"Let me see your papers!"

[crwmike 0]

Quote

"What is your business here?"
"What's in your briefcase?"

Boston transit system to institute a random stop-and-search policy on trains

What about the following quote is so difficult to understand?

Quote

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.

Blues,
Dave

I haven't read any of the responses to this ...yet. I'm hoping I don't see people attempting to justify giving up our most basic rights as a free people for a bit of false security ...but I know I will.

Sigh,

Michael

[nightjumps 1]

Be killed.

Quote

Subways are a great target.

I'm guessing you haven't been on a subway. "They" can't even protect a little old ladie's purse from a mugger and now they're going to be responsible for protecting me from terrorists?

Quote

Like it or not some personal freedom has to be sacrificed for saftey

Why?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Like it or not some personal freedom has to be sacrificed for saftey

Why?

Because there is always a balance between freedom and safety. Because we can't maintain this idealic environment for terrorism without losing lives; the more of a threat they are, the more compromise is needed.

Thanks to the demographics in our nation, I don't think the terrorism threat will cost us that much freedom.

. . =(_8^(1)

[nightjumps 1]

I wonder if we'll get those freedoms back once the world is safe again?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Hey, Unformed. The "I don't think we've met" was my knee-jerk reaction to your "you'll agree it'll be stepping over the line" and a feeling that someone was trying to put words in my mouth. That, and a poor attempt at humor. If we ever do meet, whoever has the most recent "first" buys the beer. Deal?

My apologies, mis read that. Agreed to buy beer.

Anyways, I see where you're coming from, but I also hope you see where I'm coming from. Yeah, there's a lot of BS to go through, on both sides, but I'm simpl going with what I feel is right, as I'm sure others are too. I just hope that whatever actually happens turns out to the best way. Some reason, though, I don't expect it to.

This ad space for sale.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Because there is always a balance between freedom and safety. Because we can't maintain this idealic environment for terrorism without losing lives; the more of a threat they are, the more compromise is needed.

Thanks to the demographics in our nation, I don't think the terrorism threat will cost us that much freedom.

Why don't we just change our foreign policy to not be involved, except when necessary, with other countries? If somebody attacks us, go there, take them out, and be done with it, like we did in WW2.

Why the hell do we have to spend our tax money rebuilding other countries when our own country has a problem of its own (ie: crime, povertyy, lack of education, to name a few)?

We're here trying to "fix" the rest of the world when we can't even get our own dysfunctional country working right.

Look at this as well:
There is something seriously wrong when people are "voting for the lesser of two evils". Does anyone else see the problem when we mistrust our leaders to the point we vote for the one who will do *less* damage?

Quote

I wonder if we'll get those freedoms back once the world is safe again?

I think both of us know the answer to that.

This ad space for sale.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Because there is always a balance between freedom and safety. Because we can't maintain this idealic environment for terrorism without losing lives; the more of a threat they are, the more compromise is needed.

Thanks to the demographics in our nation, I don't think the terrorism threat will cost us that much freedom.

Too late, it already has. Unless you are too oblivious to notice or don't care about your freedoms. Personally the fact that I can not walk down the streets of Tampa, FL without having computers check me face whether or not a match a suspect is too much. Expecially when these checks aren't even accurate. How would you like it if you were detained for a few days because a computer program decided you kinda *look like* a terror suspect.

To stop terrorism, we should take our army and take them out, teach them a fucking lesson, and make all other potential terrorists too goddamn scared to fuck with us. We have the most powerful military in the world, yet Al-Qaeda still exists.

This ad space for sale.

[akarunway 1]

For a bunch of bad ass skydivers the ones on the conservative side seem like a bunch of pussies. You will risk your life skydiving but you will sacrafice your civil liberties cause you are afraid some punk ass AQ is gonna take you out. When it's your time it's your time.. Geez people. Quit being afraid. Start packing is all I can say

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If you are not hiding anything, you have nothing to hide from a search.

So then it shouldn't bother you if, on occasion, the government sends its agents into your home to make sure you're not growing marijuana in the basement or storing kiddie-porn on your computer, and that you have no illegal immigrants enslaved and chained to a radiator. If you're hiding none of these kinds of things, you should not object to being searched since there's nothing to get in trouble for in your possession, but "if it saves just one life...

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

For a bunch of bad ass skydivers the ones on the conservative side seem like a bunch of pussies. You will risk your life skydiving but you will sacrafice your civil liberties cause you are afraid some punk ass AQ is gonna take you out. When it's your time it's your time.. Geez people. Quit being afraid. Start packing is all I can say

Althought I often side with what you'd call "the conservative side," it's a good thing I don't consider myself "a conservative" or I'd think you just called me a pussy.

And for the record, I don't support this bullshit evil encroachment on liberty for the illusion of safety by an inept government. What I support is the notion of our citizenry being armed, and like in Israel, having them fuckin' OFF the terrorist scumbags when they start shrieking to allah just before they detonate their bomb-belts. The PEOPLE have to be the ones who take back our country's safety, not the government, or it will never work.

-
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crwmike 0]

Quote

For a bunch of bad ass skydivers the ones on the conservative side seem like a bunch of pussies. You will risk your life skydiving but you will sacrafice your civil liberties cause you are afraid some punk ass AQ is gonna take you out. When it's your time it's your time.. Geez people. Quit being afraid. Start packing is all I can say

Tandems. I blame it all on tandems.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Be killed.

I'd rather not be killed...

Useing your logic...I guess we should let anyone carry any type of weapon they want...Since you would rather die than have some simple rules in place.

So I could own my very own nuclear device? Cool, I'll start working on it today.

Quote

I'm guessing you haven't been on a subway

Wrong been on several.

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Like it or not some personal freedom has to be sacrificed for saftey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why?

There is no other way. You don't seem to be bitching about having to go through screening at an airport, to go to court ect....Those don't both you?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you are not hiding anything, you have nothing to hide from a search.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So then it shouldn't bother you if, on occasion, the government sends its agents into your home to make sure you're not growing marijuana in the basement or storing kiddie-porn on your computer, and that you have no illegal immigrants enslaved and chained to a radiator. If you're hiding none of these kinds of things, you should not object to being searched since there's nothing to get in trouble for in your possession, but "if it saves just one life

Bring them...I have nothing to hide....But comming to my house looking for kiddie porn, or pot is WAY different that stopping me on the street where I could be getting ready to kill people.

See the difference...In one I surfed the net for some bad porn or had some home grown to get happy, the other I am OUTSIDE getting read to KILL people.

Big difference in my book.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Remster 24]

I'm bookmarking this thread for the next argument about how much freedom there is in the US.

Remster

[nightjumps 1]

I see. So, there is a point where you will draw the line of encroachment on your freedoms. It just so happens yours are at your front door, but you think everyone else's is in the street.

We're disagreeing on distance here.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I see. So, there is a point where you will draw the line of encroachment on your freedoms. It just so happens yours are at your front door, but you think everyone else's is in the street.

No, I think everyone should have the right to certain liberties.

I think that extreme situations call for more extreme measures.

If I decide to sit at my house and surf porn from Inda while rubbing curry paste on my johnson thats my buisness.

If I decide to surf the net to find out how to buy or build a dirty bomb...Well now thats something else.

If I want to go out and wear a ladies thong and rub "bengay" in my butt crack...Again my buisness.

If I want to carry a small suitcase full of C4 onto a bus and kill eveyone on the bus...Again, something else.

Your freedoms stop where mine start.

The really funny thing is people want MORE security on planes, but have an issue with this.

If you want to ride public transportaition they have the right to search you.

If I wanted I could pat down anyone that wanted to ride in my car, or come into my house...I could also issue weapons at my front door if I wanted to.

That does not mean I am free to take those weapons to WalMart.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[nightjumps 1]

I think this would be a wonderful and possibly more interesting and heated debate in person and perhaps we could continue it in person at the WFFC if you're planning on going.

But, I think you'll agree that we're never going to get any closer or make any changes via this thread.

Cheers,

[crozby 0]

Does anyone know how many terrorists have been detained and convicted as a result of the increased security at US airports?

Does anyone know how many terrorists that would have used the airlines have been deterred from carrying out an attack as a result of the heightened check-in security?

Do any of you Americans know how much of your tax is being spent on protecting your freedom in this way?

Why would anyone choose to go down the same secutiry route on buses when it has yet to be proven to be uneffective on aircraft?

[livendive 8]

Quote

I still wonder though, if the $250 fine for resisting arrest can be legally justified. Can they really claim that not giving a name is resisting arrest?

Logic problem. How can a person be arrested for resisting arrest? If there was not already an established cause for the arrest, then the person was simply resisting a kidnapping.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

So I could own my very own nuclear device? Cool, I'll start working on it today.

I think you'll need a consultant. They don't have all those math and physics whizzes at Los Alamos for nothing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Will you apply the same rationale when the government decides to trash the 2nd amendment rather than the 4th? What if they decide to remove all guns from private ownership "for the greater good of ALL"?

No, because searching me, and preventing me from having something are two different things....

If you are not hiding anything, you have nothing to hide from a search.

So what we're getting at is simple matter of agreement. i.e. you agree with the 2nd amendment, but not the 4th, so you have a problem with our government violating the 2nd but not the 4th.

My perspective is that both are essential blocks in the foundation of our nation and that neither should be discarded out of hand. You and I may simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Because there is always a balance between freedom and safety. Because we can't maintain this idealic environment for terrorism without losing lives; the more of a threat they are, the more compromise is needed.

Did you copy that directly off the Authoritarian party website?

[Ron 7]

Quote

Does anyone know how many terrorists have been detained and convicted as a result of the increased security at US airports?

Does anyone know how many terrorists that would have used the airlines have been deterred from carrying out an attack as a result of the heightened check-in security?

Do any of you Americans know how much of your tax is being spent on protecting your freedom in this way?

Why would anyone choose to go down the same secutiry route on buses when it has yet to be proven to be uneffective on aircraft?

I CAN say that they have not used an Aircraft as a weapon again.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[livendive 8]

reply]I CAN say that they have not used an Aircraft as a weapon again.

[Ron 7]

Quote

So what we're getting at is simple matter of agreement. i.e. you agree with the 2nd amendment, but not the 4th, so you have a problem with our government violating the 2nd but not the 4th.

Quote

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

Against unreasonable searches....Well that means that we should not screen airline passengers either...Or is that reasonable?

but upon probable cause....Well they are not going to search just anyone..only people who look/act suspicious.

supported by oath or affirmation...Well cops take oaths.

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....I'm going to search your bag for weapons.

Simple really.

The fact is this...you don't want to be screened? Drive a car or walk, don't take public transportation.

The FAA is not going to let you on the plane unless you are searched...The transit authority has the same right.

You want to complain about this...I expect you to have the same bitch about air travel.

We will just have to disagree. I'd rather have some slight hassle than guys killing people.

And your point about the second ammendment is good.

Well that means I should be allowed to have an M60 belt fed maching gun right? And sniper systems.

But congress has said no....So Congress again can say that I can be searched.

I find it funny that you will support them stepping on my rights to have any weapon I want, but will support other areas.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334