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: 18510
PAGE 16 of 21
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