Big Brother watching? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Big Brother watching?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-09-2007, 05:07 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Well, if you theink being arrested and having your rights violated is not a loss of freedom, then I guess I don't have any.

It's ok for the government to surveil us, but if we do it, it's not. As stated, those who give up freedom for security will have neither.

__________________
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 05:31 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JoeLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 64
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

Some still can not see we lost and are loosing Freedoms frequently.

__________________
NEVER KICK A SKUNK
JoeLee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 05:49 PM   #23
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 Wtf?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
Well, if you theink being arrested and having your rights violated is not a loss of freedom, then I guess I don't have any.

It's ok for the government to surveil us, but if we do it, it's not. As stated, those who give up freedom for security will have neither.
I don't get it.

All three of the cases you cited PROVED that it's perfectly legal to videotape or take pictures of anyone, even cops, in public. Sounds like YOU are ready to give up YOUR rights because some nutball cop MIGHT violate the law and arrest you.

There will always be a few bad, stupid, or incompetent cops. That DOESN'T mean the government is oppressing you.

Did you miss the $210,000 judgment in favor of the guy who was arrested? If you insist on clinging to ideas that have been proven wrong--

Oh, sorry. You must be a Democrat.
__________________

"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 08-09-2007, 06:09 PM   #24
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?

“…the warrantless wiretaps apply ONLY to INTERNATIONAL calls to known terrorists or terror organizations. I don't have any problem with that at all.”

Nor do I.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Yeah? Try using the word Negro in a public setting. Try voicing support for the Nazis, or voice your support for the KKK. Forbidden thoughts and forbidden words. Ask Don Imus what he thinks. It is not illegal to be a bigot. Stupid perhaps, not illegal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I agree that civil liberties are what gun rights are all about, and I can't find anywhere that I've "characterized it differently."

You wrote:
“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?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where have I signed off on the "loss of our civil liberties"? My point is that, insofar as the two issues at hand are concerned, we haven't lost any. None at all.

Tell that to the citizens, or should I say “subjects” of New York City, Washington DC, or Chicago, where gun rights are concerned. Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans who had their lawfully owned firearms confiscated by government, and are still waiting to get them back, despite numerous court orders for their return.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we ever begin to slide down that slippery slope--for instance, if someone ever decided it would be a good idea to monitor, say, everyone's bank account activity, or even where, when and how often we buy gas, or what books we read--I'll be on the barricades with you. I just don't think we're there, or even close.

Welcome to the barricades. It’s happening NOW. Do you belong to a shopper’s club at your local grocery? Do you check books from a public library? All of those little bar-code scans are dumped into a data base, which can be accessed by government. Ever buy anything on the Internet? Try and make a bank deposit, or withdrawal in an amount over $10,000. Ever use a credit card?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A camera doesn't prevent me from going anywhere I choose, and I'm puzzled by those who think it does.

It’s none of the government’s damn business where we go, and with whom! If you wish to surrender your rights, okay fine, just don’t be so quick to give up mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't understand your last remark at all. If you're a retired police officer, I would think you'd agree with my remarks defending cops rather than take a shot at my right to make them. How do YOU feel about being called "Gestapo"? Do I have to be a police officer myself to express my admiration and support and for them?

You wrote:

“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.”

I have been there when cops falsify affidavits of search warrants, I've been there when cops actively plan ways to manipulate law in order to make car stops on folks they don't like. I've seen drug cops ignore low level dealers because they would rather go after the big dealers so they can confiscate property which can then be converted to cash for the drug units profit. I've seen lazy and careless cops raid wrong houses, destroy property, say "Woops," and decline any liability or responsibility for damage. I've seen cops cover up a murder, so the family won't be "embarrased." Me and my family have been threatened with death by cops who didn't like the fact that I believe that cops are not above the law and should be punished. I've arrested and convicted cops, including command officers.

I've been there, done that and have the scars to prove it.

Most cops are hard working, honest patriots. Of that there is no doubt. Sadly, that is not the case with ALL cops.
__________________
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
Old 08-09-2007, 10:32 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
I don't get it.

All three of the cases you cited PROVED that it's perfectly legal to videotape or take pictures of anyone, even cops, in public. Sounds like YOU are ready to give up YOUR rights because some nutball cop MIGHT violate the law and arrest you.
If it's perfectly legal, why were they arrested?

Quote:
There will always be a few bad, stupid, or incompetent cops. That DOESN'T mean the government is oppressing you.
There's also a whole lot of cops that are not stupid or imcompetent that will do whatever the politicians they serve tell them to do. Just look at Chicago for one tiny example

Quote:
Did you miss the $210,000 judgment in favor of the guy who was arrested? If you insist on clinging to ideas that have been proven wrong--

Oh, sorry. You must be a Democrat.
I'd rather not have to go through the trauma of being falsely arrested by a fascist thug. And no, I am not a democrat, but I play one on tv.
__________________
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 10:47 PM   #26
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 OK, then, mostly

Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer461 View Post
“…the warrantless wiretaps apply ONLY to INTERNATIONAL calls to known terrorists or terror organizations. I don't have any problem with that at all.”

Nor do I.

No problem there, then.

"Try using the word Negro in a public setting. Try voicing support for the Nazis, or voice your support for the KKK. Forbidden thoughts and forbidden words. Ask Don Imus what he thinks. It is not illegal to be a bigot. Stupid perhaps, not illegal."

Not illegal. That's my point. The government isn't taking away our rights here, either--just stupid people. Unfortunately, you can't outlaw stupidity--at least, in this case, not without taking away THEIR free-speech rights. Imus has the right to say whatever he wants, and did: his employers also have the right to fire him for it. As I said about Michael Moore, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

“I agree that civil liberties are what gun rights are all about, and I can't find anywhere that I've "characterized it differently."

You wrote:
“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?”

Sorry, I still don't see it. C
Calling Bush a "fascist" is agreeing with and supporting the radical (and viciously anti-gun) Left, and stating that FACT in no way disparages gun rights nor advocates abridging anyone's civil liberties. Again, that sounds like a far-left tactic to me--claiming that disagreement with one's views is tantamount to an attempt to suppress them. You're free to decry Bush and the current Administration as "fascists"
and claim that they're taking away our civil liberties under cover of fighting terrorism all you want--and I'm free to point out that Kos, Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and various other loony lefties say precisely the same thing. I'm not saying you (or they) ought to be prevented from saying those things. I just think pro-gun people ought to consider whose agenda they're supporting.

Personally, I prefer Bush and Cheney to either Gore or Kerry--and I also think that taking shots at Bush isn't going to put Wayne LaPierre in the White House; he isn't running. What it WILL get you is Hillary and/or Obama. And THAT, it seems to me, is a good deal more dangerous to our gun rights and civil liberties.

Where have I signed off on the "loss of our civil liberties"? My point is that, insofar as the two issues at hand are concerned, we haven't lost any. None at all.

Tell that to the citizens, or should I say “subjects” of New York City, Washington DC, or Chicago, where gun rights are concerned. Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans who had their lawfully owned firearms confiscated by government, and are still waiting to get them back, despite numerous court orders for their return.

Look back at my post, which you quoted but apparently did not read. I said "insofar as the two issues at hand are concerned," those being the tapping of overseas calls to terrorists and the placing of cameras in public places. And I'll stand by that assessment.

As for the rest--of COURSE there have been abuses, and I'm as outraged as you; but finish the stories you started. The. Katrina atrocity has resulted in such outrage that bills are being introduced in both houses of Congress to OUTLAW such confiscations; the Bloomberg adventure seems to have backfired pretty badly; and most importantly, in D.C., the biggest victory for gun rights in DECADES (and maybe EVER) took place last week. For the very first time, a Federal District Court has addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment--and ruled that it DOES guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right to own and carry weapons. That's HUGELY important to our fight.

Things aren't perfect. I might even venture to guess that they never will be. But it's my considered opinion that the current Administration is friendlier to gun rights than anyone since Reagan, and attacking it as "Fascist", etc., is almost literally shooting ourselves in the foot.

If we ever begin to slide down that slippery slope--for instance, if someone ever decided it would be a good idea to monitor, say, everyone's bank account activity, or even where, when and how often we buy gas, or what books we read--I'll be on the barricades with you. I just don't think we're there, or even close.

Welcome to the barricades. It’s happening NOW. Do you belong to a shopper’s club at your local grocery? Do you check books from a public library? All of those little bar-code scans are dumped into a data base, which can be accessed by government. Ever buy anything on the Internet? Try and make a bank deposit, or withdrawal in an amount over $10,000. Ever use a credit card?

Banks have always kept records, even in the days of quill pens and the Pony Express, and they've always been subject to subpoena--NOT for casual inspection without a court order--and that hasn't changed. The $10,000 limit on cash transactions without being reported has been around for decades, as well.

As for the records of my purchases at Safeway--I suppose they'd be available to subpoena, too, though I can think of no reason anyone would be interested, and I've never heard of those records being used for anything but determining what coupons I'll get with my receipt. If you know of any case where a government agency checked those records, I'd like to see it. If you don't want the store keeping records of what you buy, don't get the discount card--or shop somewhere else.

Guess what: the airlines keep records of where you fly, too, and your passport is stamped with all the countries you've ever visited. Your email isn't just available to the government: a 14-year-old hacker can get it, and he probably won't bother with a court order. Welcome to the 21st century. If you don't like it, you can unplug your computer, cut up your credit cards and close your bank account and deal only in cash, and if you want to go somewhere--walk. Sorry. This is the age we live in. If you want to pass laws telling businesses what records they can and can't keep--well, now that's interfering with their civil liberties, isn't it?
Most of this has nothing to do with the government's wish to spy on you. It's just the way the world does business now, and we're not going to go backwards. Sure, the records are all out there; but as I've already said, I don't think our bungling, terminally inefficient, and bureaucracy-crippled government is capable of tracking the trivia in 300 million lives.

A camera doesn't prevent me from going anywhere I choose, and I'm puzzled by those who think it does.

It’s none of the government’s damn business where we go, and with whom! If you wish to surrender your rights, okay fine, just don’t be so quick to give up mine.

See above. Why do you think anyone cares where you go? The only time public cameras have been used, to date, is to find and catch criminals and missing children. What other use could they have?

As for cops--


Most cops are hard working, honest patriots. Of that there is no doubt. Sadly, that is not the case with ALL cops.
I never said that all cops were perfect, or that there aren't a lot of bad apples; in fact, I've said the opposite here, and more than once.

I agree with the first part of your remark above, and that was the only point I was trying to make. Let's leave it at that.

One more note: a little paranoia, in today's world, is a good and necessary thing. I sometimes ask myself the classic King's Question: "Am I paranoid ENOUGH?" Maybe not, as you probably think from reading the above--but I'll tell you this; I don't have a credit card, and I I pay for most things in cash. I buy my guns only at gun shows--no waiting periods for me--and again, I pay cash. Ammo at gun shows--cash only, no need to show ID. I get paid for my work in cash, too, and NOBODY has any records on what I make. My car is paid for, and I have no outstanding loans. I don't even have a landlord.

I don't even have a computer. I do this on a BlackBerry--nowhere to put spyware, and no files to hack into.

I'm not worried about being spied on, as you can see from what I've written--but I fly pretty low anyway. We probably have more in common than you'd think.
__________________

"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 08-10-2007, 02:59 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FALPhil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
You don't like cops? Fine. Describe to me what our society would be like if we had none. Sure, you could carry your trusty .45 everywhere you go--and the two dozen gangbangers at the corner could all carry MAC-10s, and probably would.

Enjoy.
Well, let me say first that I would much rather have gangbangers shooting at me with MAC10s than someone who knew what they were doing with a muzzle loader.

But, really, that scenario is disingenuous. To be believable, it would presuppose that either (a) the gangbangers were spontaneously generated, or (b) the community tolerated rampant lawlessness for a long time. Neither are likely scenarios.

The basic trait of community is that people tend to behave rationally under most circumstances. Prior to Prohibition, in the USA, only the largest of cities had professional police forces. Most communities had a town constable. The constable took care of business until he needed help, at which time, he drafted help from the upstanding citizens in the community who were glad to help him. Sometimes, when the situation was very grave, communities created Citizens' Vigilance Committees until the crisis passed. The upstanding citizens of the community handled matters as a team. While Hollywood and the eastern establishment press have demonized Vigilantism, history shows that it is indeed a viable system. The main reason was that when things settled down, people still had to have relationships with their neighbors.

The constable system is still very, very viable. But, people have to take responsibility for their communities. In the 21st century in the USA, people have been trained from the time they start preschool that their communities are not their responsibility, but rather the responsibility of "the government". The government, at all levels, encourages this attitude, because like all bureaucracies, its primary purpose is self preservation and justification.

The problem with a professional police force is that it is not accountable to the citizenry, but rather the politicians and bureaucrats. At the point in time when the politicians feel that they no longer need to be accountable to the citizenry, the police force does not dry up and blow away. Rather, it remains an instrument for the implementation of policy of the politicians.

I have heard all sorts of arguments about the need for professional police forces in "the age of terrorism" or the "age of technology" or the age of whatever, but frankly, very few of the arguments hold water. I do think there is a place for parapolice agencies, like bureaus of investigation and crime labs. But individuals in the community need to take more responsibility for a variety of reasons, which two of them I will put forth here as examples.

First, the average person who chooses a career in police work has a profile that is nowhere close to that of society's best and brightest. Part of this is payscales, but most of it is psychological makeup. If you saw some of the group profiles of career law enforcers, it would probably scare the living excrement out of you. In general, but certainly not all cases, people seeking careers in policing are compensating for perceived shortcomings in their lives, as many multiphasic personality indicator tests, clinical studies, and substance abuse predictive studies have shown.

Second, the careerism that has become endemic to all government agencies, not just police agencies has fostered and distilled an "us versus them" attitude which is getting stronger and stronger as time passes, and it is very akin to an entitlement mentality. For the record, IMO, it should be impossible for anyone in a "free" country to be on the public payroll for more that 10 years total in their entire lives, starting with federal politicians on down.

There are many other reasons to not have career professional polices forces, but there is one good reason to have them, and that is that you want to set up a police state for the purpose of controlling the populace.

I would recommend to you two reading exercises. First, read the novel, Unintended Consequences, by John Ross. While a work of fiction, it is based on an understanding of how our current government functions and observations of human characteristics. Second, I would urge you to research the term "democide" and see how governments used their police forces to kill more people during the 20th century than those that died in all the wars and from all the diseases combined during the same period.
__________________

Last edited by FALPhil; 08-10-2007 at 03:03 AM. Reason: To say: we should probably move this thread to the Political forum.
FALPhil is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 03:58 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4
Default

Been to Vegas lately? Metro police has installed camera's at an intersection near a high crime area. They are already considering adding more if these are effective. Gee I wonder who determines if they are effective?

__________________
jleeper719 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 05:36 AM   #29
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 Anarchist theorizing?

I know a little about anarchist theory, and in general I find it about as realistic and practical as Marxism. Whether you conside yourself an anarchist or not, this is a pretty good example.

[QUOTE=FALPhil;6193]"....that scenario is disingenuous. To be believable, it would presuppose that... the community tolerated rampant lawlessness for a long time...."

It has. If you haven't noticed, there are neighborhoods in our cities NOW where the gangs rule. The scenario I mentioned in passing is not "disingenuous" at all. It's quite likely. Abolish the police today, and I guarantee you that the gangbangers will be strutting down the street tomorrow with full-auto weapons in hand. They already have them. Do you doubt this? Why?

"....While Hollywood and the eastern establishment press have demonized Vigilantism, history shows that it is indeed a viable system. The main reason was that when things settled down, people still had to have relationships with their neighbors...."

We don't live in small towns any more. People, even in the suburbs, often hardly know their neighbors. I live in North Dallas, and in all the apartment complexes where I have lived, I have been personally acquainted with a maximum of two (2) of my neighbors. People move more frequently than they once did, and there is little sense of community any more. Hell, there are few enough intact FAMILIES, let alone tight-knit communities. Deplorable, but true. Why do you think so many kids in big cities join gangs in the first place? That IS their "community".

"....In the 21st century in the USA, people have been trained from the time they start preschool that their communities are not their responsibility, but rather the responsibility of "the government"...."

Precisely my point. Do you not see the contradictions in your own post? How, exactly, do you plan to get us back to the Fifties so people will take up the responsibilities that you think they ought to shoulder?

"The problem with a professional police force is that it is not accountable to the citizenry, but rather the politicians and bureaucrats. At the point in time when the politicians feel that they no longer need to be accountable to the citizenry, the police force does not dry up and blow away. Rather, it remains an instrument for the implementation of policy of the politicians...."

I keep making this point over and over: the politicians ARE accountable to the people. It's a matter of fact, and a matter of law. If most people are not engaged enough in their communities to enforce that--which is why the politicians feel that they DON'T answer to the people any more--how are you going to get the MUCH GREATER level of involvement and commitment that going back to constables and Vigilance. Committees would require?

It would be nice if we could go back to a time when communities we're united by common roots, a common culture, and mutual respect, where the people felt responsible for one another and would band together for common purposes; when virtually all children had two parents, when common courtesy was expected and received, and when everyone respected the law, deplored and shunned irresponsible behavior, and had no tolerance for those who did not follow society's fundamental norms. Unfortunately, the 19th century is over. It's hard to see how you can seriously propose that a society that idolizes the likes of Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton suddenly begin acting like Charles Ingalls and East L.A. to become Duckburg. It's frankly the most bizarre mixture of cynicism and wishful thinking I've ever seen. Most cops are psychos and paid assassins, but ordinary people can band together and police themselves, even though they've been brainwashed into submission and disconnection from their polity and their communities for decades...

That's the trouble with basing political ideas on novels. As has been observed, the main difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense. Theories make wonderful sense, too; people behave rationally and in their own best interests. In real life, people flush their own lives--never mind their neighbors'--down the toilet by becoming crackheads or prostitutes, ignore the screams of literal neighbors who are being raped or murdered (Kitty Genovese was killed over 30 years ago), and vote for candidates because they LOOK like a President ought to look.

Tell me how we can all become Ward and June Cleaver--including our Black, Latino, Asian, and "other" citizens--and I'll consider these ideas.

And in the meantime, if you wake up tomorrow and find that someone's stolen your car, I'll bet you'll still call one of those psychologically unfit, corrupt, murdering tools of the Establishment that we call "police officers." And I'll bet that he'll do his best to help you. The characters in that novel you mentioned won't be any help at all.

__________________

"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 08-10-2007, 06:04 AM   #30
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 so what?

"Been to Vegas lately? Metro police has installed camera's at an intersection near a high crime area. They are already considering adding more if these are effective. Gee I wonder who determines if they are effective?"

And your point is...?

Reducing crime is bad?

They should put the cameras in a LOW-crime area?

I shouldn't go to Vegas because they'll take my picture?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a camera filming me in public, doing whatever I'm doing in front of anyone who happens to see me anyway, infringes on my civil liberties. Or why preventing or discouraging crime in this way is a bad idea.

Or, most importantly, if the government actually IS interested in where you go, and actually DOES commit the money and personnel needed to track your movements, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT INFORMATION? Does anyone even have a THEORY on that?

__________________

"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