|
|
-
 Originally Posted by N0SYA
He didn't get what he came for and that is all I care about. Later I found out he was being watched by more than one jurisdiction and was finaly arrested, and if he hadn't run away like a little girl and had made me feel in danger of my life I would have saved the state and local government a lot of money and time and other resources. That would have been a true service to my neighbors.
Spoken like a like a citizen we can all be proud of! LOL
Finally arrested. Good thing for those cops, eh? 
-
And of course all of this is nothing but diversion from the original topic, which is collecting information.
A database is not knowledge. A database must be searched. YOU are not being monitored. Everything is being recorded and has been for many years, but I can assure you that no one is reading or listening to it all. As databases are updated with recorded digital communcations, amounting to many terabytes of data, the data is searched for triggers. This will be done by intelligent software. No one is looking at YOU specifically unless something about your data catches a trigger.
What some of you don't seem to realize is that there is so much data that the authorities would have to have a very good reason to find anything relating to YOU specifically.
WE are not being watched. Digital data is being examined. Someone asked about the government "knowing" which Internet sites I visit as an example of intrusion. They don't "know" unless they have some specific reason to search for it, targeting me specifically. Now I would be very interested to find out why I would be specifically targeted, but until I know that has happened, I won't live my life with a certainty that it has because that makes no sense.
-
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
The Constitution was written in plain English, interpretation in not necessary.
NONSENSE!
Consider just the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
Now, what exactly does that mean? Not in generalities, but specifics?
Does the part about "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state" (!! The S-word!!) mean the right only applies to members of a militia? Or do the rights extend to everyone?
Who are "the people" in this context? Every individual? Every adult? Every citizen? What about children, the mentally ill, convicted criminals, suspects in criminal cases, foreigners, etc.? Do they have the same rights?
What does "keep and bear" mean? To have in one's home? Place of business? Vehicle? In public? Can a government facility say that "the people" cannot bring "arms" into a county courthouse, public school or other government facility?
What are "arms", anyway? Firearms only? Weapons of any description? Explosives, crossbows, etc.? Automatic weapons, flamethrowers, cannons?
Most of all, what does it mean to "be infringed"? Is the requirement to get a permit (of whatever kind) "infringement"? How about limits on what I can carry, transport, own, buy, sell? Fees, tests, registrations, other requirements?
If a bright but disturbed 15 year old wants to carry live hand grenades to school in his backpack, is that a right protected under the Second Amendment?
The point of all these questions is simply to prove that the Constitution is extremely interpretation-dependent. The basic idea is simple; the interpretation and implementation is very complex. The courts have made all sorts of rulings on the above, yet the debate continues. And that's about just one sentence of the Bill of Rights!
The idea that "no interpretation is necessary" is nonsense. Interpretation is 99% of the issue!
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
All one need do is read the writings of the framers of the Constitution the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. It's all right there and their intent is timeless.
Their writings are about their personal opinions. The Constitution is the law, those papers are simply arguments pro and con. And the intent has evolved over time; the founders allowed discrimination against all sorts of people (non-whites and women, to name just two).
Their ideas may be timeless but the interpretations evolve over time.
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
Actually it's not complicated, people tend to pervert the meaning of the Constitution to suite their agenda. This is obvious to someone who has not been drinking tap water all their life.
Ah, the ad hominem fallacy used against someone who disagrees with you.
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
You seem to conveniently leave out the process of obtaining a warrant, which by the way that process is clearly called out in the Bill of Rights.
Ever hear of "probable cause"?
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
I am left with the impression you would give up all your rights if it would release responsibility from you for your own safety. that you want a "Plug and Play" government , our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of turning our back on givernment.
False dichotomy fallacy noted.
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
Look at that that attitude has brought us. Cops can now strip search you even if you are held without charge. Is that really the government you want to leave to your children?? If I had children I would be afraid they would curse me if I left them the mess we have now.
But you don't have any children.
The ruling of the court did not come from me. I do not agree with it. I did not appoint most of those justices, nor vote for the folks who did. Why blame me?
I suspect the real issue you have, Sue, is wanting a simple answer to complex problems. And not wanting to be proved wrong by folks you consider inferior - like me.
Sorry, I can't give you either.
73 de Jim, N2EY
-
Add to Jim's well-written post is that language changes as well: meanings and intents change over time so what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned our important documents may not be interpreted as written now because English itself has changed over the centuries. That, and they were probably somewhat general with their language because they didn't want people to examine the minutiae and nuance of every single word or phrase, trying to tweak a law to favor the few over the many...as we do now.
It's like having too many rights--sooner or later you'll find out that you don't have any.
-
GCHQ has been "listening" to all forms of communication for years, I thought everybody knew. There are phone exchanges in Britain where calls have been monitored for years, and one not far from where I live which is underground and cannot be seen. There are antenna installations on British dependency Islands all around the world which connect to GCHQ and involve US personnel.
The secret service has been "snooping" on mail since it was formed in the early 1900's during WW1 all mail to and from the US was opened while in transit and this led to the arrest of a number of German spies in the US. Lots of books have been written, read these and all will be revealed
-
Originally Posted by WF7A
Add to Jim's well-written post is that language changes as well: meanings and intents change over time so what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned our important documents may not be interpreted as written now because English itself has changed over the centuries. That, and they were probably somewhat general with their language because they didn't want people to examine the minutiae and nuance of every single word or phrase, trying to tweak a law to favor the few over the many...as we do now.
I hadn't thought of that, but you're exactly right. Words and phrases take on new meanings, and the old ones are lost.
Here's a perfect example:
http://mysite.verizon.net/dpnewkirk/ej/jim_193504.htm
How many hams today (besides me) can read that story and explain what all the various terms mean? And the context?
73 de Jim, N2EY
-
NGN;
I know you think my choice is absurd, I tend to think the same thing of some pervert putting his hands in my slacks looking for a bomb.
You give police too much power and the next thing you know all your rights are gone. The intent of the founding fathers was for the federal government to be small and the police to walk a thin line between keeping order and maintaining the rights of both the victims and the accused. Regardless of how law enforcment came into being; They serve the public they have no "Authority" status they serve the public and the common good. They are only assigned one task to enforce the laws that are Constitutional, and do it in a manner that conforms to the Bill of Rights. An Authority makes policy, writes books and papers, is an expert on something. Cops are none of the above.
Actually I did answer your question,
Go look again.
My answer was
Anybody who sticks their hands under my cloths or fondles my genitals externally is a pervert unless I am wearing a ring provided by them.
I don't give a Rat's Output Port who it is.
This is good.........
So, you protected yourself. Good for you! Seriously. What would you have had the police do differently? Are you 35 years in the same neighborhood? House? I think not, so it was not the incompetence of a single police force. Many personal crimes go unsolved. You blame the police for this? What would you have them do....violate some suspect's rights in order to apprehend him?
Oh I know, you don't care about the criminal's rights. Not many people do. The problem is that pesky innocent until proven guilty.
Same police farce (force) SDPD two different locations in the city. The first two attacks were six miles or so from here and the last three were within three miles of here, all five were in broad daylight.
Oh and you are right; I don't give a tinkers damned for the rights of someone beating on me, I want them to stop and I will do whatever it takes to make them stop even rob them of their ability to reproduce. It's obvious someone I have to fight off shouldn't be bringing children into this world in the first place.
On the other hand when I sit on a jury all bias goes out the window.
If I cannot sit as a juror with no bias than I won't serve.
By the way;
Thank you for your service to our country.
You would give your life for the Constitution, Cool.
73,
Sue
AF6LJ
Conspiracy Theorists Are People
Who Question The Statements Made By Known Liars.
-
Originally Posted by N2EY
NONSENSE!
Consider just the 2nd Amendment:
The second Amendment
As passed by the Congress: 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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. [8]
Thank You Wikipedia...
Depends on which version you choose, but there is very little difference.
The second version is closest to what our founding fathers had intended, and is the version that gives the states the most power of self protection.
In that version the people of any given state are the recognized militia that includes (at the time) every able bodied man above the age of consent, therefore every man of the age of majority has the right to own firearms.
It doesn't matter if he is a preacher or an ex-felon. In ether definition there is no provision for excluding that right from anybody.
Some would argue this is a moot point since the passage of the Seventh Amendment effectively stripping the state's role in the balance of power, leaving then at the mercy of an ever growing, ever intrusive federal government.
The idea that some so called expert has the right to interrupt the Constitution to conform to his or her agenda is foolishness, simple pure foolishness.
I do know what probable cause is you should read the requirments set down by the Fourth Amendment.
Here let me quote it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Read it very carefully..............
Persons Houses and Papers does include computers and cell phones, and anything not viable in the drivers compartment of a car and all closed spaces in same.
Maybe it's a good thing I don't have children, they wouldn't set foot in a public school among other things.
73,
Sue
AF6LJ
Conspiracy Theorists Are People
Who Question The Statements Made By Known Liars.
-
Read it very carefully..............
Persons Houses and Papers does include computers and cell phones, and anything not viable in the drivers compartment of a car and all closed spaces in same.
Maybe it's a good thing I don't have children, they wouldn't set foot in a public school among other things.
'effects', as the words computer and cell phones had not been in use back them, one could certainly interpret 'effects' to mean those kinds of items. If the search warrant says they want access to your computer that is well within a judges authority to grant assuming he agrees with their probable cause claim.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
WA6TKD, Larry
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
