[url]http://www.cnn.com/POLL/results/1689121.content.html[/url]

Do new counterterrorism laws restrict civil liberties?
Informal CNN poll says that YES 40%(15,495votes) vs NO 60%(22,778).
What was the saying "those that trade freedom for security deserved neither freedom nor security."

You vote at [url]www.cnn.com[/url] if you wish.

No, they don't restrict them, They end them.  These new laws are not restricted to terrorists or foreign nationals, they also apply to John Q. Citizen.

The new laws have gutted the BOR and ended personal liberty until 2005, at which time it will be permanently extended.

Wrong.

Has anyone whining about this stuff actually read these new laws? Hardcopy version is about 132 pages long.

Here are a list of the major changes:

-Increases the time periods that a wiretapping warrant can run for, in investigations of foreign terrorists.
-Applies the slightly looser standards for wiretaps that have always been in place for foreign counterintelligence operations to foreign counterterrorist investigations.
-Adds foreign terrorists to money seizure stautes, and specifically authorizes seizure of money belonging to Bin Laden and associates.
-Gives the US jurisdiction over terrorist attacks against Americans and American facilities worldwide.
-Adds voice mail and e-mail and other electronic communications to wiretap warrants for foreign terrorist groups.
-Allows the a search warrant to be run against foreign terrorists without letting them immediately know (the covert search).
-Formally gives the Secret Service authority to investigate a bunch of financial crimes involving FDIC insured banks (they have already been working these for the last few years, taking some pressure off the FBI).
-Uses the FBI's New York cybercrime task force as a model for setting up regional financial and cybercrime units.
-Lets the FBI hire linguists and budgets for the same.
-Budgets a bunch of money for 9-11 survivors and CT efforts.
-Enhances the penalties for a bunch of terrorism offenses (unfortunately, no new death penalties).
-Requires Immigration to check people's criminal history and background when they are entering the US to see if they are terrorists.
-Requires Immigration to start work of using Automated Fingerprint ID systems to positively ID immigrants.
-Allows the government to detain suspected terrorist immigrants who violate immigration law for six month increments until they can be charged or deported.
-Requires Embassies and Consulates to coordinate with each other to stop "visa-shopping."

Almost all of these changes apply only to federal law enforcement. Warrants still require Probable Cause and are subject to review by a judge, and by defense attorneys at a later date. There is nothing earth-shattering or anti-Bill of Rights in here. The warrant changes apply only to federal investigators, and then only to foreign terrorist groups. This will have little, if any effect on domestic law enforcement, but will change up the rules for hunting terrorists from foreign countries domestically and abroad.

Why don't you detail which sections you think violate the constitution?

natez, two things.

first, do you have a link where someone could find out this stuff?  i've been wanting to peruse it more thoroughly than the media is doing.

second, there are a whole host of things that you mentioned that i find quite in contradiction to the Constitution:  the FBI; budgeting money for the 09/11 victims (it's not the government's job to help them out, there is no Constitutional justification for philanthropy); detainment for extended periods of time flies in the face of due process of the law when it gets right down to it;  and i'm not sure the secret service investigating anything is in line with the constitution, but that one is definitely debatable.

These laws will affect everyone they decide to label as a terrorist or subversive, foreign or domestic. Do not think for a minute that if you are an average joe they will not affect you should someone put you in one of these categories. All it takes is a good citizen seeing you with evil looking weapons and suspect you to be up to no good. I think it is a dangerous law, there is too much potential for abuse, and it is unconstitutional. Giving up freedoms and rights in the name of protecting liberty? It makes no sense to me.

[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162:[/url]

I thought the text of the law was "no freedom for anyone." But then again, my tin foil hat must not be on tight enough...

haha... it' really isn't too bad when you start reading it. Sure there are some disturbing possibiliities.... but then again, there are some disturbing possibilities with ANYTHING!

I am most concerned about the definition of what terrorism is defined as being. SPecifically the use of the word, "coersion" when Bill Klinton used to say that the NRA ruled by intimidation and fear.

But I suspect that we will all be fine.

The FBI exists and have a needed purpose. To argue that anything supporting the FBI is the reason this bill is unconstitutional is a specious argument, akin to the argument made by antiwar protestors who refuse to pay taxes because some of the money goes to the military. While there is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the FBI, there is also nothing prohibiting it, either. It is a function of basic logic to understand that it is obvious that some type of agency capable of investigating violations of federal laws is necessary. If not the FBI, then something similar in form and function. The FBI has existed in its current form (more or less)since the 1920s. Please post your case law that says that it is unconstitutional.



Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the government from performing disaster relief or aiding Americans who have suffered harm or financial loss because of an act of war. If I am wrong, again, please post some case law to the contrary.




This merely allows Immigration officials to continue to detain persons who are illegally in this country and are suspected of being terrorists who cannot be deported. They still have due process rights and are entitled to have hearings about their continued detention. These are people who do not have a "right" to be in this country, anyway. The law also specifically authorizes periodic Habeas Corpus hearings for these persons. Due process exists, therefore, this is not illegal. Remember, we have some very recent, new case law about the rights of immigration violators, and this law is well within the doctrine of those rulings.



The United States Secret Service was originally started in the 19th Century to investigate counterfeiting (the presidential protection mission came much later). Are you saying the Government does not have a right to keep its own currency secure? It seems inherently unreasonable to assume that the Founding Fathers did not want persons who counterfeited to currency to be arrested and imprisoned. The new expansion is to keep them current with technology and the newer financial crimes of the 21st century that often occur in many jurisdictions. Again, this is the federal government protecting the financial institutions that it is directly responsible for. The government has the same right to protect its assets (and by that, our assets as well,since we own the government)from fraud and theft.

Just because you do not like the FBI or disaster relief means that it is not "constitutional."

There has been much whining and moaning by folks who have not bothered to read this law about how it gets rid of our civil rights and liberties, and other tin-foil hat statements. In reality, it does nothing of the sort.  

BTW, here is a link to the version that was signed into law:
[url] http://www.politechbot.com/docs/usa.act.final.102401.html[/url]


While there should be a vigorous debate any time laws are changed, particularly with regards to search and seizure authority, there is nothing about this law that changes any of the fundamental concepts of American law or abrogates the Constitution.

i'm sorry.  i thought i read somewhere that any powers not [i][b]specifically[/b][i] given to the federal government were the jurisdiction of the STATES and/or the people!

there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the right to create the FBI.  nor is the federal government given the power to act as a clearinghouse for monies donated for humanitarian purposes.

the federal government is telling us that this new law only applies to terrorists.  well how long do you think it will be before that definition of terrorist is broadened to allow the federal government to go after whomever it chooses for reasons that are less than lawful?

and i stand corrected on the secret service issue because the constitution specifically grants the federal government the powers to investigate (and prosecute I think) counterfeiting of the Securities.  i didn't realize this was the job of the secret service.  my mistake.

the constitution does not explicitly deny the federal government the right/power/jurisdiction to do these things.  this denial is implicit.  if the powers are not explicitly stated in the constitution, they belong to the states or the people, NOT the federal government.  i do not need any case law to prove my point in this instance.

that would be the 10th Amendment ARLady...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. -- HENRY GEORGE

i knew that.  i guess i should have added that smartass icon.  [:D]

What does the 10th Amendment have to do with this? The 1st, second and third articles of the Constitution give the federal government the authority to make laws. The authority to investigate violations of those laws is an inherent condition of being able to pass laws. The 10th amendment does not automatically void that. Again, I ask, back up your reasoning with some case law that says that the government does not have the authority to investigate violations of its laws.

The FBI grew out of a small (and relatively ineffective) cadre of Justice Department investigators in the 1920s. J. Edgar Hoover was largely responsible for the Bureau's growth into a professional agency. They don't always get things right, but you have yet to show me any proof that it is an "unconstitutional" organization. So far, your entire argument that the new law is bad comes down to fact that you believe (without any proof of your logic), that the FBI shouldn't exist. Okay, then who should conduct foreign counterterrorism investigations? And what does that have to do with the authority of that agency (whoever they are) to conduct an investigation?

It makes perfect sense to me:

I give up the freedom to say false, harmful statements about others so that I can be free of their libel and slander.

I give up some freedom to peaceably assemble to ensure that I won't be blocked by sit-in protesters filling the road.

I give up the freedom to practice a religion which requires the killing of people to be safe from others exercising their religion on me.

I give up some of our society's freedom to keep and bear arms to help keep them out of the hands of convicted criminals.

I give up the right to construct my house in any manner I see fit so that I might gain the benefits of building codes.

I give up the right to not build a wheelchair ramp in my business so that there will be wheelchair ramps for me should I become disabled.

I give up my right to dump toxic chemicals in the stream when it means others will have to stop too.

Sure, Ben Franklin's quote makes a great sound bite.  But the fact is we constantly sacrifice freedoms to gain security- we give up our freedom to do something in exchange for being secure from others doing it.

The idea of having unrestricted rights or freedoms is not practical and not desirable.  This forms the basis of law and in turn the very foundation of society.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot on this one... you [b]do[/b] know that this is a [b]pro-[/b]RKBA forum, don't you?

Secondly, you sound a bit like BJ Clinton on this.  The problem isn't the "unrestricted rights" - it is that a number of people don't understand that those rights come with responsibilities.  If everyone exersized those rights responsibly, society would function more smoothly.

oh crap----they sheeple are loose...arlady Can we get shepard? Blind, unreasoning trust of the government...you people scare the hell out of me.
Here's one---RICO--how many abuses can you think up?

Here's another--the war on drugs????

last but not least RKBA----

AMEN

Article IV, Section 8: "Congress shall have Power ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...."
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
"To declare War"
"To raise and support Armies ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"
"To suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
"To regulate Commerce ... among the several States..."
"To exercise exclusive Legislation ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by ... for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers ...."

everything.  basically, the federal government cannot pass legislation it has not been given the authority to pass.  that's why all federal legislation regarding education is technically unconstitutional, for example.  i find that a lot of the things in this new anti-terrorism bill are not under the authority of the federal government to authorize.  not the least of those is philanthropic giving away of tax payers' money.  if a citizen wants to donate money, shouldn't it be his choice?  not everybody wants to donate.  philanthropic donation should be a choice, not something that happens through the legal theft of  your money.


yes, but the Constitution also limits the laws that the federal government can make.  see above.



agreed.  i would think it would be foolish, not to mention inefficient, to pass legislation without the means of enforcement, investigation, or prosecution.  no, the 10th amendment does not automatically void that aspect of law-making.  it is, however, grounds for voiding laws that are unconstitutional.  and case law is law and is still subject to the standards of the constitution.  i have never, ever said that the federal government did not have the authority to investigate violations of its laws.  i said that some of those laws are unconstitutional.  absolutely nothing to do with the right to investigate violations.


to be continued...

continuation:




quit putting words in my mouth.  my entire argument that the new law is "bad" is because many aspects of it are unconstitutional.  the federal government has not the jurisdiction to pass some aspects of this anti-terrorism legislation.  i never said anything about the authority of any agency to conduct an investigation, except in my very first post regarding the Secert Service.  a part of the post which you so thoroughly debunked and which i so graciously condeded.  do you not even take the time to read responses before you retaliate?  you have no argument on this topic so please move on.

you tell me where in the constitution the federal government is granted the right/power/jurisdiction to create an agency with the purpose of spying on its citizens.  if you can find that for me, i will gladly concede defeat in this issue.  i do not believe that the FBI falls under any of the explicit, prescribed powers given to the federal government.  it's original intent, of which i know practically nothing i'll admit, may have been acceptable when held up to the litmus test of the constitution; however, the current situation is questionable, IMHO.

back to that case law thing.  just thought of this.  you can bring all the case law before me that you want to support your view, but if that law is in direct violation or contradiction of the U.S. Constitution, it matters little.  the very purpose of the Constitution was to protect rights, particularly against the power of "legal" legislation.  (government can legally (meaning that pass it in accordance with the regulations) pass a law that bans firearm ownership, but wouldn't you agree that law would be unconstitutional?) just because the federal government legally passes a law, doesn't make the law legal in the standards of the Constitution.  what if i could show you a few examples case law in which judges have said that the 2nd amendment is NOT an individual right and therefore, private ownership is not protected.  case law is NOT the final say in matters of rights.  not to mention that law is open to interpretation.  the rights set forth in the Constitution are not, though many have tried.

FDR pushed through the New Deal by threatening to pack the court with his guys and running wild.
The then SC 'met him halfway' and let the feds, up until then limited in power and authority bu the 10th amendment, rule whatever they wanted.
Until Lopez, the rule was the the congresses power to regulate 'interstate commerce' meant that they could rule every facet of your life.
They could pass a law limiting what you grow in your garden. Guess what? They still can.
Lopez simply said that banning driving past a school with a rifle in the trunk of your car wasn't within the power of the congress unless they 'found' in the bill that it was.
Congress can pass anything they like, with no limit, making them a super ruler of your life.
It was not supposed to be that way. Cali and NY were not supposed to rule us all.

now where does it say in this that Congress shall create a police force against its own peoples?  and where does it say that Congress shall levy monies ONLY for the downtrodden or misfortunate?  and while we're on the issue, where does it say that Congress shall create standards and oversee the education of all citizens?  where does it say that Congress shall create a federal housing subsidation program to reward people for NOT getting ahead, while making it nearly prohibitively expensive for successful people to put a roof over their head?  our government has most certainly overstepped its bounds, whether case law supports that conclusion or not!

and you're okay with this?  i'm stupefied at the calm manor in which you seem to be writing this, as if you've come to grips with it,  as if nothing can be done.  is this how you think?  we are all surely doomed with this kind of an attitude.

they can because we let them. plain and simple.  i've often wondered why the citizenry didn't "pack" Congress with its own people and demand our country back.  i think we've taken this republicanism a bit too far.  so many have forgotten that the representative part of "elected representatives".  we know we can put them in office, but i think we've forgotten we can take them out too.  and we don't necessarily have to wait for the next election either.

No kidding?  This is a pro-RKBA site?  This is where I ended up after typing "Handgun Control Inc." in my search engine....

My point was that we (society) [b]do[/b] accept restrictions on our rights in trade for security.  The only difference is to what degree we accept them.

If you take the second amendment literally it would mean that:

- A convicted murderer has the RKBA (in prison and after release)
- A suspect on trial for murder/rape/shoplifting has the RKBA at his trial
- A parent who takes the shotgun away from their 7 year old child is violating their RKBA
- A patient committed to a mental institution has a RKBA
- Brandishing or threatening with a weapon would not be a crime
- Using a firearm in a criminal act would not be punishable because you were exercising your rights (it would be like adding additional punishment to someone convicted of DUI because they were voting or practicing religion at the time the crime was committed)

These restrictions on our Second Amendment rights are nearly universally accepted because the tradeoff in terms of security and safety is deemed to be worth the sacrifice.  But make no mistake about it, we are trading our rights for security and we are doing so willingly.

Of course there comes a point when the law of diminishing returns sets in.  Eventually the additional rights sacrificed will reap only marginal advances in security and it's time to stop.  I think we've gone way past that point and some reversal is in order.  

What I have a problem with is the blanket statement that trading rights for security makes no sense.  It ignores reality and shifts the debate away from where it needs to be.

- A convicted murderer has the RKBA (in prison and after release)--in prison-no rights(a ward of the state) there should not be an after

- A suspect on trial for murder/rape/shoplifting has the RKBA at his trial-nope-in custody-ward of the state-but innocent until proven guilty

- A parent who takes the shotgun away from their 7 year old child is violating their RKBA-
why shoudln't children protect themselves?
although a 12 gauge may be a little much for a 7 year old

- A patient committed to a mental institution has a RKBA---nope-ward of the state

- Brandishing or threatening with a weapon would not be a crime--brandishing-nope threatening-initiation of force--yep
- Using a firearm in a criminal act would not be punishable because you were exercising your rights (it would be like adding additional punishment to someone convicted of            DUI because they were voting or practicing religion at the time the crime was committed)
--criminal act--self-defeating argument

Every argument that you put forward except two,
involve a criminal act. Are you labeling everyone a criminal? Your situations do not apply to a large slice of the population and seem to be taken right out of a HCI manual.
There is no way that we can be more safe than to increase the posessions of guns.

oh I missed this one...
What I have a problem with is the blanket statement that trading rights for security makes no sense. It ignores reality and shifts the
debate away from where it needs to be.

Can you give ONE example of giving up rights making us more secure?

I already did.  The Second Amendment doesn't say "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people [b]who aren't convicted criminals, committed mental patients or suspects on trial [/b]to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Yet we have narrowed the interpretation of this right to exclude certain categories of people, e.g. we restricted or revoked their rights.  Why did we do this?  To provide greater security to society.  

There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with a seven year old using a shotgun responsibly.  But does he have a right to do so?  If the second amendment guarantees it then it would trump a parents desire to take it away from him, wouldn't it?  After all, there is no constitutional protection for raising your child how you choose.  Or maybe we've realized that the second amendment (like all of them) has restrictions on it that aren't explicitly stated.

You claim that people on trial are a ward of the state and thus not allowed to exercise their right.  Where is this spelled out?  They still enjoy protection of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments during pre-trial confinement and while on trial.  Why don't they enjoy protection from the second amendment?  The simple answer is that it just aint a good idea.  The more complete answer is that we, as society, have determined that it is in our net interest to restrict his right in order to enhance our security.

Do you believe that we shouldn't make this tradeoff?

Here's another example of sacrificing rights for security.  Do I have the right to do anything I want on my property?  Nope.  My right to dump toxic chemicals into the stream that passes through my land has been restricted in order to provide society some security from people dumping toxic wastes in the water.  Do I have the right to erect a transmitting tower and broadcast in any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum?  How would such a right enhance security?  It could certainly degrade security by interfering with police, fire, and emergency broadcasts.

(continued)

(continuation)

How about another example.  Does my right to freedom of the press extend to publishing harmful lies about others?  Does my right to free speech give me the right to say anything I want?  Again, the answer is no.  We have traded our right to participate in these acts for some security of not being their victim.

Let's touch upon religion.  The Constitution protects my free exercise of religion.  Therefore I'm permitted to practice religion in any form I want, right?  Even if that includes sacrificing virgins in a pentagram by candlelight at midnight on the summer solstice?  Nope, I don't have the right to do that.  That right has been traded for freedom from being subjected to that (although it is a lot easier and more fun to just lose your virginity).  The constitution doesn't spell out this limitation but it exists nonetheless.

I don't support more gun control laws.  I'm opposed to magazine capacity limits, firearms prohibition based on cosmetic features, mandatory registration, CCW restrictions, and nearly every other regulation.

I vote, join, and donate in accordance with my beliefs because I want to see things change for the better.  But the fact remains that the argument of "This is my right; it is inviolate and you can't take it away" is an absolute non-starter in effecting this change.  There is already a recognized tradeoff between rights and security (see above examples).  You won't get anywhere on this path because there is no credibility in law or in public opinion.  

The proper focus is on a measurement of what is gained versus what is lost when we talk about rights. We have seen that there is a tremendous gain and little loss from liberalizing concealed carry laws, and that has been used to great effect across the country to force change.  We have also seen, particularly in  Great Britain, that there is little to gain and much to lose by restricting or eliminating firearms ownership among private, law abiding citizens.

There are well established precedents that Constitutional rights are not limitless.  You can argue that it shouldn't be that way but you lost that battle decades ago.  Reciting the second amendment is inspirational but it doesn't get the job done.  Larry Flynt didn't win his first amendment battles by simply arguing that his speech was protected and leaving the courtroom.  Nor should he have.  He won by showing that the effect on society of censoring his publication was greater than the harm to society of letting it exist.

That's how the laws governing our guns will be decided.  If you think otherwise then you've missed the boat and are fighting the wrong battle.

I will not quote you because it would be too long. First excellent arguments and I think our
world view is exactly opposite. You want the gov't to protect you with laws and I don't.
Words mean what they say. I gave some real world examples of the way things are and you want to take it into the realm of what-if. Maybe I should have stuck with my personal belief of NO RESTRICTIONS On the bill of rights. Do as thou
shalt is the whole of the law. But in that society, anyone that did the examples you gave would cease breathing real quick. I am rather confused about the tone of the rest of your answer...I want no restrictions on the Bill of Rights. I do not trust the Gov't enough to place my life in their hands. And of course you will once again answer with criminal examples, once again that is a self-defeating argument. When
America realizes that we were once made free and we have been giving responsbility back to the Gov't ever since....things may change. But I see too many people like yourself who really want a mommy...

So do you want no government at all or just one that doesn't protect it's citizens?  What would be the function of such a government?



No, I'm trying to stick with reality.  Rather than wishing that there was no government or wishing that the BOR was taken literally or wishing that I could just snuff out anybody who violates my code of conduct I'm focusing on how things really are.  We [b]do[/b] have a government, there [b]are[/b] limits on the BOR, and there [b]are[/b] restrictions on what we can and can't do as individuals.  As much as you might wish it were otherwise, it just aint so.



You would kill somebody for slandering you?  For building an antenna on their property?  No thanks.



You have a double standard.  The fact that these acts, such as libel, are crimes is evidence that we have forfeited a claim to a portion of our rights (free speech in this case) in order to gain the security this offers.  So you would kill somebody for libel but you also think that they have an unrestricted freedom of the press?  I don't get it.  Remember what my initial argument was: we are already giving up rights to gain security.  The real matter of discussion concerns the degree.

(continued)

(continuing)(I'm long winded)

As far as "trusting my life to the government" I don't recall asking or ever being asked to do this.  When we give up something we aren't giving it up to the government.  We are giving it up to our friends, neighbors, and even our enemies in exchange for something.  The government is the representative of the people that holds us responsible when we don't fulfill that obligation.  If you read a court transcript it will read "The People of the State of..... versus ....."  



Ahh yes, the good old days of freedom.  When the government passed no laws and when man was free to do as he pleased.  What point in our nations history was that again?



Yep, I do want a mommy.  I happen to care for her very much and will miss her when she's gone.  Unless she gets elected to office, however, I'll keep her and my government separate.

Bottom line is this-You don't get to decide whether or not your rights will be exchanged for security.  That tradeoff has already been established and can only change in degree.  

While you rail on about the absolute sanctity of your rights, others have comprehended the fact that no such thing exists and are working to take as many of your rights as they can in exchange for as little as possible.  You can continue to bitch about it or you can progress to getting back those rights whose loss didn't provide adequate compensation (i.e. the shift in CCW attitudes) and working to prevent further erosion of rights whose loss doesn't provide adequate return.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't an absolute.  None of them are.  Never have been and never will be.  They are a continuum that we all slide along and some stand at one end where they think the rights should be, scratching their heads and saying "Well, shucks, they were here".  The others-the ones that make a difference-are out there in the middle giving it a healthy push back where it ought to be.

Food for thought:
1.  Is there anything worth completely sacrificing a right for?

2.  Is there any right that should be preserved at all imaginable costs?

Theoretical Question (okay, hound, I'm now venturing away from reality[;)]):
[b]IF[/b] there was a method that would eliminate, with 100% certainty, all criminal usage of firearms for 30 random days of the year, would you be willing to have a one day waiting period on firearm purchases throughout the year?  How about if it was 60 random days?  Is there any number of days that you would accept in exchange for a one day postponement of your right to purchase a firearm?

This isn't a loaded question.  It's not about waiting periods or about any impact on crime they may or may not have.  It's just a framework for a question on trading rights for security.

woohoo...just me and you and no mudslinging..
here, have a beer.
Our gov't was set up with finely restricted duties..protect citizens from outside not themselves--no war on drugs.Slander..possibly
antenna--nope We once again have a terribly different world view. You keep bringing up criminal acts and acting as if the Gov't is the only thing that keeps the darkness at bay. I really think that we as a people could do a better job with more responsibility over our own lives and actions. Unrestricted freedom of the press would be wonderful...if you didn't like it,don't buy it or group together and make sure the individual in question doesn't ever work again. Giving up a right that I have through gov't regulation is not my idea of security.
Search and seizure has been rampantly misused and I am sure that you can think of other examples where the people have come out on the short end of the stick.

Whether or not my rights will be exchanged for security----nope
Let's just put it this way...you can stand in the middle with the NRA and The republican party, and trade away the rights of the people
for nothing(compromise on the left means YOU GIVE US WHAT WE WANT) and I will stand out here in the pasture and scream--that's enough!!
Freedom to you is chains and restrictions, not to most people in history and certainly not to the majority of people who started this nation.
Should there be a framework---YES
Should it be as entangling and enfeebling as it is now- NO

Nope on your last question....An armed man is a citizen...an unarmed one a peasant.

And once again you bring up criminal....can we try to live life without using the boogie man.

Okay, I'll cover the criminal thing one more time.  The acts are criminal acts under the current system and interpretation of the Constitution that we now have.  Even though they are forms of speech, press, religion, etc... they are not protected forms.  

In your world of [b]unrestricted[/b] rights these would not be criminal.  They would be protected, legitimate forms of expression.

Why the difference?  People got together and essentially said "I won't tell lies about you if you don't tell lies about me" they agreed on this and then also agreed that if somebody did violate this pact that the entire body of people, as manifested by their government, would provide punishment for the infraction.  They were willing to give up a portion of their absolute right to freedom of expression in exchange for freedom from misinformation and lies.

What happens in a contract dispute between an seller and buyer if one upholds their end of the bargain but the other doesn't?  Does it just go to whomever is the biggest and strongest?  Whoever can assemble the largest group of friends and relatives to impose his will?



So child pornography would be acceptable in your world?  That's one outcome of unrestricted freedom of the press.  Or would you band together your posse and take care of it on your own?  You can't have it both ways- you can't say that there should be complete freedom and then punish them when they exercise it.  That's not freedom.



The government and society aren't perfect, no dount about it.  While I would rather have our government function the way it was intended than the way it does, I'll accept what we have over no government at all.  Again I challenge you to provide a single example of where that concept has been successful.

Of course there's vast room for improvement, but that improvement comes about by understanding what we have to work with and what steps are involved.  Even if your proposed scenario was desirable, is it likely or even possible?  Should we direct efforts at the long shot with the big payoff or at the smaller victories with that have more assured success?  




Have been, are being, and will be.  Nothing you do, short of completely removing yourself from society, will change that.  Focus on getting the best exchange rate possible.

While I don't necessarily agree with your unrestricted rights view, I do respect and share several of the principles, such as personal responsibility, on which it's built.  Been good talking to you and thanks for the beer.  I'm moving on now...

[left]Why do you think we own evil looking assult rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammo for. has the news media would put it you didnt think we bought them for nothing did you.[/left]

Ok, I'll jump in here and expose myself to the "friendly" fire [;)]

I think the extremely important thing that you(jsprag) are forgetting (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that rights are not simply carte blanche to do as one feels led to do - rights carry responsibilities.

F'r instance:

Freedom of the press carries with it the responsibility to print [b]truth[/b], not lies.  Printing lies will get one into trouble in some way (whether through slander/libel law, or boycott)

The RKBA carries with it the responsibility to handle firearms in a safe and intelligent manner.  Just because you can't do so (not meaning *you* personally) doesn't mean you can't own any, it just means you must accept the consequenses if you mishandle them - be it someone shooting you in selfdefense, or other consequence.

The road we (as a country) have headed down is one of abdicating personal responsibility in an attempt to have the government be responsible for us.  It can't be without restricting our rights!



If freedom of the press were excersized responsibly, there would be no child pornography.  A responsible person first off wouldn't subject a child to such a thing, and secondly wouldn't publish it. What you are suggesting is anarchy



Ah, finally a nod to personal responsibility.  Of course, the real problem is that not all are responsible - and that is why there are certain laws.

Notice, that the restrictions, and restraints should only affect those that refuse to be responsible with the rights [b]enumerated[/b] in the constitution.  Currently there are a lot of restrictions on those of us that take our responsibilities seriously...this is really where the problem lies.

There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His
profet.....preach on brother.

And no piling on jsprag....I think he left.


personal responsibility---woohoo
Creed for the day
Do not initiate violence...child porn,libel,etc
are all violence.

Nah, wasn't piling on jsprag... just trying to focus the discussion on the responsibility part of rights.

Of course, it's a little early for a beer... but we're all friends here, just shooting the breeze [:)]

Big smiley's
Yep we managed to run that discussion for much longer than some of the others with-out mudslinging...I guess it is good occassionally for the Libertarians and the republicans to have a discussion...NOPE I did not vote for Brown
Or anyone the national party puts forth...
L.Neil Smith maybe.......