Posted: 6/17/2013 4:56:58 PM EDT
| What say you? Free, Safe, or whatever compromise the president/congress decides is acceptable for you this week? |
|
NSA collection of phone records or other information that is corporate property is not a violation of my Constitutional rights.
Every time I make a phone call I know that the number is recorded for business purposes. I know as the custodians of this regularly conducted activity that they record for their business purpose that it can be seized or reviewed by the US government. In fact, I'm rather surprised that anyone carrying out illegal or terrorist activity wasn't already aware of this possibility. I believe this PRISM program is probably of very little value since telephone communications by terrorists groups are a known risk to them and have been since Tora Bora. |
|
Quoted:
NSA collection of phone records or other information that is corporate property is not a violation of my Constitutional rights. Every time I make a phone call I know that the number is recorded for business purposes. I know as the custodians of this regularly conducted activity that they record for their business purpose that it can be seized or reviewed by the US government. In fact, I'm rather surprised that anyone carrying out illegal or terrorist activity wasn't already aware of this possibility. I believe this PRISM program is probably of very little value since telephone communications by terrorists groups are a known risk to them and have been since Tora Bora. It is if they were collected in unconstitutional fashion. Your perception thereto is irrelevant in the matter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I predict every one here will pick freedom, then 1/2 will go to a Patriot Act thread and defend it as necessary intrusion. Only half? I was trying to be polite. 
Quoted:
I figure there's at least a DU troll or two hanging around on a Monday night to cast a vote for our esteemed Commander-in-Chief. A DU troll or a NSA monitor assigned to this site being honest? |
|
Ideally, I would like to be free to defend myself when appropriate without fear of being persecuted by the government.
Hell I am not sure if the thugs are more dangerous when one in unarmed or law enforcement is more dangerous to my health and freedom if I go legally armed because of the thugs. 
|
|
Not saying to go full retard and have some sort of anarchist utopia with no law, but I am saying a metric shit ton less of the stupid nanny-state, prosecution when no one is harmed type of laws.
The ones that remain should be straight forward you either harmed or stole and be no shit punished. History has shown that this works best but it has also shown that people never figure that out until too late. *ETA* (hit submit too early): So, freedom is to carry the heavy preference. |
|
Quoted:
You do realize your asking this on a gun forum right? You know your going to get somewhere above 90 percent saying yes, and either people just trolling or plants being the only ones to vote no. Indeed - a gun forum where the school of political thought can actually fall on both extremes of the political scale on this particular issue. |
|
Quoted:
Not saying to go full retard and have some sort of anarchist utopia with no law, but I am saying a metric shit ton less of the stupid nanny-state, prosecution when no one is harmed type of laws. The ones that remain should be straight forward you either harmed or stole and be no shit punished. History has shown that this works best but it has also shown that people never figure that out until too late. *ETA* (hit submit too early): So, freedom is to carry the heavy preference. In my mind, we're about as far from that as we can get. It's almost impossible to actually be in compliance with all of the USC as well as state and local ordinances. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its a balancing act. Its not one or the other Where does that balance lie? What would be an indicator to you that it has gone too far one way or another? Not picking a fight, I'm genuinely interested. Society has to answer that question. It isn't for any one person to answer, since you'll always find people opposed to any proposed law. When a law lacks the support of a majority of the population, it needs to be revisited and its continuing utility determined. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom because I'm not a god dam hippe See, this is what's confusing the hell out of me - nearly all the hippies I know (you know, the ones who said you couldn't trust the government?) are now invariably on the 'safety' side of the debate. Because they are cowards and lazy. They key being that someone else has to do the dirty work while they drink their soy latte fru fru mocha pie hole fillers. They just want to drum circle the day away. |
| Freedom, there's only one person in this world that can protect you and that's yourself. If you can't do it, nobody else will. So give me the freedom to protect myself and allow me to carry whatever weapons I want. Besides what do you want protection from? Protection against criminals? Get a gun and learn to use it. Protection from tyranny? Get everybody in the country armed. I'm way more afraid of tyranny than a thug on the street. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its a balancing act. Its not one or the other Where does that balance lie? What would be an indicator to you that it has gone too far one way or another? Not picking a fight, I'm genuinely interested. Society has to answer that question. It isn't for any one person to answer, since you'll always find people opposed to any proposed law. When a law lacks the support of a majority of the population, it needs to be revisited and its continuing utility determined. A majority of the population, however, cannot override individual rights. That's the whole point, is it not? Where does the balance lie for you, personally? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its a balancing act. Its not one or the other Where does that balance lie? What would be an indicator to you that it has gone too far one way or another? Not picking a fight, I'm genuinely interested. Society has to answer that question. It isn't for any one person to answer, since you'll always find people opposed to any proposed law. When a law lacks the support of a majority of the population, it needs to be revisited and its continuing utility determined. A majority of the population, however, cannot override individual rights. That's the whole point, is it not? Where does the balance lie for you, personally? Sorry to butt in, however, the majority can and will override individual rights in America. It doesn't seem right to me sometimes, but that's the way it is. Sure, any legislature will have a very hard time taking away individual rights expressly protected in any official documents, but any individual rights not listed in those documents seems to be fair game. ETA: Regardless of this poll, the majority needs someone to make them feel safe. |
|
Quoted:
A majority of the population, however, cannot override individual rights. That's the whole point, is it not? Where does the balance lie for you, personally? However, a law has to have the support of a majority of the population in order for it to be effective. Requiring 100% support will never be realistic. As I pointed out, every law has it non-supporters. This is the "balance", as you put it, that I would personally apply to measuring a laws effectiveness. Prohibition was a good example. A more modern example would be the eventual decriminalization of marijuana. I don't support it, but its clear that the majority across the country support it in some form, whether it be "medicinal use" etc. As far as laws relating to guns ( since we're on a gun board ), the biggest reason I see it that we are losing is because we've allowed the antis to control the message that the public is getting. And we're simply losing the rural demographic that dominates gun ownership to the urban demographic. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its a balancing act. Its not one or the other Where does that balance lie? What would be an indicator to you that it has gone too far one way or another? Not picking a fight, I'm genuinely interested. Society has to answer that question. It isn't for any one person to answer, since you'll always find people opposed to any proposed law. When a law lacks the support of a majority of the population, it needs to be revisited and its continuing utility determined. That sounds too much like a democracy, which we are not. If everyone agreed to sacrifice your freedom for th collective safety, would that be ok? |
|
Quoted:
That sounds too much like a democracy, which we are not. If everyone agreed to sacrifice your freedom for th collective safety, would that be ok? You can call it what you want, but ultimately for any law to be successful it has to have broad public support. Without that, it isn't worth much other than words on a paper. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I predict every one here will pick freedom, then 1/2 will go to a Patriot Act thread and defend it as necessary intrusion. I figure there's at least a DU troll or two hanging around on a Monday night to cast a vote for our esteemed Commander-in-Chief. 11 of those DU dipshits have already voted. 
|