If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   While you were wailing about the "fiscal cliff," the Senate decided to heed the advice on a cup of Starbucks and came together to trash the Fourth Amendment and continue warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls   (salon.com) divider line 215
    More: Obvious, Fourth Amendment, warrantless wiretapping, Starbucks, FISA, Julian Sanchez, Ron Wyden, D-Ore, FISA Amendments Act  
•       •       •

2304 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Dec 2012 at 4:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 11:55:00 AM  
media.salon.com

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.
 
2012-12-28 11:56:04 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.


Funny how that works out.
 
2012-12-28 12:01:03 PM  
 And who says nothing bipartisan can get done?
 
2012-12-28 12:17:04 PM  
I'm pretty certain this was happening anyway :/
 
2012-12-28 01:19:15 PM  

Nabb1: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Funny how that works out.


At least we're focusing on the original intent of the 2nd.

And I will never forgive Feinstein for this.
 
2012-12-28 01:30:19 PM  

Diogenes: Nabb1: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Funny how that works out.

At least we're focusing on the original intent of the 2nd.

And I will never forgive Feinstein for this.


If there is anything both parties seem to have an affinity for of late, it's slowly embracing authoritarianism.  Sometimes it's slightly different flavors, but they agree on much more than they disagree on in that area.
 
2012-12-28 01:52:20 PM  
Yousa Welcome!

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-28 01:57:00 PM  

Nabb1: If there is anything both parties seem to have an affinity for of late, it's slowly embracing authoritarianism.


Of late?
 
2012-12-28 02:00:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Nabb1: If there is anything both parties seem to have an affinity for of late, it's slowly embracing authoritarianism.

Of late?


Touche.
 
2012-12-28 02:34:29 PM  
Oh yeah it's soooo authoritarian in here, it's just terrible.
 
2012-12-28 02:49:32 PM  

LasersHurt: Oh yeah it's soooo authoritarian in here, it's just terrible.


Oh, so you like warrantless wiretaps?  Good for you.
 
2012-12-28 03:04:05 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh yeah it's soooo authoritarian in here, it's just terrible.

Oh, so you like warrantless wiretaps?  Good for you.


I did not say that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
2012-12-28 03:06:21 PM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh yeah it's soooo authoritarian in here, it's just terrible.

Oh, so you like warrantless wiretaps?  Good for you.

I did not say that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.


Well, some folks - such as myself and, say, the ACLU - might think that further embracing warrantless wiretaps to be an exercise in authoritarianism.  You seemed to be mocking that sentiment.
 
2012-12-28 03:15:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.


Bullshiat.  SCOTUS determined in DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago that outright gun bans are unconstitutional.  Regulating rifles to use 10-round magazines will disarm the populace just as much as regulating burst fire mode: it won't.  If you require a 30-round mag in your coup d'etat fantasies, then use your imagination.
 
2012-12-28 03:16:15 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Oh yeah it's soooo authoritarian in here, it's just terrible.

Oh, so you like warrantless wiretaps?  Good for you.

I did not say that at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

Well, some folks - such as myself and, say, the ACLU - might think that further embracing warrantless wiretaps to be an exercise in authoritarianism.  You seemed to be mocking that sentiment.


I think I'd rather see a rejection of the idea based on facts, like statistics on the IMPACT of the policy. Are more innocent people being accused of crimes? How often are these wiretaps being done? Has the rate of solving cases increased?

I don't care for emotional and ideological responses - I get that it's "bad," but tell me why, specifically, is it bad? What are the negative effects? In the interest of fairness, what are the positive effects (if any)?
 
2012-12-28 03:22:34 PM  

LasersHurt: I think I'd rather see a rejection of the idea based on facts, like statistics on the IMPACT of the policy. Are more innocent people being accused of crimes? How often are these wiretaps being done? Has the rate of solving cases increased?

I don't care for emotional and ideological responses - I get that it's "bad," but tell me why, specifically, is it bad? What are the negative effects? In the interest of fairness, what are the positive effects (if any)?


Interesting.  So, when it comes for the ability of the government to listen to the phone conversations of private citizens without securing a warrant, that rather than the onus being on the government to show why this exercise is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, you think the burden is on the citizens to protect their rights or accept this?  Honestly, if you think the Fourth Amendment is just an "emotional" or "ideological response," then I don't know how to address that.  It's fairly sad that people will just roll over and give up on civil liberties like this.  It's truly depressing, and, I think ultimately why this country is lost.
 
2012-12-28 03:26:37 PM  

Lumpmoose: Bullshiat.


Or not.
 
2012-12-28 03:29:37 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: I think I'd rather see a rejection of the idea based on facts, like statistics on the IMPACT of the policy. Are more innocent people being accused of crimes? How often are these wiretaps being done? Has the rate of solving cases increased?

I don't care for emotional and ideological responses - I get that it's "bad," but tell me why, specifically, is it bad? What are the negative effects? In the interest of fairness, what are the positive effects (if any)?

Interesting.  So, when it comes for the ability of the government to listen to the phone conversations of private citizens without securing a warrant, that rather than the onus being on the government to show why this exercise is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, you think the burden is on the citizens to protect their rights or accept this?  Honestly, if you think the Fourth Amendment is just an "emotional" or "ideological response," then I don't know how to address that.  It's fairly sad that people will just roll over and give up on civil liberties like this.  It's truly depressing, and, I think ultimately why this country is lost.


I think the onus is on anyone discussing the matter to do so with facts at hand, not just ideology. I don't "think the Fourth Amendment is an emotional response", I think "you losing your shiat and accusing me of "rolling over" on civil liberties because I asked for some information rather than bluster" is an emotional argument.

Asking questions is not a problem, as far as I know. All I am saying is that I don't think things are bad because they sound bad, or because someone told me they are bad. I want to know WHY they are bad - so I'd like an argument based on the outcomes of such policies.

Really, you're reading into my posts what YOU want to argue about, not what I am saying.
 
2012-12-28 03:30:33 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: I think I'd rather see a rejection of the idea based on facts, like statistics on the IMPACT of the policy. Are more innocent people being accused of crimes? How often are these wiretaps being done? Has the rate of solving cases increased?

I don't care for emotional and ideological responses - I get that it's "bad," but tell me why, specifically, is it bad? What are the negative effects? In the interest of fairness, what are the positive effects (if any)?

Interesting.  So, when it comes for the ability of the government to listen to the phone conversations of private citizens without securing a warrant, that rather than the onus being on the government to show why this exercise is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, you think the burden is on the citizens to protect their rights or accept this?  Honestly, if you think the Fourth Amendment is just an "emotional" or "ideological response," then I don't know how to address that.  It's fairly sad that people will just roll over and give up on civil liberties like this.  It's truly depressing, and, I think ultimately why this country is lost.


This, the fiscal cliff and the Bush tax cuts are a few of many examples showing how badly sunset provisions work.  Bills are given an expiration date in order to grease the passing and then no one bothers to check if they're working because, hey, they're law now.
 
2012-12-28 03:32:00 PM  
I recall once reading about how the FISA wiretaps were being abused for purely domestic spying by exploiting a loophole - if both endpoints of a conversation are in the US but the call routes through a foreign link, such as through Canada, then the call is classified as being subject to eavesdrop.  In theory, all you needed was a backdoor into the voice switches that would force all calls from a particular phone to route through Canada and you could eavesdrop to your heart's content.  All supposedly legal under FISA.

I'm curious if that is still going on.
 
2012-12-28 03:35:17 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Lumpmoose: Bullshiat.

Or not.


That's what I was referring to.  I picked one of the more clearly beneficial parts:

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Jared Lee Loughner fired his first and only volley from a 33-round magazine.  He has tackled while he reloaded (after 6 were dead and 13 injured).  That's from one pistol with one high capacity magazine.

The AWB didn't disarm the public last time nor was it found unconstitutional in its 10-year lifespan.  Your 'disarm' word choice is wrong.
 
2012-12-28 03:38:36 PM  

Lumpmoose: SCOTUS determined ... that outright gun bans are unconstitutional.


Has the SCOTUS reviewed any rules regarding training, certification and restricted locales for discharge? Somebody pointed out that a good way to reduce firearms enthusiasm in the US would be for it to adopt the gun club system used by Canada.
 
2012-12-28 03:46:57 PM  

LasersHurt: I think the onus is on anyone discussing the matter to do so with facts at hand, not just ideology. I don't "think the Fourth Amendment is an emotional response", I think "you losing your shiat and accusing me of "rolling over" on civil liberties because I asked for some information rather than bluster" is an emotional argument.

Asking questions is not a problem, as far as I know. All I am saying is that I don't think things are bad because they sound bad, or because someone told me they are bad. I want to know WHY they are bad - so I'd like an argument based on the outcomes of such policies.

Really, you're reading into my posts what YOU want to argue about, not what I am saying.


The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain judicial leave by way of a warrant before executing any search of a person, a person's home or his "papers" and personal effects, and this has long been held to extend to communications such as telephone calls, and specific wire taps have long required a warrant.  And now, we have the government giving blanket authority to itself to engage in wholesale eavesdropping of phone calls anywhere and everywhere with little to no oversight or control and certainly without the sort of warrant that would ordinarily be required in a criminal investigation much to the outrage of many constitutional law scholars and civil liberties experts across wide swaths of the American political spectrum, but rather than put the burden on the government to establish probable cause as to why it needs to do this, you want to shift the burden to the citizenry to explain why blanket, secret electronic monitoring of our phone communications by the NSA conducted with little to no oversight authorized by blanket, vague "warrants" from a secret FISA court shouldn't be done?
 
2012-12-28 03:50:59 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: I think the onus is on anyone discussing the matter to do so with facts at hand, not just ideology. I don't "think the Fourth Amendment is an emotional response", I think "you losing your shiat and accusing me of "rolling over" on civil liberties because I asked for some information rather than bluster" is an emotional argument.

Asking questions is not a problem, as far as I know. All I am saying is that I don't think things are bad because they sound bad, or because someone told me they are bad. I want to know WHY they are bad - so I'd like an argument based on the outcomes of such policies.

Really, you're reading into my posts what YOU want to argue about, not what I am saying.

The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain judicial leave by way of a warrant before executing any search of a person, a person's home or his "papers" and personal effects, and this has long been held to extend to communications such as telephone calls, and specific wire taps have long required a warrant.  And now, we have the government giving blanket authority to itself to engage in wholesale eavesdropping of phone calls anywhere and everywhere with little to no oversight or control and certainly without the sort of warrant that would ordinarily be required in a criminal investigation much to the outrage of many constitutional law scholars and civil liberties experts across wide swaths of the American political spectrum, but rather than put the burden on the government to establish probable cause as to why it needs to do this, you want to shift the burden to the citizenry to explain why blanket, secret electronic monitoring of our phone communications by the NSA conducted with little to no oversight authorized by blanket, vague "warrants" from a secret FISA court shouldn't be done?


Are you just not understanding what I am saying? I feel like you're not even trying to understand what I am saying, because you keep arguing completely irrelevant things.
 
2012-12-28 03:51:06 PM  

Lumpmoose: Dancin_In_Anson: Lumpmoose: Bullshiat.

Or not.

That's what I was referring to.  I picked one of the more clearly beneficial parts:

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Jared Lee Loughner fired his first and only volley from a 33-round magazine.  He has tackled while he reloaded (after 6 were dead and 13 injured).  That's from one pistol with one high capacity magazine.

The AWB didn't disarm the public last time nor was it found unconstitutional in its 10-year lifespan.  Your 'disarm' word choice is wrong.


Pigs.
 
2012-12-28 03:53:41 PM  

LasersHurt: Are you just not understanding what I am saying? I feel like you're not even trying to understand what I am saying, because you keep arguing completely irrelevant things.


You asked why it was bad, correct?  Well, some people think minimizing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to conduct this sort of broad monitoring of people's phone calls without their knowledge is a bad thing in and of itself.
 
2012-12-28 03:56:02 PM  

Nabb1: LasersHurt: Are you just not understanding what I am saying? I feel like you're not even trying to understand what I am saying, because you keep arguing completely irrelevant things.

You asked why it was bad, correct?  Well, some people think minimizing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to conduct this sort of broad monitoring of people's phone calls without their knowledge is a bad thing in and of itself.


I'm not asking about the IDEA, I am asking about ACTUAL outcomes. What is the, for lack of a better word, "real" bad part? Not just that the idea makes you uncomfortable. I get that the idea makes you uncomfortable. I do not dispute this.

Is that the ONLY thing? Surely there is some information out there about how this power has been used, and the outcomes?
 
2012-12-28 04:01:25 PM  

Dinjiin: Lumpmoose: SCOTUS determined ... that outright gun bans are unconstitutional.

Has the SCOTUS reviewed any rules regarding training, certification and restricted locales for discharge? Somebody pointed out that a good way to reduce firearms enthusiasm in the US would be for it to adopt the gun club system used by Canada.


I have no idea although it's an interesting thought.  I don't really have any problem with US firearms enthusiasm.  I just think the line between "fun feature" and "great for mass murders" is a little too lax right now.  If we tighten that up and try to improve mental health services, I think that'd be a good start before we have to worry about social engineering.  Violent crime has been going down for decades so it's not the epidemic it used to be.
 
2012-12-28 04:27:28 PM  
::rant::
Here's the thing. I really don't like the FISA amendments, but I get really, really pissed off when people use hyperbole to get their point across. It's one of the reasons we can't have nice things.

The FISA amendments DO NOT allow for unlimited warrentless wiretaps of Americans in the USA. What it DOES allow for is, for up to a week prior to acquiring approval, begin wiretapping communications from the United States to a foreign country, and is only legally acquired IF the FISA court thens affirms the wiretapping (also known as getting a warrant). Now, I can understand people having a problem with retroactive warrents, but the wiretapping is not usable against you if the search is never upheld by a court (the whole point of warrants are judicial oversight, and it's still there). The thing I dislike most is the vagueness required to meet their surveillance criteria for getting a warrant.

Once again, I don't like the FISA amendments, but if you say "ZOMG the government can spy on me FOREVER without a warrant and without me knowing FOR ANY REASON" then I can't be swayed by your arguments because you have shown that you are not presenting the facts, and I refuse to give credit to arguments that use hyperbolic crap to get their point across, even if I agree in principle with the sentiment.
::/rant::
 
2012-12-28 04:33:45 PM  

nmrsnr: ::rant::
Here's the thing. I really don't like the FISA amendments, but I get really, really pissed off when people use hyperbole to get their point across. It's one of the reasons we can't have nice things.

The FISA amendments DO NOT allow for unlimited warrentless wiretaps of Americans in the USA. What it DOES allow for is, for up to a week prior to acquiring approval, begin wiretapping communications from the United States to a foreign country, and is only legally acquired IF the FISA court thens affirms the wiretapping (also known as getting a warrant). Now, I can understand people having a problem with retroactive warrents, but the wiretapping is not usable against you if the search is never upheld by a court (the whole point of warrants are judicial oversight, and it's still there). The thing I dislike most is the vagueness required to meet their surveillance criteria for getting a warrant.

Once again, I don't like the FISA amendments, but if you say "ZOMG the government can spy on me FOREVER without a warrant and without me knowing FOR ANY REASON" then I can't be swayed by your arguments because you have shown that you are not presenting the facts, and I refuse to give credit to arguments that use hyperbolic crap to get their point across, even if I agree in principle with the sentiment.
::/rant::


Prior to all this, you could get a retroactive FISA warrant.  To this day I cannot find anyone who can adequately explain what was insufficient with the old process.  It seemed pretty damned flexible.
 
2012-12-28 04:36:57 PM  

Lumpmoose: Dinjiin: Lumpmoose: SCOTUS determined ... that outright gun bans are unconstitutional.

Has the SCOTUS reviewed any rules regarding training, certification and restricted locales for discharge? Somebody pointed out that a good way to reduce firearms enthusiasm in the US would be for it to adopt the gun club system used by Canada.

I have no idea although it's an interesting thought.  I don't really have any problem with US firearms enthusiasm.  I just think the line between "fun feature" and "great for mass murders" is a little too lax right now.  If we tighten that up and try to improve mental health services, I think that'd be a good start before we have to worry about social engineering.  Violent crime has been going down for decades so it's not the epidemic it used to be.


Why is this turning into a gun thread?
 
2012-12-28 04:37:52 PM  

LasersHurt: Nabb1: LasersHurt: Are you just not understanding what I am saying? I feel like you're not even trying to understand what I am saying, because you keep arguing completely irrelevant things.

You asked why it was bad, correct?  Well, some people think minimizing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and allowing the government to conduct this sort of broad monitoring of people's phone calls without their knowledge is a bad thing in and of itself.

I'm not asking about the IDEA, I am asking about ACTUAL outcomes. What is the, for lack of a better word, "real" bad part? Not just that the idea makes you uncomfortable. I get that the idea makes you uncomfortable. I do not dispute this.

Is that the ONLY thing? Surely there is some information out there about how this power has been used, and the outcomes?


The outcomes are classified under the secret FISA court.  This is part of the problem.  They won't release the data.  They won't even release information on the number of people who have been subjected to this monitoring.

I don't say this often but I agree with <b>Nabb1</b>.  We shouldn't have to determine if a program is working to defend our constitutional rights.  It doesn't matter if it's working.  I don't care about the success rate or the outcomes.  I don't care if they are using the information legally.  I want to know a warrant was lawfully obtained before my private life and private communications are being monitored by some neckbeard in an unmarked van.

We shouldn't have to qualify the success rate of an government program to then determine its constitutionality.  We should determine it's constitutional, and only then begin investigating its promises.
 
2012-12-28 04:40:44 PM  

Elandriel: We shouldn't have to qualify the success rate of an government program to then determine its constitutionality.  We should determine it's constitutional, and only then begin investigating its promises.


I respect that opinion, even if I personally disagree.
 
2012-12-28 04:48:38 PM  

Diogenes: Prior to all this, you could get a retroactive FISA warrant.  To this day I cannot find anyone who can adequately explain what was insufficient with the old process.  It seemed pretty damned flexible.


From what I understand (and I may be totally wrong) this was a jurisdictional issue fix more than anything else. Before, if you were in the US contacting someone in the US, that's an FBI issue, if you're non-US contacting someone non-US, that was CIA, and if was terror related in either case, it was DHS.

Now, what happens if a US person contacts a non-US person, is that FBI or CIA? Who initiates the FISA request, both? I think that this amendment basically says "treat US to non-US like non-US to non-US communications" so that things don't fall through the cracks based on jurisdictional silliness.

Unfortunately, I can't stick around the thread, but good luck.
 
2012-12-28 04:55:32 PM  
Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns and an ever-widening gap between the seigneurial class and the rest of us, is here to stay. But you can rely on internet tough guys to defend our freedoms.
 
2012-12-28 04:58:11 PM  

LasersHurt: I think I'd rather see a rejection of the idea based on facts, like statistics on the IMPACT of the policy. Are more innocent people being accused of crimes? How often are these wiretaps being done? Has the rate of solving cases increased?

I don't care for emotional and ideological responses - I get that it's "bad," but tell me why, specifically, is it bad? What are the negative effects? In the interest of fairness, what are the positive effects (if any)?


Let me throw out some made up numbers to get the ball rolling.

Let's say there are zero more innocent people being accused of crimes from this.
Let's pretend these wiretaps are being done once, ever.
Let's pretend this single warantless wiretap resulted in 10,000,000 cases solved.

We still shouldn't do it. Let's be clear, I do not need a reason for the government to not listen in on my phone calls. I don't need to explain myself. Maybe I'm talkin Madden 2013 strategy for an online tournament and I don't want my advice getting out. Maybe it's something else. Who cares, I don't need a reason. What you just did was completely reverse innocent until proven guilty.

We have a right to privacy in this country. The government should need a reason to listen in to my phone calls. The government should need a reason to search my home. The government should need a reason to pull me over. The government should need a reason to detain me.

Warrantless wiretaps takes out the requirement of having a reason. It considers me guilty until I prove myself innocent on the wiretap. There was no reason. That's not a good precedent.
 
2012-12-28 04:58:52 PM  

Kibbler: Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns and an ever-widening gap between the seigneurial class and the rest of us, is here to stay. But you can rely on internet tough guys to defend our freedoms.


I don't think police states allow nation-wide gun fetishists to indulge the object of their affections
 
2012-12-28 04:59:07 PM  

Kibbler: Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns


Herp-a-derp-der-guns!
 
2012-12-28 05:00:23 PM  

Nabb1: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Funny how that works out.


Because a bunch of armed rednecks and hayseeds is likely to be able to resist the US military, should things come to that.

Lordy, you people are dumb.
 
2012-12-28 05:00:33 PM  

nmrsnr: ::rant::
Here's the thing. I really don't like the FISA amendments, but I get really, really pissed off when people use hyperbole to get their point across. It's one of the reasons we can't have nice things.

The FISA amendments DO NOT allow for unlimited warrentless wiretaps of Americans in the USA. What it DOES allow for is, for up to a week prior to acquiring approval, begin wiretapping communications from the United States to a foreign country, and is only legally acquired IF the FISA court thens affirms the wiretapping (also known as getting a warrant). Now, I can understand people having a problem with retroactive warrents, but the wiretapping is not usable against you if the search is never upheld by a court (the whole point of warrants are judicial oversight, and it's still there). The thing I dislike most is the vagueness required to meet their surveillance criteria for getting a warrant.

Once again, I don't like the FISA amendments, but if you say "ZOMG the government can spy on me FOREVER without a warrant and without me knowing FOR ANY REASON" then I can't be swayed by your arguments because you have shown that you are not presenting the facts, and I refuse to give credit to arguments that use hyperbolic crap to get their point across, even if I agree in principle with the sentiment.
::/rant::


All right. Who started allowing reasonable factual statements that are useful in changing opinions in Fark?

And why aren't the posters of said facts required to post a pic of some hot boobs along with their intellectually stimulating, truthful statements?

Come on!!!
 
2012-12-28 05:02:15 PM  

skullkrusher: Kibbler: Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns and an ever-widening gap between the seigneurial class and the rest of us, is here to stay. But you can rely on internet tough guys to defend our freedoms.

I don't think police states allow nation-wide gun fetishists to indulge the object of their affections


Not all of them, no.

But the oligarchs of the western democracies have mastered the insidious art of ignoring shiat that doesn't matter.
 
2012-12-28 05:07:07 PM  

bronyaur1: Nabb1: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Funny how that works out.

Because a bunch of armed rednecks and hayseeds is likely to be able to resist the US military, should things come to that.

Lordy, you people are dumb.


Obviously the point was lost on you - A Senator who is clearly hostile to the Fourth Amendment turns out to also not be so fond of the Second Amendment.  Not that she is by any means the only one.
 
2012-12-28 05:08:15 PM  

Lumpmoose: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Bullshiat.  SCOTUS determined in DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago that outright gun bans are unconstitutional.  Regulating rifles to use 10-round magazines will disarm the populace just as much as regulating burst fire mode: it won't.  If you require a 30-round mag in your coup d'etat fantasies, then use your imagination.


What does the SCOTUS rulings have to do with what Feinstein wants to do?  I suggest you look at her history.  If she thought she could get away with it, she would completely ban private gun ownership.  Feinstein is such a farking nanny-state c00nt that she probably cackled with glee when she heard of the school shooting because she knew it would give her leverage.
 
2012-12-28 05:09:21 PM  
See? They can work together!
 
2012-12-28 05:11:42 PM  

bronyaur1: Nabb1: Dancin_In_Anson: [media.salon.com image 580x386]

Don't forget...she wants to disarm you too.

Funny how that works out.

Because a bunch of armed rednecks and hayseeds is likely to be able to resist the US military, should things come to that.

Lordy, you people are dumb.


Even if we take all the adsertions youve balled up into a couple sentences as wholly true, if there were such a failure of the social fabric in the US that people split up into groups and started 'by other means'ing each other just needing the military to put it down is an achievement. If somebody's gotta play kingmaker better them than the cops.
 
2012-12-28 05:14:27 PM  

OgreMagi: Feinstein is such a farking nanny-state c00nt that she probably cackled with glee when she heard of the school shooting because she knew it would give her leverage.


You know the ""progressives motto- "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
 
2012-12-28 05:14:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Kibbler: Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns and an ever-widening gap between the seigneurial class and the rest of us, is here to stay. But you can rely on internet tough guys to defend our freedoms.

I don't think police states allow nation-wide gun fetishists to indulge the object of their affections


I guess it depends on what you call a police state. Massive warrantless wiretapping and spying on everything on the internet. Presidential authority to order assassinations of US citizens at will with no review. Ten years of presidential signing orders. Drone strikes all over the world that we barely even hear about, except "take our word for it, they need killing." Huge black holes in the "defense" and "security" budgets that not even most Congressmen know about: "vote yes and don't ask questions."

Sounds like a police state to me.

300 million guns for 300 million people, "stand your ground," straightfaced calls to arm kindergarten teachers. Guns in bars, in churches, at work. (But not on planes! Different! Sacred holy keep America safe!)

Sounds like a weird fetish to me.

(By no means every gun owner is a creepy fetishist but yes, as a nation, it's a fetish.)
 
2012-12-28 05:15:19 PM  

Diogenes: At least we're focusing on the original intent of the 2nd.


Which was to let people own guns.

And can we at least have this debate honestly rather than the hysterical salon.com nonsense is spewing? The question is as follows...

Should American intelligence and law enforcement agencies be allowed to listen to phone conversations they believe might be communicating with foreign terrorist groups in other countries without a warrant?

If your answer is "No", then you must accept that the consequences of such an answer is an increased risk of terrorist attack.

If your answer is "Yes", then you must accept placing America on a slippery slope of creeping government power that will eventually get completely out of hand and abusive.
 
2012-12-28 05:18:01 PM  

Kibbler: skullkrusher: Kibbler: Yeah we're nearing a full ten years of paranoid police state. It, like the national fetish with guns and an ever-widening gap between the seigneurial class and the rest of us, is here to stay. But you can rely on internet tough guys to defend our freedoms.

I don't think police states allow nation-wide gun fetishists to indulge the object of their affections

I guess it depends on what you call a police state. Massive warrantless wiretapping and spying on everything on the internet. Presidential authority to order assassinations of US citizens at will with no review. Ten years of presidential signing orders. Drone strikes all over the world that we barely even hear about, except "take our word for it, they need killing." Huge black holes in the "defense" and "security" budgets that not even most Congressmen know about: "vote yes and don't ask questions."

Sounds like a police state to me.

300 million guns for 300 million people, "stand your ground," straightfaced calls to arm kindergarten teachers. Guns in bars, in churches, at work. (But not on planes! Different! Sacred holy keep America safe!)

Sounds like a weird fetish to me.

(By no means every gun owner is a creepy fetishist but yes, as a nation, it's a fetish.)


I think "police state" is more than a bit hyperbolic
 
2012-12-28 05:20:31 PM  

Kibbler: Presidential authority to order assassinations of US citizens at will with no review.


Abroad. Not at home.

Kibbler: Ten years of presidential signing orders


I don't see how relevant that is.

Kibbler: Drone strikes all over the world that we barely even hear about, except "take our word for it, they need killing."


Again, abroad.

Kibbler: Huge black holes in the "defense" and "security" budgets that not even most Congressmen know about: "vote yes and don't ask questions."


For the most part, my understanding is these things are for conducting wars abroad with private contractors and whatnot.

Anyway, usually when I hear the term "police state" I assume that refers to the US government policing its own citizens domestically. Start picking through what still exists of the patriot act, there's a lotta police state goin on in there.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report