Firearm & Gun Forum -

Firearm & Gun Forum - (
-   The Club House (
-   -   Big Brother watching? (

pioneer461 08-07-2007 04:32 PM

Big Brother watching?
In a follow-up to my posting last week about “Airstrip One,” I noticed a similar story in today’s New York Post. Entitled “Big Brother in the Big Apple,” it tells of the efforts of NY Mayor Bloomberg to catch up with England in the use of surveillance cameras to monitor and thus control the behavior of citizens (subjects). This is the same mayor who thinks none of us should be allowed to own firearms. Coincidence? I think not.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-- Benj. Franklin, 1759

In another article, the New York Times reports the New York city council is considering legislation banning the use of the words, “bitch” and “ho.” Banned words. Banned thoughts. Enforced by who, the “Thought Police”? 9200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

BLS33 08-07-2007 04:52 PM

Sounds like they are ignoring individual rights for what they think is good for the state as a whole. I think there is a word for that, oh yeah fascism.

notdku 08-07-2007 05:57 PM

Did you see they passed law that allows wiretapping without warrants now?

moviezombie 08-07-2007 06:27 PM

re the new FISA legislation: they were already doing it.....this just legalizes what was going on in the first place....and protects communications corporations from complying which they weren't during the past several years this has been going on. giving authorization to the attorney general is like asking the fox to guard the hen house: his loyalty is NOT to the US Constitution and we the people but to an ideological administration. we know this administration already goes beyond what is supposedly legal, where will they go now that they have this power? fascism has been with us for some years is merely coming out of the closet. RIP 4th amendment........

movie zombie

ps yeah, and right, the 120 day sunset clause is going to be of big help. once the door has been opened and utilized, it won't be closed. once a freedom is given away or abandoned [and congress has certainly abandoned us] it is not easily regained. bitter?! you betcha.

didn't mean to hijack the thread but the legislation topic was raised by a member way more senior than me.....i guess i could have resisted the temptation to vent....:)

bkt 08-07-2007 07:40 PM


Originally Posted by notdku (Post 5933)
Did you see they passed law that allows wiretapping without warrants now?

The "they" in your sentence is important: it is the very same people who have been vocally speaking out against this "illegal wiretapping scheme". So while Congress slams Bush constantly for keeping tabs on people inside the U.S. who call "Abdul's Bombs While-U-Wait" in Yemen or who receive calls from folks like Abdul, they quietly pass legislation that keeps us on exactly the same path. They probably think most American's won't be any the wiser. They're probably right.

Bloomberg sucks and leaves a bruise. Check out the Second Amendment Foundation site and search for Bloomberg and you can read about his antics with his firearms sales "sting" that backfired in a big way.

SabreArms 08-08-2007 06:23 PM

oooooh I'm telling the govment!!!!!!!


cnorman18 08-08-2007 07:23 PM

Sorry, I have to (mostly) disagree with you guys.

There have been several high-profile kidnap/murders solved lately because of surveillance cameras in public places. What's the problem? They're not putting cameras in your HOMES. They can film me in public places all they want; any 13-year-old with a cell phone can. That's why they call them "public places". I'd bet if it's YOUR daughter that gets abducted from an ATM, you'll be the first in line shouting for the cops to look at the videotape.

Second, let's get our facts straight: the warrantless wiretaps apply ONLY to INTERNATIONAL calls to known terrorists or terror organizations. I don't have any problem with that at all. They're not interested in taping your calls to your Aunt Tillie or your girlfriend. Those still require warrants with a judge signing off on substantial probable cause (much stricter standards than in the UK, where the cops only have to show that there MIGHT be probable cause).

On banning "bitch" and "ho," don't hold your breath. It's a stupid and unenforceable law, and it'll never happen.

Let's see--anti-terror measures are secret plans to take away our civil liberties--effective, reasonable (and PUBLIC!) efforts to help law enforcement are fascism--Bush is an incipient Hitler--

When did you guys turn into far-left Democrats? Those are EXACTLY the kinds of hysterical horse manure being peddled by the loony left. Are THEY your friends?

The guy that kidnapped and murdered a 14-year-old girl was caught and convicted because of a camera in a public place. Maybe you'd rather he was still walking around?

A horrific series of terrorist attacks were foiled in the UK because of wiretaps on known terrorist sympathizers. Maybe you'd rather a few thousand more innocents were murdered?

Whose side are you on?

One more note:

I know a lot of cops. I doubt they'd appreciate the implications here that they're the "local Gestapo" (as one poster here put it) or that they've signed off on taking away the rights of Americans. Cops put their lives on the line and walk around with targets on their backs to protect YOU and YOUR FAMILY, every damned day.

If your home is invaded by thugs--as mine has been--I know you'll be ready with your gun. So was I. But who are you going to call for backup, or afterward?

A blogger?

Taxpayer 08-08-2007 07:42 PM

"Those that give up freedoms for security shall have neither."

cnorman18 08-08-2007 08:04 PM

Agreed. So what freedoms do you think I'm advocating that you give up?

Sorry, if you want the freedom to call an Al Qaeda cell in Syria without being monitored, I don't think I care to agree.

And what, exactly, would you NOT do on a public street that you're doing now if you knew there were likely to be cameras? If you want the freedom to commit crimes unobserved, I can't agree with that either. Otherwise, what's the problem? Do you not want anyone to know you shop at Wal-Mart?

Frankly, I can't think of any way that either of these proposals affect my freedoms at all. If you can prove me wrong, go for it--but your objections better outweigh the OBVIOUS benefits.

So what have you got?

cnorman18 08-08-2007 09:08 PM

Another note, just to clarify matters: placing surveillance cameras in public places does not require the passage of any new laws nor the repeal of any old ones. It requires no court decisions. All they have to do is put them up.

The reason is simple: In your home, you have what is called a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

On the corner of Elm and Main, you don't; and that's not going to change.

It really is that simple.

ANYBODY can take pictures of you in public--the city, county, state and Federal governments, but also Joe Papparazzo (ask any celebrity) or the guy who lives across the street. You can take pictures of him, too, of course. Like I said before, that's why they call those places "public"....

End of debate, at least on THAT subject.

On wiretapping overseas calls to known terrorists--I've been waiting a LONG time for someone to tell me what's wrong with THAT. Personally, I think it'd be criminally negligent if they DIDN'T. But maybe that's just me.

Really, guys. By joining in with this kind of "Bush-is-a-fascist" hysteria, you are SUPPORTING the forces that REALLY want to take away your freedoms, and your guns are at the very top of their list. Take a look at if you don't believe me.

Would you have been happier with. Gore or Kerry?

Hillary, or Obama, maybe? That's who you're working to elect now...

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.