Big Brother watching?
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Big Brother watching?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2007, 04:32 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pioneer461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 938
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default 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.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/COMMENTARY/108070010
“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”?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07bword.html?ei=5090&en=8bb9b60b7da0d2ed&ex=134413 9200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

__________________
Sui Juris
Cogito, ergo armatum sum
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
Retired Police Detective '71-'01 / LEOSA Certified
Naval Aviation Veteran '65-'69

United States Constitution (c) 1791
All Rights Reserved
pioneer461 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 08-07-2007, 04:52 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

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.

__________________

Perhaps, if I am very lucky, the feeble efforts of my lifetime will someday be noticed, and maybe, in some small way, they will be acknowledged as the greatest works of genius ever created by Man.
- Jack Handey

BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 05:57 PM   #3
Administrator
FTF_ADMIN.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
notdku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hill Country,Texas
Posts: 5,563
Liked 698 Times on 387 Posts
Likes Given: 729

Default

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

__________________

Not Registered? Register now! - It's free and helps the community grow.

notdku is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 06:27 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 109
Default

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 now....it 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....

__________________
moviezombie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2007, 07:40 PM   #5
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notdku View Post
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.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 06:23 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SabreArms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 82
Default

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












__________________

"An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap." George S. Patton

www.sabrearms.com
www.sabrearmsairsoft.com

SabreArms is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 07:23 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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 MoveOn.org 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?

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 07:42 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

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

__________________
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 08:04 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 09:08 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

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 dailykos.com 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...

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Like Watching a Trainwreck.... Dillinger The Club House 11 06-15-2009 02:22 PM
RIP my brother hillbilly68 The Club House 22 03-15-2009 01:42 PM
While I was watching Burn Notice repeats... supergus General Handgun Discussion 4 10-09-2008 02:51 PM
Obama brother to Fidel Castro? hkusp45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 06-26-2008 06:33 AM
Worth Watching PAGLOCK23 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 3 02-10-2008 06:52 PM