(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

You know you just turned this into another gun debate. Ohhhhh, Noooooooos.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Well, anyone with half a brain would see that the joke has nothing to do with gun control, it's just about calling out Lindsey Graham's hypocrisy.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Well, anyone with half a brain

You overestimated our brain power.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Well, anyone with half a brain"

Well there's your problem right there

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I see it more along the lines of we should all be concerned anytime the government infringes on our Constitutional rights (in this case, the Fourth and due process clause of the Fourteenth)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It is analogous. And that makes the answer for the gun debate the same as for this one. Constitution says the government can't take our guns and the Constitution says the government can't search us without a warrant. There is no exception for the "effectiveness of the outcome" of the unconstitutional laws and policies.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"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".

<-- That's the exact text of the 2nd Amendment. Please elaborate exactly how it translates INTO "the government can't take our guns".

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The part after the comma.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

There are three commas there. Which one specifically?

So you take separate parts of sentences from a text and make them the only ones that matter?

OK then.

I choose "Shall not be infringed". Nothing should be infringed.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Your version is different than the one I'm used to seeing:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


And as far as meaning is concerned: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms: that assuimes people have the right, then the amendment goes on to say that that right shall not be infringed.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Great, your version is even clearer.

I have a few questions if you don't mind. What's the usefulness of the entire first part of that statement, namely "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Please educate the Constitutional layman. Why mention a militia, and why should it be regulated? And what does "well" regulated mean? Does the explicit mention of the necessity of a well regulated militia mean that citizens who are not part of that militia do not qualify under this right as per the 2nd Amendment?

After that, you're going to have to specify what exactly constitutes "arms". Do assault weapons count as "arms"? Machine-guns? Bazookas? Tanks? Cannon guns? Were some of those present at the time the Constitution was being written? If not, where's the adequate amendment to the 2nd Amendment that clarifies what sort of "arms" are allowed? Or in case you think that's unnecessary, does it mean they're all allowed? Including the tanks?

And ultimately, how do background checks infringe upon the right of citizens to bear arms? Does it somehow automatically result in their guns being confiscated, or is there something profound that I'm missing in the whole picture?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed translates quite directly into the government can't take our guns. Please explain how it doesn't.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I see. You'd love to have a tank.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

While he can, they are rather expensive.

http://cars.natemichals.com/funny/tank-ownership-primer/

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I see you like non sequitors.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

It is analogous. And that makes the answer for the gun debate the same as for this one. Constitution says the government can't take our guns and the Constitution says the government can't search us without a warrant. There is no exception for the "effectiveness of the outcome" of the unconstitutional laws and policies.

The only thing that is analogous is the simple minded view of the U.S. Constitution by We the Amateurs vs. the simple minded view of razor blades by a baby.

We the Amateurs: Oooooohhh, the Constitution is sooooooooo simple.

A baby: Oooooohhh, these things are is sooooooooo shiny.

Interpreting the Constitution is why we have a Supreme Court.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us. We don't need it, for example, to tell us that a newspaper can write an editorial critical of the President.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us.

Thanks, We the Amateurs

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court settles Constitutional questions. This does not make the Constitution a document whose meaning is to be decided by a small set of Ivy League graduates.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Of course Graham's hypocritical complaint could be expanded to include any other parts of the Constitution - which is the more general point being made here, the way I'm reading this.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's nice, but I can't tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with Mr. Graham.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The Daily Show ridicules the man. I suppose one could suspect that quoting the Daily Show as it ridicules Graham is not an indicator that Telemann agrees with the sentiment expressed by the Daily Show.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

John Oliver is a great substitute for Jon Stewart.

Just because you are paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to get you.