jeffmeden Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 Ummm I see a big problem with it I was referring to you in the first sentence, not the second one... Work with me here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 I was referring to you in the first sentence, not the second one... Work with me here. roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 The thing I don't get is the so-called conservatives in this thread that don't see a problem with this. They are not true to the side of the fence We did the same check point tactic in Iraq, and it works. If small communities see it is necessary then so be it, now when it becomes a large scale engulfing whole cities, I would then have a problem. If it wasn't sanctified by a large group wanting it, then I would say it's not right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHaze Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 I cant believe some of the things that I am reading in this thread. Giving up our individual freedoms for the greater good is not a good thing. History is something that will always repeat it self.. As we pass through the history books we find pages and chapters that are filled with leaders that place restrictions on the citizens "for the greater good". In 1918 the Bolsheviks took over in Russia for the "greater good" of the people. Millions suffered and died. The KGB emerged, Gulags were filed, and the people were not allowed to even travel without permission. The same was repeated in China, Germany, Cambodia and so on. If those are the type of governments you like, Go to N. Korea. Our Government will continue to erode the civil liberties of our citizens, someday we will look back and wonder what happened. +1. Mensan pmed me a long time ago asking if you were my dad. Maybe he was right. Not only does this curfew and extreme policing just add another rung to our ladder to total martial law, but it's also not going to work at all. They won't get rid of crime, they'll just concentrate it to different areas, causing the criminals to find new ways to an underground ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 They are not true to the side of the fence We did the same check point tactic in Iraq, and it works. If small communities see it is necessary then so be it, now when it becomes a large scale engulfing whole cities, I would then have a problem. If it wasn't sanctified by a large group wanting it, then I would say it's not right. As usual, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 Actually our governmental system is built around majority rule. Individual "rights" are there but, they can be changed by the majority. no, actually, they cant. i can see how at at first glance the principals of majority rule and protection of individual rights coluld seem contracitory to you. however, they are two pillars that uphold the foundation of what our government is based on. you must realize there is a difference between a direct democratic system and a republic. a direct democracy is mob rule. the minority have no protection from the majority. in a constitutional republic (such as the USA) officials are elected as representatives of the individuals and must govern according to law (the constitution) that limits the governments power over citizens. the puropose of the constitution is to strictly control the majority and protect the individual's unalienable rights and the protection of rights of all minorities and the liberty of people as a whole. the constitution places individual rights off limits to even the most lopsided democratic vote. in the US, majority rule is a means for organizing government and for the decision of public issues. it is not a tool for oppression. the framers were definitely aware of this, and saw a danger of majority rule in oppressing liberty for the individual. in federalist paper 51 madison writes It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. read federalist paper 10. it deals with this a lot as well. madison advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy to protect the minority from oppression by the majority. tl;dr this is a nation of laws, not men. but hey... whatever... http://i36.tinypic.com/hrgdad.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 They are not true to the side of the fence We did the same check point tactic in Iraq, and it works. If small communities see it is necessary then so be it, now when it becomes a large scale engulfing whole cities, I would then have a problem. If it wasn't sanctified by a large group wanting it, then I would say it's not right. There is a solution that is better than what they are doing right now. In Iraq, a country with whom we are at war, we have different views about the individual freedoms of the residents. In MY country, this shit doesn't happen. We are too educated, and too civilized to need this shit. Do we need to step up patrols in this area? Do the citizens need to be armed better or work together as a community? There is a solution that does not violate our protection provided by our constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 no, actually, they cant. i can see how at at first glance the principals of majority rule and protection of individual rights seems contracitory to you. however, upon further study one finds that they are two pillars that uphold the foundation of what our government is based on. you must realize that is a difference between a direct democratic system and a republic. a direct democracy is mob rule. the minority have no protection from the majority. in a constitutional republic (such as the USA) officials are elected as representatives of the individuals and must govern according to law (the constitution) that limits the governments power over citizens. the puropose of the constitution is to strictly control the majority and protect the individual's unalienable rights and the protection of rights of all minorities and the liberty of people as a whole. the constitution places individual rights off limits to even the most lopsided democratic vote. in the US, majority rule is a means for organizing government and for the decision of public issues. it is not a tool for oppression. the framers were definitely aware of this, and saw a danger of majority rule in oppressing liberty for the individual. in federalist paper 51 madison writes read federalist paper 10. it deals with this a lot as well. madison advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy to protect the minority from oppression by the majority. tl;dr this is a nation of laws, not men. but hey... whatever... http://i36.tinypic.com/hrgdad.jpg Space saved for a later respone to argue more semantics like the above post. Majority can change things, deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 If it wasn't sanctified by a large group wanting it, then I would say it's not right. by that logic if a large group wanted to do other things that could violate other parts of the constitution (such as the DC gun ban) then you would be ok with that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 by that logic if a large group wanted to do other things that could violate other parts of the constitution (such as a gun ban) then you would be ok with that too. What part of the constitution are they violating by inforcing a check point and a curfew? No gun control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 He who sacrifices freedom for security, deserve neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 +1. Mensan pmed me a long time ago asking if you were my dad. Maybe he was right. Not only does this curfew and extreme policing just add another rung to our ladder to total martial law, but it's also not going to work at all. They won't get rid of crime, they'll just concentrate it to different areas, causing the criminals to find new ways to an underground ring. I am not that old!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 He who sacrifices freedom for security, deserve neither. Ben Franklin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 What part of the constitution are they violating by inforcing a check point and a curfew? No gun control I would start here... 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. thank you wiki The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1647545494 Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 you can't really deter crime that much. if you look at it like a job to steal, deal drugs, kill, or whatever then getting busted is just part of your job and your right back at it as soon as you get out of jail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pomade Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Don't break the law if you don't want to be caught doing something illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptn janks Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Majority can change things, deal with it. yes, but the bill of rights is not one of those things. IF the majority DOES want the bill of rights changed, there is a process to do so is laid out in article five of the constitution. it is not up to a 9 member city council to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 yes, but the bill of rights is not one of those things. IF the majority DOES want the bill of rights changed, there is a process to do so is laid out in article five of the constitution. it is not up to a 9 member city council to do so. Not even close to what I'm arguing. I made a broad statement, you are narrowing it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyctsv Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Don't break the law if you don't want to be caught doing something illegal. +1 I have no problem with a random search now and then - i have nothing to hide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 +1 I have no problem with a random search now and then - i have nothing to hide So by that same line of reasoning, if I don't own guns, is it OK to pass a law that makes owning them illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Advocate Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I cant believe some of the things that I am reading in this thread. Giving up our individual freedoms for the greater good is not a good thing. History is something that will always repeat it self.. As we pass through the history books we find pages and chapters that are filled with leaders that place restrictions on the citizens "for the greater good". In 1918 the Bolsheviks took over in Russia for the "greater good" of the people. Millions suffered and died. The KGB emerged, Gulags were filed, and the people were not allowed to even travel without permission. The same was repeated in China, Germany, Cambodia and so on. If those are the type of governments you like, Go to N. Korea. Our Government will continue to erode the civil liberties of our citizens, someday we will look back and wonder what happened. Never, EVER thought I'd say this.... but A-men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I can't believe people here are arguing that the Constitution means anything other than what it says. Scott, weren't you sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yet you appear to be arguing against it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmeden Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 "Don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about" I hate to go internet-cliche, but this is exactly what the German populace believed circa 1930 as a certain someone was organizing a certain government in preparation for a certain world-changing event. If this is your only argument, sorry, you fail miserably. Confining people to their homes and subjecting them to random searches just because they live in a certain area is NOT freedom by any stretch. Set up a roadblock that conforms to state and federal laws regarding probable cause and search and seizure. Go after ACTUAL criminals, not just whoever happens to live near a criminal. That is how crime is fought. As soon as you say this is OK to do in some random town X where the crime rate is X (some arbitrary value based on fear), you say it's ok to do in YOUR neighborhood, to YOU and your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 Scott, weren't you sworn to uphold the Constitution? Yet you appear to be arguing against it? Yes, but there are interpretations of the Constitution. If a state of emergency was set into place, there would be National Guard soldiers all over the place doing the same exact thing. Doing a check point in a stricken area such as that, isn't a crime nor do I see it violate anything. Now if it were to expand outward into areas not stricken by the crime, guns, drugs etc.. that would be a quick no cross line. Consider it just like DUI check points. If you haven't been drinking, and are just driving home from work, vacation, or just minding your own business, do you have a problem with that check point? Would you just cooperate and go upon your way? I'm not arguing at all against OUR great Constitution, but the Constitution has been recently taken advantage of way too much. I've seen the 1st Amendment be used so far as to be treason, yet they're still protected. These were check points, not random knocks on the door with unlawful search/seizure. If you yourself were not a gun owner, lived in a drug, crime, gun infested community, you would want help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted August 14, 2008 Report Share Posted August 14, 2008 I can't believe people here are arguing that the Constitution means anything other than what it says. You can say the same about the Bible, but some things were left to interpret, not verbatum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.