place?

This thread sucks.

Legislation is a tough read. So, I've only skimmed through it. We need the Readers Digest condensed version.

But I suspect that the Supreme Court took away more of our rights during it's last session that the Congress could ever hope to eliminate in just one law. We lost the first amendment with McCain's Incumbent Protection Act. We lost the fifth amendment with Kelo. We lost the fourteenth with the Gonzales restraining order decision. If the truth be told, I think we're worried about the wrong branch of government.

Legislation is a tough read. So, I've only skimmed through it. We need the Readers Digest condensed version.

But I suspect that the Supreme Court took away more of our rights during it's last session that the Congress could ever hope to eliminate in just one law. We lost the first amendment with McCain's Incumbent Protection Act. We lost the fifth amendment with Kelo. We lost the fourteenth with the Gonzales restraining order decision. If the truth be told, I think we're worried about the wrong branch of government.


Absolutely correct. The supreme court is the one to watch. I particular like the siezure of one's property. Complete and utter Bullshit.

I have read the first and 4th amendments many times.

Isn't is amazing that those who argue for a strict reading of the constitution don't give a rip about what is says.

This thread sucks.

Yo.

About the library: Do you think I'd go tell the government what books I'd taken out from a library, no matter what it was? No? All right then. Do you think I'd go tell them if it was something I'd want to keep quiet?(For example, porn) Definitally not? I rest my case.

This thread sucks.
Funny, I was quickly coming to this very conclusion myself when I scrolled down, and lo and behold - there's TSA saying it for me already.

(b) AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION-

(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.'.

Here's the NSA Act of 1947. Look up the definition if you need to. (http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml)

I take it that you guys understand the conditions on un-warranted search and seizure that isn't described in the Patriot Act as well as the rules that are. If you don't, just google them.

Alright. Now that the whole privacy thing is opened, would you like to elaborate on how your rights (in particular the 4th amendment) can be violated with the Patriot Act being used as a defense? Also, remember that actions taken outside of the U.S.'s borders and/or state boundaries do not fall under the jurisdiction of Congress in MOST circumstances. So actions in Guantanamo Bay, American Samoa, Guam, and military bases in other locales are not always restricted by the word of Congress nor the Constitution.

About the library: Do you think I'd go tell the government what books I'd taken out from a library, no matter what it was? No? All right then. Do you think I'd go tell them if it was something I'd want to keep quiet?(For example, porn) Definitally not? I rest my case.

So, your problem with the patriot act is that the government can find out what kind of porn you like?

To the OP, your poll seems to have backfired...
Of the 8 people who have read the entire PA, %100 of them do not aprove.

Wow these are some very embarrassing responses.

Communism has nothing to do with having a government review who's used it resources. Over extended authoritarianism would only apply if the government went after you for some bogus reason. So if the government were to incarcerate you only for looking up a book on bombs, then you could appeal and sue on grounds of discrimination and win SINCE the Patriot Act does not condone incarceration based solely on information determining information acquisition.

Also, a public library is public. If the FBI looked into its records, it would be the equivalent of you hiring a bookkeeper to look through your own accounts. There's nothing incurred about privacy violations there.

Comon, find a particular part of Patriot Act that target American citizenry rights.

*presses her fingers to her temples*

im seeing something about you.....

(im psychic like that)

im seeing ......


that you arent a lawyer working for the aclu

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/primer.html


Being a carded member of the ACLU is just great like that :D

Read it once. Most of it is a fucking headache. I beleive it's 411 which says that an immigrant may be deported for unknowingly having contact with a terrorist.

Roving wiretaps, the angry librarian act, and the records disclosure act should make any American juistifyably nervous. :rolleyes:

I think the recent version with its additions of oversight is ready to be approved. As much as I hate it I feel IMO it is needed to fight the war we neeed to fight..it still sucks...that we even NEED it ...

I think the recent version with its additions of oversight is ready to be approved. As much as I hate it I feel IMO it is needed to fight the war we neeed to fight..it still sucks...that we even NEED it ...

What war "we need to fight" ? Why is it "needed" ? Is it *really* so hard to look at terrorism objectively ?

Let me see...

SEC. 220. NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in section 2703, by striking `under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure' every place it appears and inserting `using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation'; and

(2) in section 2711--

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `and';

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by inserting at the end the following:

`(3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the meaning assigned by section 3127, and includes any Federal court within that definition, without geographic limitation.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 2703(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `described in section 3127(2)(A)'.

Read it and weep, terrorists!

Here is the deal: No one but a hardcore lawyer in this field can actually be expected to plow ones way through this mess of crossreferences, additions, replacements and deletions.
If you come and tell people that you have read it (not that you have told anyone - so at least you haven't lied), then chances are that you have read all encompassing legislation as well?

So, your problem with the patriot act is that the government can find out what kind of porn you like?


He was describing a hypothetical situation I believe. Although I have yet to hear of a library that loans out porn. Trashy romance novels, yes, porn, no.

On a more serious note, underage children aren't supposed to be able to look up porn anyway and if anybody did show porn to bunch of kids such (as a wack job teacher who thought slipping a slide of something lewd into a slideshow would grab a student's attention), this would be one case where everyone can agree the government should be able to look into who has accessed what material on the web. Mind that the government initiated and in essence controls the web today since it created the seeds of the internet from the ARPAnet military program.

The case is nothing more than letting a friend look at your Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition calendar to find out what date it is only to find out he went in the bathroom and started a party in his pants with himself. :confused:

Wow these are some very embarrassing responses.

Communism has nothing to do with having a government review who's used it resources. Over extended authoritarianism would only apply if the government went after you for some bogus reason. So if the government were to incarcerate you only for looking up a book on bombs, then you could appeal and sue on grounds of discrimination and win SINCE the Patriot Act does not condone incarceration based solely on information determining information acquisition.

Also, a public library is public. If the FBI looked into its records, it would be the equivalent of you hiring a bookkeeper to look through your own accounts. There's nothing incurred about privacy violations there.

Comon, find a particular part of Patriot Act that target American citizenry rights.

Of course you conveniently leave out sections which have already been ruled against (Seizure of ISP records without warrant for example)...

Also, remember that actions taken outside of the U.S.'s borders and/or state boundaries do not fall under the jurisdiction of Congress in MOST circumstances. So actions in Guantanamo Bay, American Samoa, Guam, and military bases in other locales are not always restricted by the word of Congress nor the Constitution.

Actions taken in locations such as those falls EXCLUSIVELY under the word of Congress (who is restrained by the constitution). You seriously need to reread Section 8 of Article 2...

If the FBI wants to look at books I've taken out of the libary that's fine by me. And besides who takes books out of the libary anymore? Communists, thats who.

(b) AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION-

(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.'.



Maybe what you're prompting about is alluded to here ...

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
--
I've bolded the correlation to Executive Order 12333 .... and, as follows ....

Executive Order 12333: *December 4, 1981*
GOAL: All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to develop intelligence information for the President and the National Security Council. A balanced approach between technical collection efforts and other means should be maintained and encouraged.

(d) To the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, all agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort.

2.2 Purpose.

This Order is intended to enhance human and technical collection techniques, especially those undertaken abroad, and the acquisition of significant foreign intelligence, as well as the detection and countering of international terrorist activities and espionage conducted by foreign powers. Set forth below are certain general principles that, in addition to and consistent with applicable laws, are intended to achieve the proper balance between the acquisition of essential information and protection of individual interests. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to apply to or interfere with any authorized civil or criminal law enforcement responsibility of any department or agency.

2.3 Collection of Information.

Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:


(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned;
(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;

(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;

(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations;

(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting;

(f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their suitability or credibility;

(g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or communications security investigation;

(h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons;

(i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws; and

(j) Information necessary for administrative purposes. In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it.

2.4 Collection Techniques.

Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize:


(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;
(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:


(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession.

(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:


(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service.

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
-------

2.8 Consistency With Other Laws.

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.

========================
I thought i'd add this little gem:

2.11 Prohibition on Assassination.

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
------
So, nuts to Robertson (repub contributor/manipulator)!!!

I hope some of y'all can determine the difference in the nomenclature here.
I personally wouldn't want to argue this in court.

And, of course:
Fourth Amendment:
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.

So ... any takers yet?

I'm noting that there's a little missing in the equation ...
it would be good if the three people that have posted online about their personal experiences might be so kind as to provide a little backdrop, but i can understand if they don't want to.

Cut a lot of this so quote wasn't so long

I hope some of y'all can determine the difference in the nomenclature here.
I personally wouldn't want to argue this in court.

And, of course:
Fourth Amendment:
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 problem is the Pres has already admitted to ignoring the need to get a warrant. The ends justify the means. And he alone determines the ends and the means.

Some of us are old enough to see de Ja vou (sp) all over again. The Pres is beginning to look more and more like Nixon. How do we know if our rights have been violated? Haven't seen the "enemies list" yet.

Some of us are also old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI. He had a file on nearly everyone. He controlled the government through blackmail of anyone with any power. Only after he died did we learn even a small amount about a man that thought he was protecting the safety and freedom of the country by ignoring the rights of the people.

History has shown that you can be safe or you can be free. That is the choice. In Saddam's Iraq, if you weren't a criminal or traitor or a family member of a criminal or traiter, you were perfectly safe. You could walk any street at any time of the day. No one had locks on the doors. Children could play unsupervised. That was complete safety. Now the US is becoming the shadow of the enemy. We are selling freedom for safety.

It matters not if I personally am on the Bush enemies list. It matters not if they have a file on me. What matters is Do they have a file on ANYONE that is un "warranted". The answer to that is an admitted YES. Am I one of those people? Are YOU one of those people? The answer to those questions is unimportant. When any American loses rights and freedom--we ALL lose rights and freedom. Where is the line? Complete safety? Then why did we take out Saddam?

Isn't it amazing that those who say they want judges that read the constitution and don't interpret it are the ones that are in favor of scrapping the first and 4th for safety? How do they justify that cognitive dissonance?

The problem with the "talk radio" arguements is as Aristotle said, "The first person to speak always sounds correct, until someone is allowed to stand and challenge him." If all you listen to is talk radio, your arguements are foolish because you have not heard any challenges. Yes I know they pretend to take challenges, but they cut them off when they even start to get backed up.

The problem is the Pres has already admitted to ignoring the need to get a warrant. The ends justify the means. And he alone determines the ends and the means.

Some of us are old enough to see de Ja vou (sp) all over again. The Pres is beginning to look more and more like Nixon. How do we know if our rights have been violated? Haven't seen the "enemies list" yet.

Some of us are also old enough to remember J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI. He had a file on nearly everyone. He controlled the government through blackmail of anyone with any power. Only after he died did we learn even a small amount about a man that thought he was protecting the safety and freedom of the country by ignoring the rights of the people.

History has shown that you can be safe or you can be free. That is the choice. In Saddam's Iraq, if you weren't a criminal or traitor or a family member of a criminal or traiter, you were perfectly safe. You could walk any street at any time of the day. No one had locks on the doors. Children could play unsupervised. That was complete safety. Now the US is becoming the shadow of the enemy. We are selling freedom for safety.

It matters not if I personally am on the Bush enemies list. It matters not if they have a file on me. What matters is Do they have a file on ANYONE that is un "warranted". The answer to that is an admitted YES. Am I one of those people? Are YOU one of those people? The answer to those questions is unimportant. When any American loses rights and freedom--we ALL lose rights and freedom. Where is the line? Complete safety? Then why did we take out Saddam?

Isn't it amazing that those who say they want judges that read the constitution and don't interpret it are the ones that are in favor of scrapping the first and 4th for safety? How do they justify that cognitive dissonance?

The problem with the "talk radio" arguements is as Aristotle said, "The first person to speak always sounds correct, until someone is allowed to stand and challenge him." If all you listen to is talk radio, your arguements are foolish because you have not heard any challenges. Yes I know they pretend to take challenges, but they cut them off when they even start to get backed up.
I *JUST* got done reading this post on the other thread .... and that fella replied about you meaning LipBalm (Limbaugh) in your ref to talk radio.
Funny thing about that fat ars*hole is he snugged himself out of his draft by electing for his surgery then, on a pilonodal cyst (butt blister - it even had a few hairs growing out of it, next to his coccyx).

I'm what you might call aware of how incredibly bad it is, you might punch my name up and other posts in this nature.
I was hoping that with the nature/persuasion of the poster in mind, someone would have a decent rebuttal/compliance with my post on legal terms, since i'm not nearly versed well enough .... that's why i asked if there were any takers.
I still need about two more crucial things cleared up before i'm done and convinced on this issue.

On a more serious note, underage children aren't supposed to be able to look up porn anyway and if anybody did show porn to bunch of kids such (as a wack job teacher who thought slipping a slide of something lewd into a slideshow would grab a student's attention), this would be one case where everyone can agree the government should be able to look into who has accessed what material on the web. Mind that the government initiated and in essence controls the web today since it created the seeds of the internet from the ARPAnet military program.

The case is nothing more than letting a friend look at your Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition calendar to find out what date it is only to find out he went in the bathroom and started a party in his pants with himself. :confused:


The thing is, the civil liberties guaranteed to us by Congress aren't just hazy idealistic niceties. What they are are methods to keep the government from being to powerful and too obtrusive. When those civil liberties wane, Tyranny ALWAYS follows. Our right to privacy is as much a protection against the government as the 2nd amendment is. In order for the government to serve the people, it has to be reminded that it exists at our forebearance. The crafters of the Constitution knew this.

And I WILL NOT let the mostly paranoid fear of terrorists, stoked by an overzealous and overreaching executive branch, make us lessen the freedoms that WE KNOW have protected us from loss of liberty for so long.

The thing is, the civil liberties guaranteed to us by Congress aren't just hazy idealistic niceties. What they are are methods to keep the government from being to powerful and too obtrusive. When those civil liberties wane, Tyranny ALWAYS follows. Our right to privacy is as much a protection against the government as the 2nd amendment is. In order for the government to serve the people, it has to be reminded that it exists at our forebearance. The crafters of the Constitution knew this.

And I WILL NOT let the mostly paranoid fear of terrorists, stoked by an overzealous and overreaching executive branch, make us lessen the freedoms that WE KNOW have protected us from loss of liberty for so long.
Good post. *bows*

Anyone else see the irony in him telling us to remember the Constitution, and then supporting a document that strips away several of the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights?
Anyone?

Anyone?
I would answer in the affirmative if i possessed a better attention span.
I'm currently watching the History Channel's presentation on the "Antichrist"

Force enacted upon any law-abiding citizen is not freedom. It is control and rulership.

The government is not our handler. They don't have any rights to go after anyone who hasn't broken any laws, regardless of how "trivial" someone deems it.

So ... any takers yet?

I'm noting that there's a little missing in the equation ...
it would be good if the three people that have posted online about their personal experiences might be so kind as to provide a little backdrop, but i can understand if they don't want to.
So far, neither the thread starter nor no one else seems interested in interpreting the passage i'd provided.
:(

Yet again, we hear how it's ever so irresponsible for Congress to turn its back on the American people for utilizing so wicked in regards to our freedoms and liberties that are the cornerstones of our lifestyle.

And such complaints are well justified.

For those who have actually read the Patriot Act, please explain how the expansion of information within Government municipalities and departments is a violation of your freedoms and liberties.

The Patriot Act does far more than merely "the expansion of information within Government municipalities and departments." Here (http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/primer.html) are some examples and links to more information.


For example, what's the difference between telling your friends who has borrowed your books and the FBI searching through the records of who has taken out certain books from public libraries?

If I tell someone what books I borrow, I have consented to release of that information. Duh.


For those who haven't, I urge you to do so for two reasons. First, don't turn your ignorance into stupidity by accepting everything you hear and see. Do your own research.

Although I always encourage people to do their own research, one need not have read the entire act to know that some parts are objectionable. One merely needs to read those parts.


Second, in case you are violated and the offenders claim they are backed up by the Patriot Act, you can rebuke it.

This makes no sense.

Errr, because one is a voluntary disclosure of information and the other isn't?


In other news, I also tend to let my friends into my house. I DON'T expect that to imply agreement to have the FBI randomly wandering through it on a whim....


Holy Bad Analogy you came up with there Batman!

Exactically!

*snip* Also, remember that actions taken outside of the U.S.'s borders and/or state boundaries do not fall under the jurisdiction of Congress in MOST circumstances. So actions in Guantanamo Bay, American Samoa, Guam, and military bases in other locales are not always restricted by the word of Congress nor the Constitution.

Um. This is patently false.

I love how you people consistently link to the American Civil Liberties Union's website with regard to the Patriot Act.

Do you honestly believe an organization that lobbies against airline searches of your bags, yet requires your bags to be searched upon entering their facility, should have any more credibility than Bushie here?

Additionally, I would like you to find one instance of the American Civil Liberties Union lobbing in favor of any Second Amendment-related case.

Every day of my life, the state government of California, which has banned assault weapons, shotguns with a pistol grip, shotguns with the capability to accept more than 10 rounds, handguns with the capability to accept more than 15 rounds, rifles with the capability to accept more than 5 rounds, the Schwarzenegger ban on .50-caliber rifles, and so forth, shows that they're the government and I'm not. They rule, and I am ruled. My oppression does not come from Washington D.C., but from Sacramento and San Francisco.

For example, the historical Mauser C96 pistol, originally manufactured in 1896, is considered an assault weapon by California law on account of its magazine is not mounted in the grip, and is not a revolver, which are the state's definitions of a handgun.

I'd rather not begin a flame war about the inherent corruption and racism with the state's "discretionary" policy of handing out concealed carry weapon permits.

While I agree that the Patriot Act needs some reworking, California deprives me of my rights obviously, blatantly, and self-righteously every day I live here. I love California, but I can't stand its government.

The Second Amendment defends the First, Fourth, and so on, when the government and society do not. California's stripping of rights under the constitution has been going on since even our champion of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was governor.

As a collector of military paraphenalia, I would happily allow the Federal Government to tap my phone lines, monitor my E-mail, and view my library card, if only I could own such fine pieces as:

http://www.volny.cz/weapon/cs/dragunov/svd.jpg
Dragunov SVD, 7.62mm Kalashnikov

http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/vp70-links-schaft.jpg
Heckler & Koch VP70, 9mm Parabellum

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/176/176093/folders/186699/1649888BattleFamily800x600sm.jpg
Top to bottom:
2 x M1 Garand, 30-06 Springfield
M-14, 7.62mm NATO
M1 Carbine, 30-30 Carbine
Ruger Mini-14, 7.62mm NATO

http://blog5.fc2.com/g/gaga/file/Benelli_m4auto_pump.jpg
Benelli M4 Super90, 12-gauge

http://www.airsoft-shop.com/review/caveman/m82/15.JPG
Left to right:
Barrett M82, 12.7mm Browning
M-16A1 (I think), 5.56mm NATO

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/6144/93ra.jpg
Beretta 93R, 9mm Parabellum

I could go on for quite a while.

Force enacted upon any law-abiding citizen is not freedom. It is control and rulership.

The government is not our handler. They don't have any rights to go after anyone who hasn't broken any laws, regardless of how "trivial" someone deems it.

That's a nice phrase. I like it. Why doesn't it apply to firearms?

With that in mind, I challenge anyone who's interested to find as many crimes as they can committed with legally-obtained assault weapons, machine guns, and other "destructive devices" in the United States in the last thirty years.

Even our famous 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery was committed with AK-47 assault rifles smugged across the border from Mexico. The very event which has been villified over and over again as the pre-eminent reason why California needs an assault weapons ban occurred DURING THE BAN. OBVIOUSLY, IT WORKED QUITE WELL.

Everyone bitches about the Patriot Act. I'll bitch about it too, after I get the jackboot of the California State Government off my testicles.

I could go on for quite a while.
I'm sure you could. The question is: What for?

You can kill an intruder with a tiny gun. You don't need a Dragunov to do it.
You can hunt with all sorts of things - an M60 isn't necessary. In fact, you can have a lot more fun with bow and arrow and a handgun for emergencies.

So why do you want heavy artillery? What purpose could it possibly serve?

I love how you people consistently link to the American Civil Liberties Union's website with regard to the Patriot Act.

Do you honestly believe an organization that lobbies against airline searches of your bags, yet requires your bags to be searched upon entering their facility, should have any more credibility than Bushie here?

Proof, please.

Additionally, I would like you to find one instance of the American Civil Liberties Union lobbing in favor of any Second Amendment-related case.

Um. The ACLU is officially neutral regarding Second Amendment-related cases. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

Someone who claims to know about the ACLU should know that.

That's a nice phrase. I like it. Why doesn't it apply to firearms?

LOL. You'll find Zaxon is an ardent defender of gun rights.


Everyone bitches about the Patriot Act. I'll bitch about it too, after I get the jackboot of the California State Government off my testicles.


This and the rest of your gun rant is entirely off-topic.

I'm glad you asked that question.

I am a recreational shooter. I like to shoot guns because I find it is fun.

My right arm gets tired constantly manipulating the bolt on my Yugoslavian-manufactured M48 rifle (a clone of the famous Mauser Karabiner 1898, in 7.92mm). I'd love to own a semi-automatic rifle, because the machining inside it chambers the next round automatically.

In any case, anyone using a rifle for home defense is a moron. A shotgun works infinitely better due to its spread and low penetration ability (so you don't shoot through a wall and kill your neighbor).

Why can't I be trusted to own such a weapon?

I am a recreational shooter. I like to shoot guns because I find it is fun.
And the shootig range you'd visit doesn't have the relevant weaponry there, just that you'd have to rent it rather than own it?
That would be a compromise everyone should be able to live with.

Shooting ranges are fun, but many of them are not zoned for the "heavy stuff."

One of my favorites out in El Cajon actually can't take the 8mm Mauser; its backstop isn't thick enough.

Frankly, I'd be keen to go out to this old dairy farm in Camarillo, where the police department has an crude gun range set up, and plink rounds there. I'll see if I can't find a picture taken of the thing on my hard drive; there's so many spent shotgun cartridges and waddings lying around, you'd think you were standing in red bushes.

As to the NYCLU searching bags, you'll have to give me a bit to find the image. Google should yield results; please be patient.

As to the NYCLU searching bags, you'll have to give me a bit to find the image. Google should yield results; please be patient.

I notice you already changed the accusation from the ACLU to the NYCLU.

Shooting ranges are fun, but many of them are not zoned for the "heavy stuff."
I'm afraid that if you want to shoot the real heavy stuff, you'll have to visit the army.

You can have all the fun by shooting a bow and arrow as well - plus it arguably requires more skill and certainly strength.

It might be my hobby too to make Biological Weapons - but at some point the considerations for my fellow man (and woman) will have to take precedence.

I haven't been to the California headquarters, but I would not say it's unlikely for them to have a similar sign.

Then again, I have no direct proof, so I won't argue this point against the entire organization until I have some.

You'll have to settle for this news post (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081893) until I can find an image of the NYCLU's sign. Don't go anywhere.

Let me see...



Read it and weep, terrorists!

Here is the deal: No one but a hardcore lawyer in this field can actually be expected to plow ones way through this mess of crossreferences, additions, replacements and deletions.
If you come and tell people that you have read it (not that you have told anyone - so at least you haven't lied), then chances are that you have read all encompassing legislation as well?
Yeah, you take a cold snowy (or rainy, or sunny, I did it when it was blizzardy) day, when you have the day off, you spend 3 or 4 hours (maybe 5 or 6 if your posting here at the same time) reading through it, and then you come to NS General and listen to people who obviously haven't done that tell you what an asshole you are for supporting it.

Isn't the internet great? :headbang:

Yeah, you take a cold snowy (or rainy, or sunny, I did it when it was blizzardy) day, when you have the day off, you spend 3 or 4 hours (maybe 5 or 6 if your posting here at the same time) reading through it, and then you come to NS General and listen to people who obviously haven't done that tell you what an asshole you are for supporting it.

Isn't the internet great? :headbang:

I love the internet for just such reasons, good sir. No matter how bad I may feel one day, the internet always makes me feel better by comparison. :P

I haven't been to the California headquarters, but I would not say it's unlikely for them to have a similar sign.

Then again, I have no direct proof, so I won't argue this point against the entire organization until I have some.

You'll have to settle for this news post (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_30_corner-archive.asp#081893) until I can find an image of the NYCLU's sign. Don't go anywhere.

1. Um. That hardly qualifies as a "news post"

2. For the record, the ACLU summarizes problems with the Patriot Act with which I happen to agree. No one here is blindly following the ACLU on this issue.

Yeah, you take a cold snowy (or rainy, or sunny, I did it when it was blizzardy) day, when you have the day off, you spend 3 or 4 hours (maybe 5 or 6 if your posting here at the same time) reading through it, and then you come to NS General and listen to people who obviously haven't done that tell you what an asshole you are for supporting it.

Isn't the internet great? :headbang:

I'm rather dubious of those who claim to have read the entire act and understood it, as much of it merely amends other legislation that you would have to read to comprehend it.

Nonetheless, I will assume you have read the entire Act. That still doesn't make your opinion superior to one that has read just one objectionable section of the Act.

But nice try.

O'Reilly was whining about it on his cute little segment on FOX a while ago. "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" or something to that effect. Again, I'm still searching.

O'Reilly was whining about it on his cute little segment on FOX a while ago. "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" or something to that effect. Again, I'm still searching.

I'm always amused when someone makes a "great factual point" but can't prove it.

You do realize that even if you prove it to be true, it is a rather silly point. The ACLU does recieve thousands of death threats regularly. And a sign saying someone is subject to search on private property is different than a required search of those wishing to use public transport.

I found the O'Reilly article. Skip over the usual blather about the 'attack on religion' to his Most Riduclous Item of the Day entry at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately, it does not have a picture attached. I shall continue Googling for the image as undeniable proof.

O'Reilly is funny (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174428,00.html).

The circumstances may be different, but you could toss the hypocrisy card in the NYCLU's face just as easily as you could in Bush's for his deal about unwarranted wire taps that were not covered by the Patriot Act.

I'm just trying to make the point that the ACLU and its subsidiaries are no more credibile than Bush himself.

The circumstances may be different, but you could toss the hypocrisy card in the NYCLU's face just as easily as you could in Bush's for his deal about unwarranted wire taps that were not covered by the Patriot Act.

I'm just trying to make the point that the ACLU and its subsidiaries are no more credibile than Bush himself.

You would equate a private property owner's reserving the right to search visitors to thousands of illegal wiretaps?

I've already explained why this allegation, even if true, is not hypocrisy.

And I've already explained that citing to the ACLU's handy summary of objections to the Patriot Act is different than relying on the ACLU's opinion.

In the meantime, good luck finding that undeniable proof.

Thanks, it appears I'm going to need it....

In any case. I don't like having my stuff dug through (especially at airports, 'cause then I have to pack it up again and those sweaty TSA dudes wrinkle my shirts! Bastards!), but what are you going to do about it?

It's obvious that there are scumbags out there who, for various reasons, think it's swell to stick bombs in things, often luggage, and blow up buses, airplanes, subways, and what have you.

If there was no threat, I'd be wholeheartedly against this small step towards becoming a Police State, but really, the benefits of having ruffled shirts outweigh the disadvantages.

I'd also be in favor of finding ways to search bags without having to open them. That would be nifty. Security and ease-of-use all at once!

Yeah, you take a cold snowy (or rainy, or sunny, I did it when it was blizzardy) day, when you have the day off, you spend 3 or 4 hours (maybe 5 or 6 if your posting here at the same time) reading through it, and then you come to NS General and listen to people who obviously haven't done that tell you what an asshole you are for supporting it.

Isn't the internet great? :headbang:
:rolleyes:
In your infamously clever fashion, do curteousy to my post on the topic (and stay on topic) and we'll see what degree of temperment and expertise you actually possess.
A person can come to the conclusion that someone (see above) is an asshole from their posts on other topics as well. I guess this kind of thread can make a distinction.

Every day of my life, the state government of California, which has banned assault weapons, shotguns with a pistol grip, shotguns with the capability to accept more than 10 rounds, handguns with the capability to accept more than 15 rounds, rifles with the capability to accept more than 5 rounds, the Schwarzenegger ban on .50-caliber rifles, and so forth, shows that they're the government and I'm not. They rule, and I am ruled. My oppression does not come from Washington D.C., but from Sacramento and San Francisco.


The very reason I don't belong to the NRA. I own around 25 weapons. I started hunting before I went to kindergarten. I have yet to pull the trigger more than twice. Whatever game you are after isn't stupid enough to stand around and take 10 rounds. The second amendment's first three words, "A WELL REGULATED" explain it all.

The very reason I don't belong to the NRA. I own around 25 weapons. I started hunting before I went to kindergarten. I have yet to pull the trigger more than twice. Whatever game you are after isn't stupid enough to stand around and take 10 rounds. The second amendment's first three words, "A WELL REGULATED" explain it all.

That "well regulated" part means "well practiced", not bogged down by 20,000+ laws. All the historians agree on that one.

That "well regulated" part means "well practiced", not bogged down by 20,000+ laws. All the historians agree on that one.
So to be "well practiced" you would be willing to sign up for training---let's say one week-end a month and two weeks a year? I doubt if one in a ten thousand gun owners--including you--are "well practiced". I go hunting all the time. Shoot for fun the rest of the time, but am not "well practiced" in military tachtics. And anyone whose been out of the military for over 5 years is also not "well practiced". Having been a marine, ranger, seal or anything else doesn't keep you "well practiced". It would be a lot easier to be "well regulated".

That "well regulated" part means "well practiced", not bogged down by 20,000+ laws. All the historians agree on that one.

No, they don't. If ALL the historians agreed then all the Supreme Court Justices would agree as well, and therefore regulation on guns would be unconstitutional.

:rolleyes:
In your infamously clever fashion, do curteousy to my post on the topic (and stay on topic) and we'll see what degree of temperment and expertise you actually possess.
A person can come to the conclusion that someone (see above) is an asshole from their posts on other topics as well. I guess this kind of thread can make a distinction.
So there isn't a lot of response to my post. Sad. I seriously was looking for an erudite post on that. Instead i get the likes of MIB and Greenlander. *retch*

So to be "well practiced" you would be willing to sign up for training---let's say one week-end a month and two weeks a year? I doubt if one in a ten thousand gun owners--including you--are "well practiced". I go hunting all the time. Shoot for fun the rest of the time, but am not "well practiced" in military tachtics. And anyone whose been out of the military for over 5 years is also not "well practiced". Having been a marine, ranger, seal or anything else doesn't keep you "well practiced". It would be a lot easier to be "well regulated".

Sign up for training? Listen to you....shooting practice is just that--practice. It doesn't involve anyone else but you and a target. Here's the deal--the 2nd Amendment is not based on the militia. The militia is just one of the reasons a person should own a weapon. Now is there more to a practiced militia, you bet--but that's not covered in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, it would be easier to rule the population if it were well regulated. I'm not up for that, though (just like I'm not up for the Patriot Act). Look at Vermont--you don't have a myriad of gun laws on the books and their streets aren't running with blood. You'll find the most gun violence is in the cities--with the most restrictions.

You may go hunting, but you don't seem to realize what the 2nd Amendment actually covers. It's there to protect against our own "rulers"--not invasion, not the occasional bear.

It comes down to this--a government will ALWAYS abuse power, so it's in every citizen's best interests to NOT give them the power to abuse.

No, they don't. If ALL the historians agreed then all the Supreme Court Justices would agree as well, and therefore regulation on guns would be unconstitutional.

Sorry, the all agree on well practiced--the not bogged down by 20,000 laws was mine.

They tend to argue if it's the militia that should have the guns, not the meaning of well regulated. And yes, the historians agree--the lawyers may not.

The very reason I don't belong to the NRA. I own around 25 weapons. I started hunting before I went to kindergarten. I have yet to pull the trigger more than twice. Whatever game you are after isn't stupid enough to stand around and take 10 rounds. The second amendment's first three words, "A WELL REGULATED" explain it all.

Again, it assumes that the intended purpose of owning firearms is that you're going to use them for hunting purposes.

Whilst I was over in Arizona visiting my dear sweet grandma, I was able to hang out with a chum of mine of several years. He owned the aforemetioned Dragunov SVD, as well as a few others, and we had a grand old time blasting apart various things (bottles, cans, a couple old computer monitors... bang!). Recreational shooting, fellows. It's a wonderful thing.

Yes, we cleaned up the broken monitor bits. They're toxic or something and it wouldn't have been very nice of us to leave them out there.

Anyway.

Here's an idea I had once:

You have to own a license to own firearms. Based on what "certifications" you complete determines what you can own.

The system -will be- enforced. That means that state governments will be required to issue permits/licenses to everyone who applies and shows they are certified, and you will be required to get the permit before you can buy.

Depending on your firearms of choice, you could qualify for a permit as easily as one does a driver's license (e.g. basic handgun, rifle, shotgun and so forth), or you might have to spend a few days on it (e.g. automatic rifle, automatic shotgun, large-caliber rifle, etc). Of course, there will be a few fees attached, but the revenue generated by this can go towards helping stem the flow of illegal weapons entering the country from Mexico, China, and elsewhere. That way, the law-abiding citizens can still own guns (even the heavy artillery) while the crooks can't. Additionally, it would ensure that the average citizen feeling threatened can get his hands on a basic firearm (a Remington 1700, for example) without too much effort, while the big gun enthusiast (such as myself) could still get his artillery while showing that he's not just some lunatic.

I'm normally a small-government (no government if we could get away with it, but we can't. T_T) advocate, but I think a little more bureaucracy would be a price worth paying to make firearms a household word again.

I'm not sure whether or not this would be a state or federal program. California has been abusing its gun owners lately, so I'm not really keen on assuming the states will enforce this law properly. On the other hand, a liberal revolution in 2008 could torpedo any chances this program would have of being used in the intended fashion if it were a federal deal.

Any suggestions?