kallend 2,184 #1 August 24, 2008 online.wsj.com/article/SB121937117186362585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24sun3.html But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 August 24, 2008 QuoteBut it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 August 24, 2008 Yes, he was the one who proposed that in SC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #4 August 24, 2008 QuoteIf they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. Is that the same mentality as "if another country looks dangerous, let's beat them up before they might possibly think about attacking us" ? Defining someone or something as a "threat" is purely subjective, and depends on who holds the power at that moment. Right now, there are white Christians in power that think that anyone that is Muslim is a threat. That may be OK with Christians, but wait until the Jews are in power, and see if your name ends up on the list.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #5 August 24, 2008 Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? And he didn't have a problem with people responding to a call by the police to have them "voluntarily" come in and have their guns examined to prove themselves innocent of a shooting crime. The fact that he is here bitching about any kind of surveillance of free citizens is a fucking JOKE coming from him, as far as I am concerned.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #6 August 24, 2008 Quote Right now, there are white Christians in power that think that anyone that is Muslim is a threat. As Eric Cartman said, "No, but most of them are... and all it takes is most of them." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #7 August 24, 2008 You really don't pay attention, do you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #8 August 24, 2008 Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. So what do you think about the FUBAR at DHS? Maybe they should hire more Texans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. CCW license != purchase. Is this starting to sink in yet, professor? Quote So what do you think about the FUBAR at DHS? Maybe they should hire more Texans. I've already answered that - it's in your quote of my initial reply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #10 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. CCW license != purchase. Is this starting to sink in yet, professor? . So you are telling us Texas does a lousy job in deciding who should be allowed to purchase guns, in contrast to the good job it does in filtering CCW applications. Sounds like you're starting to agree with me that the pre-purchase checks can be and should be more rigorous, like the CCW checks. Cool.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. CCW license != purchase. Is this starting to sink in yet, professor? . So you are telling us Texas does a lousy job in deciding who should be allowed to purchase guns, in contrast to the good job it does in filtering CCW applications. Sounds like you're starting to agree with me that the pre-purchase checks can be and should be more rigorous, like the CCW checks. Cool. Incorrect yet AGAIN, professor. The purchase check is FEDERAL, not state.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #12 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. CCW license != purchase. Is this starting to sink in yet, professor? . So you are telling us Texas does a lousy job in deciding who should be allowed to purchase guns, in contrast to the good job it does in filtering CCW applications. Sounds like you're starting to agree with me that the pre-purchase checks can be and should be more rigorous, like the CCW checks. Cool. Incorrect yet AGAIN, professor. The purchase check is FEDERAL, not state. OK, I stand corrected. The FEDS do a lousy job of pre-purchase checks, and could learn a lesson from Texas.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 August 25, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote But it's all OK, the Bush administration can spy on citizens with impunity. Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore... hardly a surprise. That said, the 'watch list' is stupid anyway. If they're a threat, investigate and arrest them. With that said...weren't you the one wanting the same sort of database with medical data to be available online in regards to firearms purchases? You told us Texas does a really good job with it's CCW approval process. CCW license != purchase. Is this starting to sink in yet, professor? . So you are telling us Texas does a lousy job in deciding who should be allowed to purchase guns, in contrast to the good job it does in filtering CCW applications. Sounds like you're starting to agree with me that the pre-purchase checks can be and should be more rigorous, like the CCW checks. Cool. Incorrect yet AGAIN, professor. The purchase check is FEDERAL, not state. OK, I stand corrected. The FEDS do a lousy job of pre-purchase checks, and could learn a lesson from Texas. Ok, so since you support more government scrutiny on the right to keep and bear arms, you have no problem with government scrutiny of free speech, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #14 August 25, 2008 Non sequitur. Scalia's opinion in Heller clearly says the Second Amendment's "individual right" to bear arms extends only to self defense and, even then, only in one's home. Scalia seems to have gone out of his way to explain that the Court wasn't invalidating laws against concealed carry, laws against "unusual or dangerous" weapons, licensure and permit laws, or laws against possessing weapons in "sensitive areas."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 August 26, 2008 Heller is not advocating increased requirements for purchase, as you are. Therefore, my statement stands as correct and is *not* a non sequitur.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #16 August 26, 2008 QuoteHeller is not advocating increased requirements for purchase, as you are. Therefore, my statement stands as correct and is *not* a non sequitur. Heller clearly states that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Hence your comment WAS irrelevant. "the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteHeller is not advocating increased requirements for purchase, as you are. Therefore, my statement stands as correct and is *not* a non sequitur. Heller clearly states that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Hence your comment WAS irrelevant. "the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Enough red herrings, Professor. We are not discussing Heller. YOU are the one that supports FURTHER infringements on a right - therefore, you support FURTHER infringements on OTHER rights - QED.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #18 August 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHeller is not advocating increased requirements for purchase, as you are. Therefore, my statement stands as correct and is *not* a non sequitur. Heller clearly states that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Hence your comment WAS irrelevant. "the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Enough red herrings, Professor. We are not discussing Heller. YOU are the one that supports FURTHER infringements on a right - therefore, you support FURTHER infringements on OTHER rights - QED. It's not a further infringement to want existing laws to be properly enforced. The existing restrictions on felons and nutters are perfectly constitutional.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
