"Society of Informers" Is Feared

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The reign of terror continues:

President Hugo Chávez has used his decree powers to carry out a major overhaul of this country’s intelligence agencies, provoking a fierce backlash here from human rights groups and legal scholars who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/americas/03venez.html

What do you think of the Patriot act?

Originally posted by shavixmir
What do you think of the Patriot act?

You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

Yes, it was important that the president illegally phone tap fellow citizens wasn't it.

Of course, only in a true dictatorship would such illegalities get swept under the carpet without punishment.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

What constitutes an enemy? Someone who doesn't bend over and give you everything you want?

It's amazing what talking to (as the so soft Barack Obama has said he'll do) your 'enemies' achieves, isn't it? Libya was a huge threat not so long ago ... North Korea, one of the three biggies ... now??

Has your culture become so self-centred and greedy that compromise is no longer possible? Is 'Me'-ism the new religion in America?

Edit: Go back and read your constitution and all the other stuff your founding fathers produced - they really were on to something ... now, it looks like only the right to bear arms is worthy of keeping unequivocally ... and ironically, that's the one right that should be most open to dispute.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The reign of terror continues:

President Hugo Chávez has used his decree powers to carry out a major overhaul of this country’s intelligence agencies, provoking a fierce backlash here from human rights groups and legal scholars who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/world/americas/03venez.html

Sounds like Chavez is doing the same thing as Bush did with the Patriot Act. Ironically, Bush himself is being used as a "Phantom Menace" by some other leaders in a similar way that Bush took advantage of the US's collective PTSD after the 9/11 attacks.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

Got any evidence to back up this claim about the Democrats?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao used similar logic to yours. I guess you are too young to remember when the US was a free country.
I acquired a copy of the original copy of FISA when it was first proposed way back in 1979. It read like the Patriot Act. It was watered down when the public protested that it shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The bill was endorsed by leading Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives AND Liberals.
You are foolish to think that this is a battle between conservatives and liberals. It is a battle between Fascism and Liberty.
Pick your side.

Originally posted by caissad4
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao used similar logic to yours. I guess you are too young to remember when the US was a free country.
I acquired a copy of the original copy of FISA when it was first proposed way back in 1979. It read like the Patriot Act. It was watered down when the public protested that it shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The bill was ...[text shortened]... between conservatives and liberals. It is a battle between Fascism and Liberty.
Pick your side.

Dang -- you played the Hitler card! I lose. Thread closed. Everyone go home, there's nothing more for you to see.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Dang -- you played the Hitler card! I lose. Thread closed. Everyone go home, there's nothing more for you to see.

Stifle the sound bites and back your bile with coherent arguements.

Can you?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You know, you hear all these bleeding hearts hollering about how it shreds the Constitution, but in the end, the Democrats are so soft on foreign policy that they're rooting for or even colluding with our enemies, thus making something like the Patriot Act necessary.

Bet you wouldn't be so dismissive of violating the constitution if it involved your precious guns.

Originally posted by mrstabby
Bet you wouldn't be so dismissive of violating the constitution if it involved your precious guns.

Yep, even if he doesn't actually belong to a well-regulated militia

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Dang -- you played the Hitler card! I lose. Thread closed. Everyone go home, there's nothing more for you to see.

Internet geeks have come up with the counter. It's called Godwin's Law.

Originally posted by karnachz
Yep, even if he doesn't actually belong to a well-regulated militia

I just had an internet discussion about this with my friend. Here's what he offered up:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Right to Bear Arms."

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law
restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders'
writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need
to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is
turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "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."

The Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second
Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any
state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms
for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed
that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage
in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language,"
published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language,"
published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster
defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right"
was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure
enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.

Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and
individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to
lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation";
"Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms"
were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of
the body."

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in
their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a
person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and
heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by
contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies,
regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend
military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue
their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or
restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not
soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise;
indispensably requisite"; "Security" as "protection; effectual defense or
safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not
enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed
laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not
subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of
people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government
... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire
body politic.

During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment
would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been
obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second
Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the
people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right"
would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for
security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not
include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include
prohibition.

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner.
Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for
protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can
still refer to Noah Webster.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I just had an internet discussion about this with my friend. Here's what he offered up:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/164311

In Webster's English
Stephen P. Halbrook

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute,
Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of
the Right ...[text shortened]... .

wow, this deserves its own thread.

Originally posted by karnachz
Yep, even if he doesn't actually belong to a well-regulated militia

But he does belong to a militia. There are two militia acts that state all men within a certain age range are in the militia and are required to have at hand a weapon of military design and be ready to report for duty. Look it up.

GRANNY.