Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many of us the board here all look at this as an absolute---and any attempt to interfere with this right is a violation of OUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS, CORRECT? I have hunted a great deal; I enjoy trap and skeet shooting; and I believe that a person has the right to protect himself and his property; I disagree wholeheartedly on any interference with us and our lawful use, collection, etc. of firearms. IT IS GUARANTEED. NON-NEGOTIABLE Right? People rightfully complain that they are being unju****lly persecuted and they HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

Then why do some of the same people say that other rights guaranteed in this Ammendment:

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

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

are, in effect, negotiable? If one amendment is rock-solid and non-negotiable, why are the others so loose? It, I feel is not that way, The rights given to us by our founding fathers so long ago have endured hundreds of years. If they are negotiable, then the Amendment(s) has only the value that the paper is written on.


Same arguemnt; "IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?" Those of us who enjoy our firearms and abhor the idea of unjust interference in our just use of them whould have a fit over this line, correct? Why then, is it OK for the other Amendment? To me, the answer is simple; it is not.

If you have no problems giving up little tidbits of your rights for the Sixth Amendment, you had better have no qualms at all about giving up the same tidbits for the Fourth Amendment.

You se; it doesn't matter. The amendment is there for a reason; it has remained unchanged for all these years for a reason. If there is a need to change it, the steps are in place to do so. Since it remains unchanged, so should our rights.

Tim C.

 

Couldn't Agree More!

 

But do you not realize, or choose to ignore, that it HAS BEEN CHANGED?

The Patriot Act of 2001, re-ratified in 2006, and the Military Commisions Act of 2006 effectively have eliminated the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution, and to some extent the 1st amendment.

If you believe that these acts apply only to "foreigners", you'd best actually read them.

No where in either does it specify that these acts apply to "foreigners" or "foriegn nationals".

No. They state that they apply to "enemy-combatants". And they go on to define what is considered an "enemy-combatant".

Under these acts, ratified by Congress, signed by the President.. the law of the land.. any act that violates any state or federal law is the act of an "enemy-combatant".

Therefore, at the discretion of the executive branch of government, if you break any state or federal law you are / can be subject to military tribunals under which you have no rights whatsoever as we the people are accustomed to. No attorney. No seeing the evidence against you. No questioning witnesses.

This is real and these are the conditions we currently live under in the US.

The fact that it's a rare for anyone to suffer these things (tho how would we know?) is beside the point.

The point is that the Constitution HAS been gutted, and until cases challenging these acts reach the Supreme Court (and how can they when you essentially are disappeared?), then it is what it is.

Martial law.

 

Then I would say that we are in agreement.

Warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act (some parts) are bad for the average US Citizen.

Perfect, issue solved.

Lets move on to say...the income tax.

 

Oh, the freakin' income tax.. LMAO

Okay, I'll say this about it.. unless your personal income is derived from / paid by / some entity that is not a part of the US then you do not owe any federal income tax.

And I'll add this - anyone who believes that the "Federal Reserve", the folks who print our money - anyone who thinks there is anything "federal" about it is very, very uninformed.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned business, same as Dell, Toyota, Federal Express, Ford.. well, actually not the same as those as it is truly privately owned, no stock issued.

The US Government does NOT print / stamp out our money. The federal reserve does, and it is not accountable to any governmental agency.

 

Vader,

This is the only paragraph in that review that pertains to the point I'm trying to make:

Specifically this sentence:
^^^^ I will agree that that last sentence, if it is happening, is wrong.

However, with the verbage of the legislation everyone is talking about, this monitoring of calls exclusively in the US is, was, and will remain illegal without a warrant.

My point is that if a line of communication leaves the borders of the United States, then it is no longer domestic. Try going to the post office and say "I'd like to send this to Paris... I'm in the US, so I want the domestic rate."

That is my point of using the "Dumba$$" comment, that people seem to think that just because one person involved in a conversation happens to be in the US, that the call is "domestic," and therefore deserves protection under the Fourth Amendment.

 

You're missing the point.

Use your google on the word Carnivore.

EVERY phone call / email / text message is "monitored", i.e., goes through a United States Gov't computer that searches for keywords.

You're being purposely naive if you don't understand that every electronic communication you participate in is not in some fashion being "listened to" by the United States Government.

Yes, this conversation as well.

There is no longer privacy as such in any form of electronic communication, okay?

Speak in person or write a letter if you want anything you have to say to have any expectation of privacy.

 

People who are known for flying kites in lightning storms have no buisness giving advice on safety.

 

Is there anyone here who has anything to fear if their conversations are recorded? Not me. "I'll pick you up at 6:00" or "I love you, Grandma" isn't going to get me arrested.

Hell, tap EVERYTHING as far as I'm concerned. I'd much rather someone find out how boring my life is but catch some drug dealers and child molesters in the process.

 

akheloce,

I understand your point of view, I really do. I realize the "Dumba$$ comment was not directed at me, I was just having some fun with it.

My concern is that there is no judical involvement in the process. When only the executive branch controls what once involved two branches it makes me nervous. They don't want their actions to be reviewed. We have documented proof that the power has been abused. A little judicial review is a good thing, IMO.

Podunk,

Pretty funny but the man was brilliant, I'll take his advice with no qualms.

JohnG6,

That theory scares the crap out of me. The catching criminals or terrorists is NEVER EVER worth the destruction and trampling of our rights.

 

The point is this---it willnot get you arrested---you are missing it; they shouldn't be listening in the first place. Let's say I go to Britain to take a graduate class on Chaucer ) (yech.) I get to Heathrow, to my hotel room, and call my wife and say, Hey, I am her and I miss you." What stinking right do they have---we are not talking about getting arested...we are talking about the Sixth Amaendment about probable cause, warrants, swearing out a warrant, etc. I am not worried about getting arrested... I am worried about sacreficing my rights.

Tim C.

 

Think what you want, but I'm not going to debate someone based on something they found on the internet. I guess training, observing court decisions, and pratical applications of the law is trumped by what is found on the internet.

 

I'm citing case law. You want to see the actual court ruling?

I'm not shooting from the hip here. I've studied case law regarding the patriot act with regard to Carnivore, the Patriot act, and technology. But then again I guess I'm just a googler with no actual knowledge.

Here is the case if you are interested:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=389&invol=347

 

....

 

Think of this if you haven't already. The computers that monitor the calls are looking for key words or phrases. There is no way anyone is having there calls monitored by a person unless they are already suspected in a very serious way. So for all intents and purposes, your not being listened to. The traffic would take a small country of people to be listening. The paranoia is pretty amazing....... The talk about loosing constitutional rights sounds pretty grand. I mean... who isn't for the children? kind of logic.