RIGHTS
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Joined
·
539 Posts
Not having arms is trusting others for your protection against not just criminals but against the very powers that threaten to take that right away. Sounds pretty stupid when you think about - trust the government to protect us against government oppression.
Joined
·
1,826 Posts
Couldn't agree more with findrichard; Never depend on your government for anything. The more power that you grant them, the more rights you will lose.
Joined
·
22 Posts
I think I see a trend! 
Joined
·
5,255 Posts
Due to the way you worded your question, I picked "Patriot Act".
It is kinda like this:
At a 4-way stop in the middle of nowhere, at the exact same time, the following pull up to the intersection and stop: the easter bunny, a leprechaun, an honest politician, and a dishonest politician. Who goes first?
Obviously the dishonest politician...because there is no easter bunny, there is no leprechaun, and there are no honest politicians.
Likewise, God given rights can not be taken away...dishonest people creating lies like the "Assault Weapons Ban" or the "Patriot Act" and convincing others to believe the lie, is what tricks people into believing they lost that right.
Like all marketing schemes, if it is in the title then it isn't in the product, e.g., "Quality Foods" or "Patriot Act".
Jon
It is kinda like this:
At a 4-way stop in the middle of nowhere, at the exact same time, the following pull up to the intersection and stop: the easter bunny, a leprechaun, an honest politician, and a dishonest politician. Who goes first?
Obviously the dishonest politician...because there is no easter bunny, there is no leprechaun, and there are no honest politicians.
Likewise, God given rights can not be taken away...dishonest people creating lies like the "Assault Weapons Ban" or the "Patriot Act" and convincing others to believe the lie, is what tricks people into believing they lost that right.
Like all marketing schemes, if it is in the title then it isn't in the product, e.g., "Quality Foods" or "Patriot Act".
Jon
Joined
·
5,255 Posts
I disagree with you and agree with "Endowed by our Creator".Monkeynts said:
Jon
Joined
·
13,971 Posts
The patriot act really violates the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. That was the whole point of it, to spy on people that could possibly be terrorists. Here's what you have to understand, during the bush administration the patriot act was never used against American Citizens, and no ones rights were ever violated. It is the current administration that has used the patriot act to spy on "right wing homegrown terrorist teabaggers". People often forget the 2nd amendment is a God given right. The bible says man has the right to defend himself in any means possible; since this country was founded on judeo christian beliefs, our founding fathers based many of our rights in the constitution off of those beliefs. The 2nd amendment though is not to protect you from crooks, or to go out and shoot ducks. It is to defend yourself against a tyrannical government and to allow the citizens of the United States to take up arms against tyranny be it their own government, or a foreign nation attacking this country with it's own ground troops. The 2nd amendment is the most IMPORTANT amendment in all of the constitution, and people often forget without it you have no other means of protecting the constitution.Monkeynts said:
Joined
·
656 Posts
Either is a no-win.
The PA is a stealth loss of rights/abridgment of the Constitution.
No arms is the fate of subjects, not citizens.
I vote BOTH.
The PA is a stealth loss of rights/abridgment of the Constitution.
No arms is the fate of subjects, not citizens.
I vote BOTH.
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
I believe the Patriot Act has opened the door for a corrupt Government to take away what that corrupt Government wants and to get what they want in spite of the people's will. It's intent may have been to help against foreign terrorist but it can be twisted into something entirely different. The terrorist might just gain enough control with the help of a President who is of foreign origin and use it against the people of this nation to the benefit of the terrorist nations. Does this sound familiar?
How many years and incidence has occurred since the formation of this nation without the Patriot Act?
Why would there need to be a law in place to help our law enforcement or military to gather info. of suspected terrorist to keep them from attacking us here on our home land or abroad? If it is war then rules don't apply, just like the detainees in gitmo don't have the rights of a US citizen. Civil discourse is for civil matters where as terrorist be it foreign or domestic, intent on doing us harm are a matter of national defense and therefore have no rights as a citizen, they are an enemy of the nation.
Some lawyers and a few extremist want to make this country like the united nations where we abide by their laws and relinquish all of our rights as citizens for their benefit so as they can dismantle what our founding fathers founded.
Laws made to gain info. for war time efforts seem to me as nonsense. Did we have to do that any other time for protecting us from tyranny ? How do you suppose they found out other valuable info. concerning acts of war against us? I don't think they requested the info. in hopes of getting accurate info. They would probably got false info. to set them on a cold trail while they got their back side burned. Common since seems to have escaped the leaders of today.
How many years and incidence has occurred since the formation of this nation without the Patriot Act?
Why would there need to be a law in place to help our law enforcement or military to gather info. of suspected terrorist to keep them from attacking us here on our home land or abroad? If it is war then rules don't apply, just like the detainees in gitmo don't have the rights of a US citizen. Civil discourse is for civil matters where as terrorist be it foreign or domestic, intent on doing us harm are a matter of national defense and therefore have no rights as a citizen, they are an enemy of the nation.
Some lawyers and a few extremist want to make this country like the united nations where we abide by their laws and relinquish all of our rights as citizens for their benefit so as they can dismantle what our founding fathers founded.
Laws made to gain info. for war time efforts seem to me as nonsense. Did we have to do that any other time for protecting us from tyranny ? How do you suppose they found out other valuable info. concerning acts of war against us? I don't think they requested the info. in hopes of getting accurate info. They would probably got false info. to set them on a cold trail while they got their back side burned. Common since seems to have escaped the leaders of today.
Joined
·
5,255 Posts
"Conservatives" were all up in arms when the law that was to become the Patriot Act was originally introduced...under Clinton. So it never passed the stink test.
Drop a couple of buildings and in a couple of weeks they have a 2,000 page "law" to sign? America was duped.
Molon Labe!
Jon
Drop a couple of buildings and in a couple of weeks they have a 2,000 page "law" to sign? America was duped.
Molon Labe!
Jon
Please explain that. I'm not aware of any terrorist spawning from the Tea party, right or left wing. The OP was correct though as the Patriot Act was about the fourth amendment, not the first amendment. Of course I could have missed something which wouldn't be the first time.
You mean prior to the gutting of the CIA and covert operations we never knew about, and before the event of the internet sites that are up one minute and gone the next, or even disposable cell phones that are purchased in stores for cash, good for a short length of time and trashed when they expire. Those days were gone a long time ago and couldn't possible be used in today's modern tech world. Even with the Patriot Act and the use of a instant tap, a warrant signed and issued by a judge must be obtained in something like 48 hours or so.
The Patriot Act isn't used by local law enforcement and certainly not the military. If I'm not mistaken it is used by the Feds such as Homeland Security.
No...........but maybe you could expand on this a little.
Doesn't make sense.......acts of war and tyranny are two different things. Of course the Patriot Act wouldn't protect use from tyranny as the government itself which controls the Patriot Act would be the instigators of tyranny. Acts against this country from terrorist both home grown and outside this country is what the Patriot act was set up for. The patriot Act has many safeguards built into it to protect the average citizen. My privacy is in more danger of some punk sitting in front of a home computer trying to hack into my computer than I am from the Patriot act.
Clinton didn't introduce a Patriot Act. What he introduced was the Ombnibus Bill that did gather information but....and this is the but the Republicans objected to....if the terrorist was caught or captured then the terrorist would only be treated as a law enforcement issue. In other words, tried in the US in a federal court.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
