Originally posted by: sandorski
Ownership of Lethal Weapons should not be a Right. There's no reason for such a thing in this day and age and it just ferments a culture of violence.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ownership of Lethal Weapons should not be a Right. There's no reason for such a thing in this day and age and it just ferments a culture of violence.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: zinfamous
How many absolutist 2nd amendmenters support the Patriot Act?
Name the specific parts of the Patriot Act which you think infringes on your civil liberties.
Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. The new "secret search" provision applies where the court "finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse effect." Although the Administration's "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation" states that the new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches," the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure. The law requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period," which can be extended by the court for "good cause." "Reasonable period" is undefined, and the Administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."
Under prior law, law enforcement could use a subpoena to obtain "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service or a subscriber to or customer of such service and the type of services the subscriber or customer utilized" from an internet service provider. Section 210 expands the type of information that a provider must disclose to law enforcement to include, among other things, records of session times and duration; any temporarily assigned network address; and any means or source of payment. This heightened authority to use subpoenas (rather than court orders) for a broader (and more revealing) class of information is not be limited to investigations of suspected terrorist activity.
Section 206 expands FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored. Prior law required third parties (such as common carriers and others) "specified in court-ordered surveillance" to provide assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance. The amendment extends that obligation to unnamed and unspecified third parties.
Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring.
The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: freshgeardude
imagine if the 2nd amendmant was never made, and carrying a gun was illegal. do you know by how much crime rates would drop? answer that
Imagine you were never born because your mother and father were shot to death by a bunch of law abiding citizens, so you never made this stupid fucking post. Do you know by how much everyone's IQ would go up? answer that.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I own guns and am pro 2nd Amendment...but I'm voting for Barack Obama.
Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
The 2nd amendment was designed so that people could protect themselves from the British. Seeing as there is no British to attack us, we don't need to have that right. We have plenty of policemen and women that are out there to protect us. The sooner we get guns off the street the sooner we'll be much safer.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: zinfamous
How many absolutist 2nd amendmenters support the Patriot Act?
Name the specific parts of the Patriot Act which you think infringes on your civil liberties.
5th Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
Paraphrasing, this means that you can not be imprisoned, executed, or fined without the "due process of law."
Due process is not specifically defined in the constitution, but has been universally accepted as meaning "a jury of one's peers, innocence until proven guilty, etc." This is an interpretation which has never really come under question...yet several articles in the PA have set a first-ever precedent in redefining these terms:
Section 213 eliminates the prior requirement that law enforcement provide a person subject to a search warrant with contemporaneous notice of the search. The new "secret search" provision applies where the court "finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse effect." Although the Administration's "Field Guidance on New Authorities Enacted in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Legislation" states that the new authority "is primarily designed to authorize delayed notice of searches," the amendment permits seizure of any tangible property or communications where the court finds "reasonable necessity" for this seizure. The law requires that notice be given within a "reasonable period," which can be extended by the court for "good cause." "Reasonable period" is undefined, and the Administration's Field Guidance advises that this is a "flexible standard."
Under prior law, law enforcement could use a subpoena to obtain "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service or a subscriber to or customer of such service and the type of services the subscriber or customer utilized" from an internet service provider. Section 210 expands the type of information that a provider must disclose to law enforcement to include, among other things, records of session times and duration; any temporarily assigned network address; and any means or source of payment. This heightened authority to use subpoenas (rather than court orders) for a broader (and more revealing) class of information is not be limited to investigations of suspected terrorist activity.
Section 206 expands FISA to permit "roving wiretap" authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored. Prior law required third parties (such as common carriers and others) "specified in court-ordered surveillance" to provide assistance necessary to accomplish the surveillance. The amendment extends that obligation to unnamed and unspecified third parties.
Such "generic" orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and cybercafes. Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order (for instance, a library) would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring.
The "generic" roving wiretap orders raise significant constitutional issues, as they do not comport with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that any search warrant "particularly describe the place to be searched." That deficiency becomes even more significant where the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally.
http://epic.org/privacy/terror...sapatriot/default.html
Here are only a few articles withing the PA that infringe on only 2 Amendments regarding rights of privacy and due process for American citizens; not only foreigners suspected of terrorism.
Originally posted by: ironwing
Did anyone else notice that the OP has made only one reply in this thread, right at the beginning? Might a be, could a be, a troll?
Originally posted by: bob4432
obviously, as you can see from my sig i am pro 2nd amendment. i have been shooting since i was ~8 or so and grew up around guns although i lived in the city. we would go shooting often. it was always a fun time as was playing soccer when i was a child. to me it was always normal to have a gun in a house. and unfortunately yes, i have been on the wrong end of a paranoid person with a gun as he placed it against my head and threatened to kill me, something i will never forget, but it taught me a lot and talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that situation never made me think of becoming anti 2a.
i have really never heard a real reason for people to be anti, other than "i just am" and they usually get defensive. so, could you educate me and explain why people are so anti gun?
anybody in this conversation, please respect others as they are allowed their opinions, so please, no name calling or anything like that. respect each other please, i would really like to know this info.
fwiw, if it matters i am an independent and hold both typical democratic and republican views.
again, please keep this informative and respectable so it doesn't get shut down.
thanks in advance for your time and information,
bob
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: MercenaryYoureFired
I don't necessarily like the 2nd Amendment because I feel it doesn't belong with our current culture. As time passes the need for change arises, especially concerning something like this. The availability of firearms today in the US is pretty absurd; and I highly doubt the very smart people who wrote the Amendments were expecting the firearm industry to be where it's at today.
I also hate the fact that if you're in possession of a gun it gives you absolute power over everyone without one. This isn't a bad thing until you realize the ease of getting one, moreover thinking about some of the people who have/had access to this kind of power is disturbing, and why it's such a big problem here.
Believe it or not, but a higher percentage of Americans owned guns when the Constitution was written.
That higher percentage also depended near-exclusively on hunting to provide meat to their family.
I'm not anti-hunting, as it is an effective, and necessary environmental control. I think it's great that people still hunt for their own food. However, it certainly isn't necessary today.
those percentages are irrelevant, you see, when you misapply them.
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
I'm anti assault rifle, High powered rifle and any other gun designed to kill people. If you want something for home defense then get a shotgun, you'd be surprised how effective a click-click of a shotgun round being chambered can be. If that doesnt work, you are unlikely to miss. Im not anti weapon, just weapons designed to kill people.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ownership of Lethal Weapons should not be a Right. There's no reason for such a thing in this day and age and it just ferments a culture of violence.
They said that in Germany and Russia in the 1930's
how is that relevant in 2008?
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
I'm anti assault rifle, High powered rifle and any other gun designed to kill people. If you want something for home defense then get a shotgun, you'd be surprised how effective a click-click of a shotgun round being chambered can be. If that doesnt work, you are unlikely to miss. Im not anti weapon, just weapons designed to kill people.
