Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Patriot Act, Section 215

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2011, 12:27 AM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Minneapolis,MN
Posts: 6
Default title

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
Tell me, as a Liberal, do you think it is the job/duty of the federal government to provide welfare, require citizens to purchase a product that they provide, and grow the government to unsustainable size?

Have you ever taken the time, outside of social studies class, to read and try to understand the constitution? If you haven't, I urge you to do so, and then explain to me, how, what our current government is doing, is CONSTITUTIONAL.
require citizens to purchase a product that they provide <-I'm not sure what you're talking about there. (federal health insurance?)

I frigging hate welfare! This whole thing of getting a check for making a baby is complete crap. But if I'm going to bitch about people on welfare, I have to say the corporations on welfare piss me off even more. That whole bank bailout was a joke.

I do support things like job training and all levels of education, including technical institutes and state colleges. People still need to pay tuition for college, but I believe that it should not be beyond the reach of those who really want it.

And now this is probably gonna really piss people off or, hell, I don't know what kind of reaction this is gonna get, but the biggest reason I'm a liberal and talk of moving to Canada is cuz I'm gay as a three-dollar bill and am frigging sick of being treated like a frigging second-class citizen. There are parts of the US where if my partner of 13 years was in intensive care, I couldn't go in to see him cuz I'm not "family." I'm trying to watch my language here but my adrenalin is kicking and I'm getting seriously riled up. You probably all fckng hate me now and want to bring out your guns and shoot me. Do you know what that's like? Knowing people wanna shoot you because of the way you were fckng BORN? This wasn't a fckng choice on my part. The only thing I chose was to be comfortable with who I am and stop trying to kill myself by getting fckng drunk every night.

So my point is, not all liberals are happy "I'm up with people!" types.

PS: Here's hoping I have to apologize for the all-of-you-wanting-to-shoot-me stereotype.
__________________

Last edited by Brie; 05-01-2011 at 12:31 AM.
Brie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 04:37 AM   #42
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brie View Post
require citizens to purchase a product that they provide <-I'm not sure what you're talking about there. (federal health insurance?)
Yes, government run, purchase mandatory health insurance. Something the federal government is ok to do?
I frigging hate welfare! This whole thing of getting a check for making a baby is complete crap. But if I'm going to bitch about people on welfare, I have to say the corporations on welfare piss me off even more. That whole bank bailout was a joke.
Good, we are on the same page here! Handouts breed dependency, dependency breed people who cannot and will not do anything for themselves. And IMO, it is essentially buying votes!

I do support things like job training and all levels of education, including technical institutes and state colleges. People still need to pay tuition for college, but I believe that it should not be beyond the reach of those who really want it.
Education, GOOD education is essential, but the federal government shouldn't be deciding what and how classes are taught.

And now this is probably gonna really piss people off or, hell, I don't know what kind of reaction this is gonna get, but the biggest reason I'm a liberal and talk of moving to Canada is cuz I'm gay as a three-dollar bill and am frigging sick of being treated like a frigging second-class citizen. There are parts of the US where if my partner of 13 years was in intensive care, I couldn't go in to see him cuz I'm not "family." I'm trying to watch my language here but my adrenalin is kicking and I'm getting seriously riled up. You probably all fckng hate me now and want to bring out your guns and shoot me. Do you know what that's like? Knowing people wanna shoot you because of the way you were fckng BORN? This wasn't a fckng choice on my part. The only thing I chose was to be comfortable with who I am and stop trying to kill myself by getting fckng drunk every night.

So my point is, not all liberals are happy "I'm up with people!" types.

PS: Here's hoping I have to apologize for the all-of-you-wanting-to-shoot-me stereotype.
Sorry to disappoint ya there, but I could care less about your sexual orientation! I know there are tons of ignorant pieces of sh!t out there, but that is everywhere you go. And although I don't walk in your shoes, I can understand your distraught.
I have another question for you, and don't misunderstand, I am just trying to understand you better. Are you a gun owner, or do you have an interest in guns? If not, what brought you to this forum? Are you just trying to understand the red-neck-knuckle draggin-gun totin right/conservatives?
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:45 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigcountry02 View Post
Will Congress Lay the Groundwork for Gun Confiscation? - Gun Owners Of America

Within the next 90 days, Congress will vote on whether to reauthorize legislation to specifically allow the government potential access to millions of gun records (4473’s).
confiscation is only possible if the government has records.

that is why registration in the first place was the mistake.

you do not have a right if you register, you only have a privilege, and now the government is revoking the privilege.

Just say no to registration.
__________________
prof-milton-fireballs is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 07:23 AM   #44
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
diggsbakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pueblo,Colorado
Posts: 1,680
Liked 8 Times on 5 Posts

Default

I've noticed over the last 10 years or so, since I've begun to casually follow politics and law and focus on what matters most to me, (and many others) that no matter what seemingly small standard, of any kind, is set, it opens the door for similar measures to follow it with precedence.

So, with out even getting into the technicalities of any of these acts, treaties, statutes, or whatever, if the general direction or meaning of it violates your core beliefs, personal freedoms, way of life, etc. no matter how small, it should be opposed to the best of your ability. However, you have to pick your battles and spend your time wisely.

I personally don't feel like this one is very threatening, as like a few folks have already stated, they already know what you have. . . not just in terms of guns either.

I sent some $$$ to a friend a year or 2 ago. Western Union verified my ID by asking me my employer, mortgage lender, car registration and some other private (or not so much) info. It was basically a multiple choice with the correct "answer" in each group of choices!

Privacy no more. .. .

__________________
diggsbakes is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 12:38 PM   #45
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 Brie View Post
require citizens to purchase a product that they provide <-I'm not sure what you're talking about there. (federal health insurance?)
Yes, that's what was being referred to. Do you think it is reasonable for someone to require you to purchase something you may or may not want or need on the basis that the person demanding it believes it is in your best interest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brie View Post
I frigging hate welfare! This whole thing of getting a check for making a baby is complete crap. But if I'm going to bitch about people on welfare, I have to say the corporations on welfare piss me off even more. That whole bank bailout was a joke.
That's something I could have written. Agree 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brie View Post
I do support things like job training and all levels of education, including technical institutes and state colleges. People still need to pay tuition for college, but I believe that it should not be beyond the reach of those who really want it.
That kind of steps on what you wrote above. Why would it be OK, for example, for schools to get welfare to cover the costs of tuition for those who cannot afford it? In my opinion, it wouldn't.

It is wrong for anyone - an individual or an entity like a corporation or a school or a government - to get welfare in one form or another. When a government decides to provide entitlements or benefits to some people, it must logically take from other people; government does not create wealth, so it must steal it from those who do through threat of violent force.

Getting back to schooling...it will take some time before people realize four-year degrees are a) not necessary to become successful, and b) may not be worth the expense. When that happens and applicants drop off, tuition prices will fall provided we still have a free-market economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brie View Post
And now this is probably gonna really piss people off or, hell, I don't know what kind of reaction this is gonna get, but the biggest reason I'm a liberal and talk of moving to Canada is cuz I'm gay as a three-dollar bill and am frigging sick of being treated like a frigging second-class citizen. There are parts of the US where if my partner of 13 years was in intensive care, I couldn't go in to see him cuz I'm not "family." I'm trying to watch my language here but my adrenalin is kicking and I'm getting seriously riled up. You probably all fckng hate me now and want to bring out your guns and shoot me. Do you know what that's like? Knowing people wanna shoot you because of the way you were fckng BORN? This wasn't a fckng choice on my part. The only thing I chose was to be comfortable with who I am and stop trying to kill myself by getting fckng drunk every night.

So my point is, not all liberals are happy "I'm up with people!" types.

PS: Here's hoping I have to apologize for the all-of-you-wanting-to-shoot-me stereotype.
What you do and who you choose for companionship is your business; doesn't matter to me.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 02:07 PM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Incline Village,NV
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brie
require citizens to purchase a product that they provide <-I'm not sure what you're talking about there. (federal health insurance?)
Yes, that's what was being referred to. Do you think it is reasonable for someone to require you to purchase something you may or may not want or need on the basis that the person demanding it believes it is in your best interest?
There's no requirement to purchase health insurance. There is a tax penalty if you do not and the constitutional grounds for taxation are well established. I do agree that it would be a stretch to actually require us to buy insurance, though the Supreme Court through the years has up held Social Security and Medicare, and there's no difference Constitutionally between those and mandatory health insurance. The Constitutional grounds are the "Commerce Clause" and if you are truly interested in understanding the Constitution - rather than just arguing about it - then you need to read not only it but also summaries of the major supreme court rulings on it's keep provisions.

An excellent question was raised in this thread, one which we often lose sight of when discussing the Constitutionality of what our gov't does. And that is "do you think it's reasonable?" Whether a law is Constitutional or not is generally unrelated to whether it's a good idea, and visa verse. For example, it is unquestionably both Constitutional and a bad idea to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Beyond the strict Constitutional test, then Yes I do think it's reasonable to require people to buy things they may or may not need; because when they don't the rest of us are forced by necessity or basic decency to pay their costs for them. I believe mandatory auto insurance was a brilliant idea if for no other reason than when your drunk driving cripples your neighbor's child we know s/he can get the help needed without society footing the bill. I believe that the laws requiring unemployment and disability insurance were excellent ideas, though I also believe that the disability insurance program is horribly administered. That is actually a (rare) example of when gov't seems to do it better: Nevada has gov't disability insurance and the program works fairly well. California has private insurance and it's both very expensive and terribly managed.
__________________
mes227 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 04:06 PM   #47
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Minneapolis,MN
Posts: 6
Default replies...

Pandamonium, no, I'm not a gun owner. I was searching for information on Section 215 of the Patriot Act because of how it affects libraries and its patrons. If the Feds think a friend of a mine is a ne'er-do-well, they can search MY library (and any other) records to see if they can help implicate my friend. bogus.

I had no idea that gun owners were so anti-Patriot Act. Obviously now I completely understand, but I was under the impression that you all wanted to blow up every country and person that wasn't a God-fearin' bible-beltin' Christian and stood behind anything the country did in regards to fighting for out freedom. ("Freedom isn't free" and all that.) I will say that while we do need to be on the look out and there are viable threats, but no one will ever convince me that attack on Iraq was anything more than an excuse by the Bush family to get control of the oil.

I do come from a family of gun owners. My mother used to be able to pick off a squirrel at 20 paces (yea, I grew up eating squirrel once in a while) and one of my brothers/nephews still goes game hunting. (I love game.) Neither of them are into anything other than hunting riles as far as I know.

RE: Education - I don't see state support of higher ed as being welfare because it is an equal provider. I know not everyone uses it, but anyone who wishes to can. What I consider to be education welfare are the sports guys who go for free (and often get perks) and then drop out after a couple years and get millions going pro. And believe me, NO ONE believes in standardized testing except for those that want to blame their bad parenting skills on the school system.

In one of my text books this semester I read that one of the biggest aspects of anger/conflict is that we demonize our perceived enemies. In this case it was librarians vs book banners, but it struck me like a bolt because I could relate to it so completely. So when I saw that gun people and I had actually had something in common (!!!) I had to start talking to you all.

My classmates/friends are amazed that I'm out here. I think it's cool.

__________________
Brie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 04:48 PM   #48
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 mes227 View Post
There's no requirement to purchase health insurance. There is a tax penalty if you do not
Correct. And the penalty is levied against businesses, thus very strongly encouraging them to bend to the will of Obama. That is coercion. Thus, it is evil and wrong and anathema to a free state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227 View Post
and the constitutional grounds for taxation are well established.
Constitution? Do you really want to go there? Re-read A1S8 and get back to us on Congress' ability to penalize some individuals for failing to procure a product or service for themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227 View Post
I do agree that it would be a stretch to actually require us to buy insurance, though the Supreme Court through the years has up held Social Security and Medicare, and there's no difference Constitutionally between those and mandatory health insurance.
Exactly right. All three are unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227 View Post
The Constitutional grounds are the "Commerce Clause" and if you are truly interested in understanding the Constitution - rather than just arguing about it - then you need to read not only it but also summaries of the major supreme court rulings on it's keep provisions.
Been there, done that.

The oft-abused "commerce clause" reads thus:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And "regulate" in the context of A1S8, as it is in 2A, means to ensure that everything works well and smoothly together. It is not a mechanism to oversee or control.

That said, how can Congress deign to disallow interstate commerce for health insurance? Doesn't that take a colossal dump on said clause? Sure it does.

The CC has been egregiously abused by the SCOTUS in the past. My particular favorite is Wicker v. Filburn (1930) in which an individual (Filburn) grew his own crops and raised his own cattle. The cattle lived off what he grew and he lived off his cattle and what he grew. He was ordered to cut back on production on the grounds he was stepping on the interstate commerce clause. The argument basically said that because he was self-sufficient, he was not purchasing produce and meat and thus having an adverse impact on interstate commerce.

So you will forgive me if I don't consider SCOTUS rulings to be either correct or reasonable all the time; the nine jurists who sit on that court are not infallible and work against the constitution as often as not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227 View Post
An excellent question was raised in this thread, one which we often lose sight of when discussing the Constitutionality of what our gov't does. And that is "do you think it's reasonable?" Whether a law is Constitutional or not is generally unrelated to whether it's a good idea, and visa verse. For example, it is unquestionably both Constitutional and a bad idea to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Beyond the strict Constitutional test, then Yes I do think it's reasonable to require people to buy things they may or may not need; because when they don't the rest of us are forced by necessity or basic decency to pay their costs for them.
Incorrect. You are not obliged, under any circumstances except a private contract under which we both enter freely, to pay for a goddamn thing I may need. Similarly, I am under no obligation to see to your needs.

You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of preserving the society as a whole at the expense of the individuals who comprise that society. Therein lies your error.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:18 PM   #49
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cory2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryville,Tennessee
Posts: 575
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Yeah, the SCOTUS is notorious for making unconstitutional rulings... NFA 1934 for example. Restricting a product through taxation is verifiably unconstitutional.. yet they did, and continue to do it. As a matter of fact, NFA1934 is, in my opinion, the perfect example of the supreme court failing miserably at its job. I will do a quick recap of how that went down but i suggest everyone look into it for your self.

In 1938 the case miller the supreme court of arkansas ruled the the NFA of 1934 unconstitutional in the Miller vs United States case. The lawyers (paid by the government obviously) pressed it to take it to the SCOTUS. The lawyers who were worked for Miller were doing it pro bono, and they could not afford to, go to D.C. and continue the case to SCOTUS, they also did not file a (thing cant remember what its called) telling them they wouldnt show. The law was said to be constitutional because no one showed up to fight it, there was only the lawyer from the government who lied to the SCOTUS and they, being judges, ruled the case in favor of the person who showed up... It was a lot more complicated than that but basicly, America got screwed hard.

You should also do some research into the GCA 1968. That law literally made 10's of thousands (if not more) of people felons who had no way of fixing it. They could keep their guns and hope they never got caught, or turn them in and go to prison... look it up.

Everything the government does is for power and control and is very rarely of benefit to the citizen.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

(thats right, im throwing another TJ quote in here )

__________________
God created men. John Moses Browning made them equal.

Check out my blog:http://ithinkforme.blogspot.com/
Cory2 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:23 PM   #50
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Cory2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryville,Tennessee
Posts: 575
Liked 9 Times on 5 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mes227 View Post
I believe mandatory auto insurance was a brilliant idea if for no other reason than when your drunk driving cripples your neighbor's child we know s/he can get the help needed without society footing the bill.
...what? do you know how insurance works?
__________________
God created men. John Moses Browning made them equal.

Check out my blog:http://ithinkforme.blogspot.com/
Cory2 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes