[Jr_Bullit]

A little more -
Here's one for Rhino http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/eveningnews/main586959.shtml
"There's nothing more fundamentally un-American than punishing people for the content of their speech," says Chris Hansen, of the ACLU.

Civil liberties

The topic of civil liberties would include a discussion of:

* freedom of expression (speech)
* freedom from arbitrary arrest
* freedom of religion
* right to vote
* right to privacy
* freedom from discrimination
* unreasonable search and seizure
* self-incrimination
* due process
* equal protection under the law, as it pertains to race, sex (including lesbian and gay rights), abortion, disability

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates our basic civil rights:

First: Provides for freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances.

Second: Grants the right to bear arms.

Third: Grants freedom from quartering soldiers in a house without the owner's consent.

Fourth: Protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, a safeguard only recently extended to the states.

Fifth: Provides that no person shall be held for "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" without indictment, be twice put in "jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense, be compelled to testify against himself, or "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Sixth: Guarantees the right of speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal proceedings.

Seventh: Guarantees the right of trial by jury in almost all common-law suits.

Eighth: Prohibits excessive bail, fines and "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth: "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."

 

[T-Dog]

http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html

i've posted this before, as well as my analysis of it. important ones:



just because you don't notice something doesn't mean that it hasn't happened

That's true....lots going on behind the scenes that the average person doesn't notice. I also haven't noticed any more acts of terrorism on our soil....
I really don't have a problem with any of the above listed actions......how else are future attacks going to be prevented? You can't have it both ways...If govt. agencies are going to be able to gather reliable intel, keep future terrorists out of the country (and out of the pilot schools here) and shoe bombers are to be kept off planes, etc etc etc etc. Then some expansion of surveillance powers, profiling, detention is going to have to happen. In a perfect world everyone would be free to do as they wish without fear of anyone looking at them or wondering what they are up to....but as long as there are fanatics who want to kill large numbers of our population, that's how it has to be.

It's ironic to me that the same people who hate GB and fault him for using bad intel are the same ones who vigorously oppose any expansion of powers for our govt.

 

[N8 v2.0]

A little more -
Here's one for Rhino http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/eveningnews/main586959.shtml
"There's nothing more fundamentally un-American than punishing people for the content of their speech," says Chris Hansen, of the ACLU.

Civil liberties

The topic of civil liberties would include a discussion of:

* freedom of expression (speech)
* freedom from arbitrary arrest
* freedom of religion
* right to vote
* right to privacy
* freedom from discrimination
* unreasonable search and seizure
* self-incrimination
* due process
* equal protection under the law, as it pertains to race, sex (including lesbian and gay rights), abortion, disability

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates our basic civil rights:

First: Provides for freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances.

Second: Grants the right to bear arms.

Third: Grants freedom from quartering soldiers in a house without the owner's consent.

Fourth: Protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, a safeguard only recently extended to the states.

Fifth: Provides that no person shall be held for "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" without indictment, be twice put in "jeopardy of life or limb" for the same offense, be compelled to testify against himself, or "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Sixth: Guarantees the right of speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal proceedings.

Seventh: Guarantees the right of trial by jury in almost all common-law suits.

Eighth: Prohibits excessive bail, fines and "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth: "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."

I find it humorous when the liberals yack on and on about the Constitution's Bill of Rights being sacred yet the 2nd Amendment is ignored.

Not saying Miz Jr_Bullit is guilty of doing this but it is something that lib's in general are quite guilty of.

Imagine if the 1st Amendment was as restricted as the 2nd.

 

[T-Dog]

A little more -
Here's one for Rhino http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/eveningnews/main586959.shtml
"There's nothing more fundamentally un-American than punishing people for the content of their speech," says Chris Hansen, of the ACLU.

Civil liberties......

QUOTE]


Yep. I just don't see how any of those liberties have been destroyed. And for the record I don't believe that someone flying in from another country automatically qualifies for civil liberties that we provide for our citizens.

 

[T-Dog]

[QUOTE=Jr_BullitCESR. "These include the right to economic security and a decent standard of living, the right of children convicted of crimes not to be executed, the right to a fair trial, the right to seek asylum, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, among any others," she added, noting that the U.S. has the developed world's highest child poverty rate and that 20 percent of adults are functionally illiterate.

Ok....these rights exist. Also included in that is the right to actually pay attention in school, and study, and learn something. And to get off your ass and go get a job, even if it isn't the one that you've always wanted; to provide a stable home environment for your kids, and to make sure you can provide for them before starting a family........I have a friend (a nurse- very responsible person) who's daughter just got pregnant. The kid's nineteen- barely graduated from high school (hated it and never studied). Doesn't have a job, but went out and managed to buy a new car so has 400.00 a month payments on that. I guess that kid is going to probably qualify as being impoverished....and that airhead of a chick could almost be called illiterate....but I fail to see how the US government is supposed to legislate or create a program to cure laziness and stupidity. The opportunities are there.

 

[-BB-]

Ask a kurd.

I have (just one), and they said it isn't.
They preferred it when Saddam was in power and we were keeping him from bombing them. Then they were autonimous, now they are just a minority in a big 'ol country.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I have (just one), and they said it isn't.
They preferred it when Saddam was in power and we were keeping him from bombing them. Then they were autonimous, now they are just a minority in a big 'ol country.

Awww... well that just sucks.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I find it humorous when the liberals yack on and on about the Constitution's Bill of Rights being sacred yet the 2nd Amendment is ignored.

Not saying Miz Jr_Bullit is guilty of doing this but it is something that lib's in general are quite guilty of.

Imagine if the 1st Amendment was as restricted as the 2nd.

I support the right to bear arms. Went looking at one for myself recently.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I support the right to bear arms. Went looking at one for myself recently.

A handgun?

Something stealthy? Like a snub-nosed hammerless .38 revolver?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

A handgun?

Something stealthy? Like a snub-nosed hammerless .38 revolver?

For my first it'll be a revolver. I liked this small Ruger, dual action, that could use both .38ACP and .357mag.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

You're right, they do exist, but they are being steadily chipped away at. Most won't notice them until and unless you're in a situation where the government has focused it's attention on you, or until and unless they are fully removed. You're story is very touching, we all know of folks who abuse the system rather than use it properly.

 

[T-Dog]

You're right, they do exist, but they are being steadily chipped away at. Most won't notice them until and unless you're in a situation where the government has focused it's attention on you, or until and unless they are fully removed. You're story is very touching, we all know of folks who abuse the system rather than use it properly.

I didn't relate that anecdote because it was "touching"......it's a good example of how statistics can be misleading. It's really "touching" to hear that 20% of children in this country are living in poverty; but that conveys an idea that the economy here is the cause of that. And in lots of cases laziness and failure of parents to properly care for their kids is the reason. And living in poverty in the U.S. sure as hell ain't the same as poverty in a 3rd world country. You can be technically impoverished in the U.S. and be perfectly healthy, have enough to eat, get health care and go to school.
right back atcha.

 

[biggins]

Wait, the ones saddam killed, or the one's that died overthrowing him?

who really cares who saddam killed, its his own damn country.

 

[BurlyShirley]

who really cares who saddam killed, its his own damn country.

Its not "his" actually. And "I" care who he kills.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I didn't relate that anecdote because it was "touching"......it's a good example of how statistics can be misleading. It's really "touching" to hear that 20% of children in this country are living in poverty; but that conveys an idea that the economy here is the cause of that. And in lots of cases laziness and failure of parents to properly care for their kids is the reason. And living in poverty in the U.S. sure as hell ain't the same as poverty in a 3rd world country. You can be technically impoverished in the U.S. and be perfectly healthy, have enough to eat, get health care and go to school.
right back atcha.

Unfortunately, due to time, my response is not as full as I would like, nor do I have time to give you linky-poos to statistics
Be that as it may, the econimic right of people to pursue the "american dream", i.e. their right to work hard - should they choose - and create a better life for themselves, to change their social status, to improve upon their families status and essentially become part of the middle-to-upper class is an ongoing problem that is getting worse, not better as time passes.

You can see from the link below that this really goes back to the early 1900s, (this article is outdated - sorry - I gots to work today too)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_n1_v24/ai_7018972

It boils down to - those with money have an easier time continuing to improve their families fortune, then those without. Those with money can afford the best schools, the better neighborhoods, and can provide their children with more opportunities through social and business connections. Those who come from the lower-classes, regardless of how hard they work, are met with fewer opportunities, have to work harder to get ahead, and most will never achieve their goal of improving or changing their social status.

As national debts mount, and our tax structure continues to be lopsided (wealthy, land owning, business owning folks have greater opportunity for greater tax breaks then does your average working joe) further preventing your hard working low-to-middle class person from improving upon their station.

As for laziness/idleness, that's a plague that hits every first-world nation. To some extent I think those of us who work our bunsies off have a right to be disgusted and envious of those who simply slack off and take full advantage of our current, warped welfare system.

That was a total brain dump, and is probably not clear or concise, but I'll see if I can't address this further later on today.

 

[T-Dog]

Well, sure. I agree with most of what you're saying; but those kinds of things are all just economic realities. Not everyone is going to be rich; some folks aren't smart or talented enough to land a great paying job- no matter how hard they work. Some aren't lucky enough to have parents with money or connections, or friends or relatives or whatever it takes to get a break in this society. And yes businesses get some tax breaks that others (ME) don't get....that's part of economic theory too. (stimulate business, increase profits-businesses expand and create jobs.) But these are all factors that are present in a capitalistic economy/society and short of switching to some sort of socialism will always be there. I guess my point was that yes some people are better off in the US than others but to trot out statistics like the kids living in poverty as proof that the Bush admin. is destroying our way of life is misleading. There are a boatload of socioeconomic factors at work that take years to develop and show effects from and the current admin. has no control over.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Well, sure. I agree with most of what you're saying; but those kinds of things are all just economic realities. Not everyone is going to be rich; some folks aren't smart or talented enough to land a great paying job- no matter how hard they work. Some aren't lucky enough to have parents with money or connections, or friends or relatives or whatever it takes to get a break in this society. And yes businesses get some tax breaks that others (ME) don't get....that's part of economic theory too. (stimulate business, increase profits-businesses expand and create jobs.) But these are all factors that are present in a capitalistic economy/society and short of switching to some sort of socialism will always be there. I guess my point was that yes some people are better off in the US than others but to trot out statistics like the kids living in poverty as proof that the Bush admin. is destroying our way of life is misleading. There are a boatload of socioeconomic factors at work that take years to develop and show effects from and the current admin. has no control over.

Like I always say, "Poverty is a birth defect."

 

[Toshi]

That's true....lots going on behind the scenes that the average person doesn't notice. I also haven't noticed any more acts of terrorism on our soil....
I really don't have a problem with any of the above listed actions......how else are future attacks going to be prevented? You can't have it both ways...If govt. agencies are going to be able to gather reliable intel, keep future terrorists out of the country (and out of the pilot schools here) and shoe bombers are to be kept off planes, etc etc etc etc. Then some expansion of surveillance powers, profiling, detention is going to have to happen. In a perfect world everyone would be free to do as they wish without fear of anyone looking at them or wondering what they are up to....but as long as there are fanatics who want to kill large numbers of our population, that's how it has to be.

It's ironic to me that the same people who hate GB and fault him for using bad intel are the same ones who vigorously oppose any expansion of powers for our govt.

actually it's quite understandable. we fault gwb for using bad intel because he used it as an excuse to implement step 1 of the wolfowitz doctrine. bad intel was not the cause.

second, show me a causal connection between the loss of our rights and the lack of a major terrorist attack in america since 9/11. as has been hashed out elsewhere (see my Rumsfield: 5000 detained, 0 convicted thread) it is far from clear that the government is using its newfound powers of increased surveillance and the suspension habeas corpus to good use. for instance take the whole push by the tsa to establish databases, basically the extension of the current watch list. would this have prevented 9/11? no. the terrorists had valid IDs and visas. yet the push goes on...

 

[Jherek.C]

Second Amendment. US Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of 'well regulated' and 'Militia' do liberals disagree with? I'm neither, but i see the paraphrasing of this amendment by so many people as to be laughable.

The second amendment doesn't apply to John Doe wanting an AR-15 or whatever just so he can defend his El Camino from someone he doesn't like the looks of.

and white-supremacist 'militias' that are 'unregulated' by local, state or federal government a just a bunch of frightened crackers with personal impotence and firearm fixations - just an act of violence away from criminal activity.

Just thought someone should point that out.

 

[T-Dog]

I know it's been debated before (please o please nobody quote that Simpson's tiger rock thing again) but how do you define "good" use? And while the watch list may not have prevented 9/11, I think possible that that tool may help prevent another attack of some kind by someone else. I'm still unclear on which rights you've "lost". (as I said, I don't feel like my life is any different).

Yes, the push goes on......to make this country safer and to try to do something to protect it's citizens. (seems like that's a right too- for our government to do what it can to protect us).

 

[Toshi]

I know it's been debated before (please o please nobody quote that Simpson's tiger rock thing again) but how do you define "good" use? And while the watch list may not have prevented 9/11, I think possible that that tool may help prevent another attack of some kind by someone else. I'm still unclear on which rights you've "lost". (as I said, I don't feel like my life is any different).

Yes, the push goes on......to make this country safer and to try to do something to protect it's citizens. (seems like that's a right too- for our government to do what it can to protect us).

why shouldn't we quote the simpsons? it's perfectly valid here. without evidence to support your assertion of a causal relationship you are engaging in specious reasoning. "help[ing to] prevent another attack of some kind by someone else" is wonderfully vague, just in case that wasn't tongue in cheek.

what rights have "normal" citizens lost? first off you have those who have essentially been abducted by the government. there are many of these cases, and the govt has often not even informed the family of what charges are being brought against the missing person (often because there are no charges -- see "habeas corpus" above). second, the govt now can request library and other traditionally private records, and forbid the library/relevant agency from disclosing this to the affected person. finally the government can now get wiretaps much easier, thanks both to legislation and their ridiculous overuse of the phrases "terrorism" and "homeland security". any abuse of power seemingly is justified if it is for the purposes of securing the homeland...

 

[T-Dog]

It wasn't tongue in cheek....it sounded vague because I don't know of that particular tool preventing anything. You also can't make the assertion that it doesn't work- for the same reason. I don't have any hard evidence that my owning a gun and keeping it handy in my house is doing anything to keep me safer. But I ain't giving it up.

I don't have a problem with the other examples you mentioned. I don't care if the govt. knows which books I check out. They can tap my phone if they think they have a good reason to...I don't like the idea of it, but I have nothing to hide and if these powers will (get ready for vagueness) help to somehow prevent another terrorist attack-ok.

Again, the govt. has got to do something in response to real threats from fanatics who hate us. And while all the methods may not be pe

 

[Toshi]

i can (and did) make the assertion that the govt's methods would not have prevented 9/11. you can theorize about possible attacks that the govt's surveillance and detention may have prevented, but that's different than my assertion (since my assertion can be verified). furthermore i have not seen any justification of these increased powers, most of which were given through the patriot act. this justification is indeed necessary, as these abridged rights are those for which many battles (not necessarily military) were fought.

you should be concerned with intrusive govt surveillance of ordinary citizens (those not charged with a crime). you're only safe as long as the govt and you share similar views. i'm going to go out on a short limb here and guess that you're white, conservative and male so in reality you personally probably have little to worry about. it's wrong that someone who is muslim might be harassed and/or whisked off in the night because they checked out the wrong books or were a little too vocal at the mosque. if you feel it's ok for america to devolve into a police state "since you have nothing to hide" you might want to take a step back, perhaps do some reading about stalinist russia, read some books by authors from that era. (i recommend Zamyatin's "We" for starters.)

 

[ohio]

There's some serious confusion of Liberals vs. Libertarians going on. The civil rights issue is a libertarian one (that is libertarians are opposing the erosion of civil rights INCLUDING the 2nd amendment), and historically conservatives have aligned with libertarians on these issues. I find it ironic (to address N8's statement) that all of a sudden so-called conservatives are playing a game of follow-the-leader and are happy to give up their basic rights to big government just because "their" guy is the one taking the freedoms.

Doesn't anyone else find it disturbing that the same folks who say "well, if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" are OPPOSED to a gun registry/database?


(For the record, my intent was not to derail the thread into a gun control debate and I support the right to bear arms, but advocate the waiting period [along with closure of the gun show loophole] and a national registry.)

 

[N8 v2.0]

(For the record, my intent was not to derail the thread into a gun control debate and I support the right to bear arms, but advocate the waiting period [along with closure of the gun show loophole] and a national registry.)

Cool!

Then you have NO problems with making law abiding citizens who want to join subversive organizations do the exact same thing... right?

 

[T-Dog]

My guns are registered.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Cool!

Then you have NO problems with making law abiding citizens who want to join subversive organizations do the exact same thing... right?

Define subversive organizations please

Also - based on that post, I'd have to say you actually would side with the need to protect our civil liberties, otherwise by joining said subversive organization even if to meet quietly and debate once a week, you could come under government scrutiny and get hauled away in the middle of the night. If this is the case, well then gosh, whatcha doin supporting our current administration who continues to go 'Big Brother' on your ass?

 

[Toshi]

I'd have to say [N8] actually would side with the need to protect our civil liberties, otherwise by joining said subversive organization even if to meet quietly and debate once a week, you could come under government scrutiny and get hauled away in the middle of the night. If this is the case, well then gosh, whatcha doin supporting our current administration who continues to go 'Big Brother' on your ass?

Doesn't anyone else find it disturbing that the same folks who say "well, if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" are OPPOSED to a gun registry/database?

totally separate from the thorny issue of "what is subversive?" is this. props to you two. conservatives in the crowd, please explain why you support gwb's swing towards totalitarianism given the republican party's tradition of social conservatism?

 

[Jherek.C]

conservative:

[adj] *resistant to change

[adj] *conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"

[adj] *unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek

[adj] *avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

[adj] *opposed to liberal reforms

reactionary:

[n] *an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism

[adj] *extremely conservative

which one are we dealing with here?

And finally, since when did the Republicans start becoming Big Government? It's insane as Big Gov is the antithesis of a Free Market - the economic backbone of the GOP.

Me - I'm all for Free Market, Less Government, but I still maintain the supremacy of Liberty - so, what am i?

 

[Toshi]

which one are we dealing with here?

And finally, since when did the Republicans start becoming Big Government? It's insane as Big Gov is the antithesis of a Free Market - the economic backbone of the GOP.

Me - I'm all for Free Market, Less Government, but I still maintain the supremacy of Liberty - so, what am i?

you sound like a libertarian. http://www.lp.org/

the definition of the current regime is neoconservatives. they are socially conservative, religiously fervent, fiscally irresponsible and have an expressed desire to remold the middle east in the west's image. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm and www.pnac.info are good places to start.

 

[ohio]

Cool!

Then you have NO problems with making law abiding citizens who want to join subversive organizations do the exact same thing... right?

You answer my (implied) question first. :dancing:

 

[ohio]

Cool!

Then you have NO problems with making law abiding citizens who want to join subversive organizations do the exact same thing... right?

Okay, I won't hold my breath for you to actually answer a question with an opinion of your own (or even, god forbid, read my entire post).

Registering a gun is like registering a car. It's a database that can be used to trace the item back to it's owner IF it is used in a crime. To my knowledge, it is a closed file that is not used to catalog your personal habits or beliefs, and obviously lawful gun-ownership would never be admissable in court as "character" evidence. That is not true of a registry such as the type you describe above. What an absolutely ludicrous attempt at logic....

 

[genpowell71]

You are correct