TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Some NSA News (hope they're not tapping me right now...)
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers my random rant: It's 4 am and I was just thinking, the culture has become so institutionalized, all we can ever do is talk about how we are outraged with our government. Things like the American Revolution, patriotism, etc. are forgotten, they're in the past. Revolutions can't happen today in America, there's nobody who would give up everything they have... Who's gonna take it to the streets, the beer-guzzling men who spend most of their free time watching futbol and baseball instead of actually doing some physical activity? Family Guy and American Idol drones who've been so brainwashed by TV, they think Stephen Colbert is a republican? Who will risk losing their peaceful lifestyle, their moderate-paying job, etc.? Chuck Palahniuk was right, It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. Even the John Stewart worshipping liberal and libertarian college students may rant about how they hate the administration while they're feeling safe and secure, their tuition being paid by their parents... but all those words are empty if they don't actually lead to any action. Face it, when you need to come up with several thousand dollars to pay for rent / food / tuition / gas, political change and revolution fade out of your mind. I may be wrong, but i think that the only politically active people who are insane enough to actually do something are those crazy liberal hippies that strip naked for greenpeace rallies. The rest of the crowd shrugs news like breach of Constitution off and goes on with their lives; the more politically inclined simply rant in their blogs about it. It's the radical groups that have enough crazy people that they can bring change. This government has become something of its own, a beast that functions while disregarding feedback from the community that it's supposed to serve. What happened to the government of the people, by the people, for the people? When did the giant corporations take over? When did money become more potent than rational thought? How did we become the United States of Walmart, what happened to personal responsibility and why do we preach one fo the most idiotic concepts in the world - political correctness - while subjecting thousands of people every day to unfair racial profiling and racism? We have become sheep, the society is soulless. Everything is money, money, money, power. I wanted to say the culture has degraded, but that's not true - there IS no culture. Our so-called culture is watching the latest reality show on TV, watching people at each other's throats for money (seriously what example does such shows set for our kids?), shopping, making unbelievably mindnumbing sequels to and remakes of movies, doing more shopping because we are bombarded by ads reminding us to do shopping so that we don't become coldhearted un-Americans if we don't buy gifts for our loved ones when the companies say we should give them gifts... That's as cohesive as my thoughts get at 4am, so please excuse me if my 2 cents are not in mint condition.

maybe that is a reflection of what you've experienced. at the risk of sounding harsh, i think i just read someone's writings on a small and clouded window to the world...and i almost fell for it out of pity.
however, i know better. i know there are millions of Americans that give there right arms daily to anything from politics to orphans, to
farming to race car driving. sane, caring, passionate people that don't ask anything from anybody that they wouldn't give themselves.

Revolution? i think that word is passe' in a country like ours. it has no real meaning because our "culture", or what you think is a lack thereof, has made it meaningless. we fight. for what ever reason we do, we do it so well it satisfies our urge to revolt.

...and for all you knee-jerking hysterical women out there championing Qwest.

from their customer service window:

quote:

Like you, we at Qwest are concerned about customer privacy. We have a long history of maintaining the privacy of information we obtain in the normal course of providing our services. We work hard to serve you through new and exciting products and services. In the process, we remain sensitive to privacy issues. The Information We Obtain and How We Use It The information we obtain from you is generally necessary for us to provide your services and design new services for your future use. For example, we need to know your name, address and the services you buy from us to properly provide and bill for those services. When you call us, our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you. We may also use information in our records to protect our customers, employees or property � for instance, to investigate fraud, harassment or other types of unlawful service activities involving Qwest or other carriers that we do business with. In some cases, it may be necessary to provide this information to the government or third parties who make a lawful demand for it. We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. Like any large business, we may structure our company to include a number of smaller companies. Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising. As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate. For example, we may hire outside companies as contractors or agents; or we might be engaged in a joint venture or partnership with a company. Upon occasion, Qwest may decide to stop providing a service or may decide to sell or transfer parts of our business to unaffiliated companies. When this happens, we may provide confidential customer information to these companies so that they can offer you the same or similar services. In all of these situations, we provide information to these other companies only as needed to accomplish our business objectives and the companies are bound by requirements to keep Qwest customers' information confidential.

>>Qwest<<

brought to you by the most sane blog on the planet. Powerline.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I have not used personal attacks aganist you OC? Why have you stooped to doing it? I stopped reading your post at "dumb-ass". So if this is to be a thread of profanity, I'm not going to debate you anymore about this issue. Instead, I will just return your verbal offerings, with one of my own; FUCK YOU!! Have a nice day, dumb-ass.

I'm civil to those who extend me the same courtesy. When you first came here I gave you the benefit of the doubt, however, it quickly became quite clear, after a few arguments, that you were perfectly willing to stoop to ad hominems and the like. As such, I didn't see the need to extend you any such courtesy. So pardon my surprise that you're offended by our current situation. However, I shall refrain from ad hominems in future posts so long as it's mutual.

As for not responding to my arguments, well that's your perogative.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i agree to an extent, but you shouldn't be afraid. either give credit for whats been done, or no credit at all. let history decide like you've done with FDR.

History is the ultimate decider on the issue. That doesn't mean that we don't have room to critisize or support with what facts we have on hand ... I don't know about you, but I felt that in the 90's my criticisms of Clinton were fully justifiable without feeling the necessity to wait 20 years to see what a historian had to say.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo maybe that is a reflection of what you've experienced. at the risk of sounding harsh, i think i just read someone's writings on a small and clouded window to the world...and i almost fell for it out of pity. however, i know better. i know there are millions of Americans that give there right arms daily to anything from politics to orphans, to farming to race car driving. sane, caring, passionate people that don't ask anything from anybody that they wouldn't give themselves. Revolution? i think that word is passe' in a country like ours. it has no real meaning because our "culture", or what you think is a lack thereof, has made it meaningless. we fight. for what ever reason we do, we do it so well it satisfies our urge to revolt.

so i see


baaaahhh.

Who cares? Not like they listening to everyones conversations each and everyday. That, my friends, would be IMPOSSIBLE...unless of course you had roughly 4 million people working for you.

And didnt Clinton make something like this a law? LOL
Now you all want to blame Bush? Hypocrites.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Who cares? Not like they listening to everyones conversations each and everyday. That, my friends, would be IMPOSSIBLE...unless of course you had roughly 4 million people working for you.

According to you then the government's actions don't violate american's fourth amendment rights?

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 And didnt Clinton make something like this a law? LOL Now you all want to blame Bush? Hypocrites.

Are you arguing that the commission of an act that may be arguably illegal by one administration makes the commission of the same act by another administration somehow legal?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange According to you then the government's actions don't violate american's fourth amendment rights?

They arent spying on everyone...and if it helps find the bad boys i am all for it.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Are you arguing that the commission of an act that may be arguably illegal by one administration makes the commission of the same act by another administration somehow legal?

no jsut that no one said shit when Clinton made the law...only when Bush enforces it...i find that funny.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What makes you guys so sure they haven't been doing this for decades already?

Your talking about ECHELON, which has been up and running for about 45yrs now and was well known to be sucking-up every e-mail, fax, telex, and telephone communications carried over the world's telecommunications networks. But its main use was for business after the cold war faded away, the EU did a investigation to findout how much data the system was targeting.
The system was using a keyword style of snooping, for a very indepth report read the book
"The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America's Most Secret Agency, by James Bamford.
He talks about 20acres of mainframe systems.....

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It's absurd and idioctic to worry about things which like this "prying" in to your "privacy". The government can barely keep up with what the terorists are doing. Do you really think they care what you're doing, no matter how weird or perverted it is?

So I see you have a short memory-(January 17, 2006) The FBI was flooded with false reports coming from the N.S.A.'s intelligence - "We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

So tell that to the thousands of people who did nothing wrong and yet were targeted as potential terrorists.

quote:

Originally posted Kapedan they dont listen to all of them, just ones that might suspect for terrorism. I mean, if we want a safer, then we have to make some changes that might prevent future terrorist actions.

Your wrong , the ATT "daytona database" has every phone for the last 30yrs, thus anybody who used ATT has a log of when/where/who/how long you called.
http://www.research.att.com/viewProject.cfm?prjID=69
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1378353,00.asp

quote:

Originally posted tiesto14 Who cares? Not like they listening to everyones conversations each and everyday. That, my friends, would be IMPOSSIBLE...unless of course you had roughly 4 million people working for you.

See the above post, its very easy to do this type of logging.Do yourself a favor and do a google before you talk pure shit and prove you have no idea what your talking about.
Try here for starters
http://www.schneier.com/index.html

and to get a idea how much data can be processed try here
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/

hint-"How powerful is this? OC-192 carries about 10 gigabits of data per second. Ten billion bits per second, monitored in real-time"

quote:

Originally posted by Dale Gribble See the above post, its very easy to do this type of logging.Do yourself a favor and do a google before you talk pure shit and prove you have no idea what your talking about. Try here for starters http://www.schneier.com/index.html

stfu n00b....i said it would impossible to listen in on EVERYONE'S phone calls (which would be in the billions per day)...look at what i write before u jump down my throat!

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 stfu n00b....i said it would impossible to listen in on EVERYONE'S phone calls (which would be in the billions per day)...look at what i write before u jump down my throat!

never say never! there's always a way to get something accomplished

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Mr. Opus; So what is your suggestion? That we keep it "business as usual" when it comes to how we gather intel? Because it worked so well prior to 9-11?

That's an honestly good question that needs an honestly good and very simple answer:

Follow the law.

If I recall, the President did swear to follow the law, did he not?

When you have a President who believes he can seriously do this with a straight face:

quote:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ndreds_of_laws/

Well then I think it stands to reason we have a serious problem with the rationality of our President.

So I think first and foremost we need to have a President who follows the laws, and that means ALL laws, not just the ones he see fit. If, however, he does not agree with a given law passed forth by Congress, then he should take such matters with Congress to revise such laws as needed. But as the Boston.com article makes abundantly clear, this simply does not happen with Bush.

Second, we need oversight from our Lawmakers to ensure that our President actually follows the laws.

Neither the first or the second points are being addressed at this time.

I do believe that we can fight terrorism both here domestically and abroad by following the laws. It is a vital necessity for credibility both domestically and internationally. As stated previously, we become the slime we are trying to fight and destroy if we cannot follow our own moral high ground set forth by our values of democracy.

Also, I think we can do a much better job at strengthening our hand abroad in fighting terrorism. It's no secret that this Administration is absolutely diplomatically fucking clueless, and the shoot-from-the-hip bullshit does not wash with anyone including our closest allies as well as potential allies. This must be quelled and turned in a different direction.

So there's a few basic ideas to munch on.

quote:

They're not even listening in on calls yet when it comes to this issue. This is simply a matter of looking for suspicious call patterns. THEN they would act on that info.

I'm not arguing on whether or not they are listening pertaining to this specific data mining case. It's still highly legally and ethically suspect regardless as I've pointed out earlier.

quote:

By your own admission, you don't even know what you're worried about when it comes to this tool of the intel community, which to me, makes your argument pointless.

Perhaps you could point out where exactly I admitted this. I did mention that there are many unanswered questions regarding this program that have been stonewalled at every turn by this Administration, and combined with the questions of legality on this issue as well as other very similar issues regarding Bush and the NSA I would say I feel there's plenty already known to be worried about.

quote:

If the administrations argument is that they need it to fight terrorism (which is 100% completely believable) and you have no real argument at all to refute this claim, then it's kind of a no-brainer as to who I'm going to side with on this one.

Well it was pretty obvious from the getgo who's side you were on regardless of how many citations and refutations were given to you, so I guess it's a no brainer as to which side you were choosing no matter what.

quote:

I don't want to die for some collegiate, theoretical, liberal idealisms.

What does collegiate have to do with it?

What is theoretical about anything I've stated?

And "liberal idealisms"? You do realize there are a good healthy portion of Conservatives coming out on this, don't you?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511...ecords_quotes_1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511...hone_records_19

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1002501664

quote:

This is a real world, war-time scenario we have here, and this wouldn't be the first time that peace-time philosophies were usurped during times of strife for the safety of the people as a whole in the long run.

Who the fuck said anything about peace-time philosophies?

BTW, have you seen Osama lately? Would it be okay if we were to actually fucking nail the bastard that attacked us, rather than invade other countries that have nothing to do with 9/11?

quote:

There are times that you just have to put your trust in your government. Who else are you going to put it in? Al Queda?

Well like I said, have you seen their leader lately? Seems to me that it would actually be nice to go after the guy who attacked us, rather than perform tedious phone sweeps that take up both a shitload of time, money, and manpower that go nowhere:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002399.html

and

quote:

�F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained that they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs said intelligence officials turning over the tips �would always say that we had information whose source we can�t share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Qaeda operative.� He said, �I would always wonder, what does �suspected� mean?� �The information was so thin,� he said, �and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up.�� ...�In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month. [�] �We�d chase a number, find it�s a schoolteacher with no indication they�ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,� said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. �After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.�� http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...agewanted=print

Trust is earned, not given. I'd be more than happy to trust this President if he actually earned a little bit of it. There's very little in his record that has demonstrated he is a trustworthy individual.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Trust is earned, not given. I'd be more than happy to trust this President if he actually earned a little bit of it. There's very little in his record that has demonstrated he is a trustworthy individual.

No different than any other president...there is always an air of secrecy.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i guess you can call me a FDR apologist too. (that term is getting played btw) if any president did the same, i would defend it. same can't be said for you only because it would be your party's president and i think you would lack the moral courage to be so indignant if that were the case.

Ya know, it's interesting. If I recall correctly on the timeline of events pertaining to this NSA scandal, I believe the first Democratic president you Bush apologists went running to for comparison was Clinton.

Well that blew up in your face because it was demonstrated that although Clinton's actions on physical searches were ethically questionable, they were not illegal. So then you drew up Carter, which also blew up in your face because what he did was before the FISA courts were created in '79.

So now you reach back into your pocket for another Democratic president, FDR. I just want to make sure you haven't skipped other Dem. Presidents in that timeline, because just in case you were wondering, there are a few in between.

I will admit that I am not as big of a historian as Occ on those times around WWII, and I will concede any statements he makes in regards to FDR and civil liberties. One little thought does come to mind, however:

When was FISA created?

And with that thought, another thought comes up,

Why are we talking about past presidents and whether or not they violated any laws and liberties?

This is usually when your argument begins to crumble when you have to resort to the actions of others to justify the very suspicious actions of your dear leader.

quote:

it's a matter of ideology, not demagoguery. it seems demagoguery is the only thing you are good at. keep it up.

Straw man. This has nothing to do with either one. It has everything to do with breaking current FISA and telecommunications laws, those same laws that this President swore to uphold. What past presidents have or haven't done to uphold that swear is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

quote:

no stupid. what you fail to recognize, being a liberal, is that you and your lost party want us to "connect the dots, without us being able to collect the dots." to quote James Lileks. dangerously thinking that the dots will miraculously show themselves to us and say "hey! i'm right here."

Tell ya what, champ, when you actually address the specific points I made previously, then I think we'll actually be holding a worthwhile conversation. I just pointed out to you specific laws that were broken by both this Administration and the phone companies for their complicit actions. You jumped right over those points as if they didn't exist.

Do us all a favor and address the points given to you, rather than tango your way out with ad hominems.

quote:

oh please i've told you before. let the the big boys handle the big jobs.

Well when I see "big boys" actually handling the jobs given to them, believe me sweetie, you'll be the first to know.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 No different than any other president...there is always an air of secrecy.

The air of secrecy with this President goes way beyond any other that I've ever seen or known, and much of it does not even tie to terrorism as they would love to claim.

And that is what worries me greatly.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The air of secrecy with this President goes way beyond any other that I've ever seen or known, and much of it does not even tie to terrorism as they would love to claim. And that is what worries me greatly.

What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail

All politicians are corrupt...each and everyone.

You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have....

You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips?

So lets see what u got.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail

Yeah, ol' Rich Scaife sure is a lovely chap funding those investigations, wasn't he?:

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/26news.html

Believe me, Clinton had numerous faults, and I don't doubt he was corrupt as you alluded to earlier just like most politicians, but what concerns me is the present here and now. Again, let's see if we can remain focused on the present rather than attempt to quell the shitstorm with comparisons to the past.

If you wish to discuss Clinton's involvements with the NSA and wiretapping, then it would be more pertinent.

quote:

You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have.... You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips?

I have about as much desire to debate pill-popping Limbaugh on his radio show as I do catching cancer. I really do try to spend more time away from the AM dial as much as possible given that it is entirely dominated by Right Wing blowhards that control all the decks and time control on their own turf.

If, perhaps, Limbaugh would be willing to debate me in a neutral venue somewhere with a neutral crowd at hand, then I might be interested. Would that suffice to you and him?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 If, perhaps, Limbaugh would be willing to debate me in a neutral venue somewhere with a neutral crowd at hand, then I might be interested. Would that suffice to you and him?

We both know that wont happen...calling his show is the best that can be done.

Shall i up the price?

Come on - u guys can school me and every other right winger...lets see u school the master.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 What about Clinton? And his ties to Mena? That didnt worry you? And just for kicks..lol...the Clinton death trail All politicians are corrupt...each and everyone.

The fact that many (there's no way I'm saying all) politicians are corrupt isn't an excuse for the sort of corruption and law-breaking we've been hearing about lately. As for Clinton, you do realize that a lot of us aren't as old as you are and we in junior high or high school when half of this was going on. The 2000 election was the 1st presidential one I could vote in. What concerns me isn't what happened in the past and how corrupt people were then, but what is happening NOW, in the time when I am an adult and more affected by their policies than when I was a child.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 You know what i would absolutley love...and would even paypal you to do? Call Rush Limbaugh (since he is the only radio host who actually lets his callers talk unlike Oreilly and Hannity) and debate him on this and any other issue u have.... You can do it next Friday when he has open mic day, which is every Friday, and u can tlak about anything u like. I am so serious...i will record it and paypal you...cus no offense i know u can smoke me debating any day...but i would pay to listen to Rush kick your dick in the dirt...lol..no offense...i like ya Opus...but i would really pay to see that...and that offer goes to Occrider also...i will paypal either one of you $50....have the balls? Can u debate it without having the internet at your fingertips? So lets see what u got.

Are you sure he won't be too high on oxycontin to debate. Oh wait, I forgot, he's was a pro at functioning on it, but I hear he's kicked the habit now.

Yeah, I know, that was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist

EDIT: Guess I should have continued past tiesto14, as Opus1 seemed to hit much of the same info.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm civil to those who extend me the same courtesy. When you first came here I gave you the benefit of the doubt, however, it quickly became quite clear, after a few arguments, that you were perfectly willing to stoop to ad hominems and the like. As such, I didn't see the need to extend you any such courtesy. So pardon my surprise that you're offended by our current situation. However, I shall refrain from ad hominems in future posts so long as it's mutual. As for not responding to my arguments, well that's your perogative.

Please go back and show me where I've used a personal attack or profane word against you...please?

I don't use name calling or profanity unless it comes at me first.

@Raisin "getting my arse handed to me". Why don't you butt out until I call for your comic relief, ok?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco By your own admission, you don't even know what you're worried about when it comes to this tool of the intel community, which to me, makes your argument pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps you could point out where exactly I admitted this. I did mention that there are many unanswered questions regarding this program that have been stonewalled at every turn by this Administration, and combined with the questions of legality on this issue as well as other very similar issues regarding Bush and the NSA I would say I feel there's plenty already known to be worried about.

DUDE! You're changing your posts! You said it a couple of times! I read it back on like page two! I'm quite sure of it.

LOL! That's as funny as it is pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The slightest possibility of civil liberties being compromised sets off more civil libertarians than I can count, and you certainly do not demonstrate such behavior as of yet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN donny donny donny *shakes head* do you listen to yourself sometimes? here you are, once again bashing so-called \"liberal\" idealisms; do you really know anything about libertarian thought at all? theyre much closer than you seem to think!

So let me pose my all-time favorite question to all you supposed defenders of civil liberties, fearful of your government trying to control you;

I know for a fact that most of you liberals don't believe in the right to own assault weapons, or guns of any kind for that matter (the 2nd Am., the right to bear arms).

Yet here you are, all worried about your government abusing you, and yet you are also the first to take away your right to defend yourself from such apocolyptic scenarios, as you are anti-2nd Am.

How do you justify this?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So let me pose my all-time favorite question to all you supposed defenders of civil liberties, fearful of your government trying to control you; I know for a fact that most of you liberals don't believe in the right to own assault weapons, or guns of any kind for that matter (the 2nd Am., the right to bear arms). Yet here you are, all worried about your government abusing you, and yet you are also the first to take away your right to defend yourself from such apocolyptic scenarios, as you are anti-2nd Am. How do you justify this?

firstly, as an australian i dont have any rights under your constitution (and, lets face it, your constitution isnt as all-encompassing and protecting as people once thought; check the last 5 pages.)

you and i have had this argument before mate. at the end of the day i believe its a pretty silly argument, because you just have to ask the branch davidians how their right to bear assault rifles went in protecting themselves and their property from your government.

the thought that any group could withstand the special forces in any western democracy is quite simply ridiculous. my argument re the right to bear arms is that the writers of the constituion couldnt have envisaged the technological improvements until the end of time, and that today's weaponry shouldnt be in the hands of your average joe.

if we chalked up the amount of homicides related to citizen versus citizen when compared to citizen versus oppressive government, what exactly does it show eh? if the 2nd amendment isnt protecting a citizen from the actions of its government, and is merely allowing a flood of firearms to exist, i see it as completely counter productive.

now, america is too well fvcked now to ever disarm its populace, but im much happier living in a country where gun-related murders are quite low.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I know for a fact that most of you liberals don't believe in the right to own assault weapons, or guns of any kind for that matter (the 2nd Am., the right to bear arms). Yet here you are, all worried about your government abusing you, and yet you are also the first to take away your right to defend yourself from such apocolyptic scenarios, as you are anti-2nd Am. How do you justify this?

See, jumping to conclusions is bad. I own guns. A few. My 5 member family probably has 20-25. Some we bought, so were inherited, some don't work anymore because of age, but the total number is in the mid-20s. I can't keep them in NYC, but they're at my parents home. I grew up hunting. So don't come in here expecting that just because I believe in civil liberties I'm this super liberal. I disagree with liberals/Democrats quite frequently.

You, on the other hand, are the one picking and choosing what parts of the Bill of Rights you think our government should uphold.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you and i have had this argument before mate. at the end of the day i believe its a pretty silly argument...

Yes, we have had it before, and I don't really want to turn this thread in to a gun debate, so I'll leave off "shooting" down all your bad points.

But I will say this; You're wrong about small arms not being effective as an insurgency weapon. How is it that you figure having no right to bear arms is better than at least some fighting chance with the right to bear arms, should the U.S. Government ever decide that it wants to somehow opporess us?

Did you know that Bush is one of the biggest supporters of the 2nd Am. we've had here in the states in a long time? Does it make sense that a man whom you all think is trying to oppress us would also empower us to fight this oppression?

Think about it.

Then realize that this paranoia about data-mining is just that.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy See, jumping to conclusions is bad. I own guns ...So don't come in here expecting that just because I believe in civil liberties I'm this super liberal. I disagree with liberals/Democrats quite frequently.

I said "most".

Now who's jumping to conclusions?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.