What rights have YOU lost? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #16 09-21-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Have you ever been to the airport and gone through the security gates?
Have you ever gone to a sports complex or concert?
Have you ever gone throught a sobriety checkpoint?
Have you ever gone through a seal belt checkpoint?

These are all examples of unreasonable searches without probable cause. Maybe they can be justified for safety, but they are intruding on your constitutional rights regardless of the reasoning behind them.

I did all of these things prior to Bush being elected and the Patriot Act being enacted. Got searched at every single point you mention. Only difference is that at point #1 the search is a little more thorough now, with good reason.

I don't think you can use those as indicative of any change in policy.

450slcguy · #17 09-21-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybomb

I guess they will be unreasonable in your interpretation of your rights, but in mine, they are totally and completely reasonable, and in fact, I feel it would be downright remis to not do so.

What will your stance be when some terrorist kills 20,000 people at the World Series or the Super Bowl?

It comes down to the interpretation of what reasonable and unreasonable is. I suspect in 1776, it would be very unreasonable to search people entering a sports event. But back then, the technology was lacking for mass destruction, and there were no leaders of rogue states urging terrorists to eliminate infidels.

The beauty of the constitution is it is worded to allow for interpretation. Those guys were simply brilliant back then. They knew times would change. They were not stuck in the moment, as many are today.

You wanted to know and I gave you 4 good examples. How you justify them to suit your personal opinion is up to you. Scare tactics are an effective method of defending infringiment on personal freedoms, and I really can't argue that they are unjustified in "some examples". Question is, how far are you willing to accept those infringments without sacrificing your constitution rights?

I don't think the constituton was worded for the purpose of interpretation in mind, actually just the opposite. But that's another debate.

Honus · #18 09-21-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Patriot act doesn't affect me.

How do you know that?

Honus · #19 09-21-2006, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybomb

What right have YOU lost? Emphasis on YOU...

Certain rights apply to everyone. For example, if the federal government has decided to assert the right to listen in on a conversation between a suspected terrorist and his lawyer, then everyone's right to counsel has been effected. If the govenment has asserted the right to go through people's private things and records without probably cause, then everyone's 4th Amendment rights have been effected.

Personally, I am not aware of my being affected in any way by the Patriot Act or any other changes brought about since 9/11.

Honus · #20 09-21-2006, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Have you ever been to the airport and gone through the security gates?
Have you ever gone to a sports complex or concert?
Have you ever gone throught a sobriety checkpoint?
Have you ever gone through a seal belt checkpoint?

These are all examples of unreasonable searches without probable cause. Maybe they can be justified for safety, but they are intruding on your constitutional rights regardless of the reasoning behind them.

The sports complex or concert example doesn't involve government actors, so I don't think that is a Constitutional issue. The other examples, IMHO, have been permitted under the Constitution all along. If they change it so that they select "random" people to search and sieze, then you have a problem.

unkl300d · #21 09-22-2006, 12:25 AM

I've lost the right to a decent public education for children without gay agenda and 'planned parenthood' sexualized agenda invasively pressed on the children.... by LAW.

That's Californicate and the liberated agenda.

no wonder people are drifting in cosmic dust looking for nirvana or stability in foreign costumes and customs. They destroy HOME.

AustinsCE · #22 09-22-2006, 12:59 AM

Somebody called the cops on my mom yesterday (psychotic relatives) and they came over invited themselves to stay a while, so thats the privacy one. Speech, definitely, call someone the N word or f*g see what happens.....

Education, good luck unless you pay for it. Even then... Bear arms, still cant find a good surgeon can graft me some of them. Even still, not many have the right to "bear" guns, just own them. Yea i have the right to petition but it wont do anything. I've tried, CA stops rolling smog, on 76 cars. How many even had FI? Right to property, so long as the front windows arent tinted, theres a front plate, and in my parts, I'm not younger than the nearest pig, or its tires are all aired up and it runs if its in the driveway. And then the yard itself needs conform to god knows what, including a $20K survey on 1.5 acres because only one guy in 3 hrs is certified to do it. Not to mention, this aint exactly the land of the free, gov. likes to tell you what you can and cant do 24 hrs a day if you take notice. But if youre trying to say its because of or not because of Bush then I concur it isnt. Whatever, get to the point.

azimuth · #23 09-22-2006, 01:14 AM

".......the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

infringe
One entry found for infringe.

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive verb : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·fring·er noun

I cannot own certain weapons freely in every state of the union. I cannot bear them in every state of the union. In '93 the Cliton admin. and congressional accomplices limited my ability to have weapons with certain components. Though that action has been allowed to sunset, I cannot have certain imported weapons still.

If this were the only breach of constitutionally recognized freedoms, it would still be too much. Our ability to force our will on an oppressive govt. with the weapons of revolution is all that guarantees that the rest of the constitutionally recognized freedoms will remain honored.

BENZ-LGB · #24 09-22-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

...

Have you ever gone throught a sobriety checkpoint?
Have you ever gone through a seal belt checkpoint?

These are all examples of unreasonable searches without probable cause. Maybe they can be justified for safety, but they are intruding on your constitutional rights regardless of the reasoning behind them.

So you think that you have a constitutional right to drive under the influence?

Please provide me with that portion of the Constitution that gives you the right to drive a vehicle upon a public road while under the influence...I must have missed that lecture while attending law school.

In any event, the examples that you gave are not examples of unreasonable search and seizure w/o probable cause.

When you are stopped at a sobriety chekpoint, to use one of your examples, the police officers do not search you or seize any evidence unless they first have probable cause that you are driving under the influence (or that another crime has been committed--for example if they see the 4 "k" bags of cocaine in plain view on your backseat).

I have personally observed and monitored dozens of sobriety checkpoints and all the cops do is look at you and maybe ask a couple of questions and if you are OK then you go on your merry way. If the officers, however, observe possible signs of intoxication, then you would be asked to pull over and a field sobriety test may be administered. If you check out OK, then you are free to go.

The checkpoints are announced ahead of time and the location is flagged so that if you don't want to be "subjected" to that major inconvenience, you can always drive around it.

I have never heard of a seat-belt checkpoint, but your jurisdiction may be different from mine. I do think that helmet laws and seat belt laws are a waste of time. If people are stupid enough to drive w/o a belt on or ride w/o a helmet, then let them do it. Just deny them public benefits when they get injured in a crash.

The rest of your examples are just plain inaccurate. You have no right of privacy when you are in a public place.

BENZ-LGB · #25 09-22-2006, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azimuth

...If this were the only breach of constitutionally recognized freedoms, it would still be too much. Our ability to force our will on an oppressive govt. with the weapons of revolution is all that guarantees that the rest of the constitutionally recognized freedoms will remain honored.

Tongue-in-cheek? Right?

You do not seriously belive that the people's right to keep and bear certain kinds of weapons is the only thing keeping our government honest, right?

I witnessed the 1997 North Hollywood (California) bank robbery. Heavily armed, and shielded, bank robbers were able to inflict heavy damage on police officers responding to the call.

There is no good reason in the world for people to own asault rifles and other high-powered weaponry.

Botnst · #26 09-22-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Tongue-in-cheek? Right?

You do not seriously belive that the people's right to keep and bear certain kinds of weapons is the only thing keeping our government honest, right?

I witnessed the 1997 North Hollywood (California) bank robbery. Heavily armed, and shielded, bank robbers were able to inflict heavy damage on police officers responding to the call.

There is no good reason in the world for people to own asault rifles and other high-powered weaponry.

Whether is is Shay's Rebellion or the War Between the States, the ONLY reason we believe that the righteous triumphed is because winners write the history. Had Shay beat the feds, we would now be a loose confederation, not a strong central gov. We would be more like Canada or perhaps dissolved into numerous small nations. Had the southern states won, we would be two (or probably more) small countries, each with a separate history and destiny. each of those histories would tell its sons and daughters the "truth" of their nation and the separate truths would likely not be symmetrical except in the most generalized outlines.

The point is that there is no inherent goodness about our government that we should trust it in perpetuity to do our bidding. there is no government that ever existed that was perfect. Worse, the history of the planet is that governments eventually abuse their power and enslave their people.

Bot

BENZ-LGB · #27 09-22-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Whether is is Shay's Rebellion or the War Between the States, the ONLY reason we believe that the righteous triumphed is because winners write the history. Had Shay beat the feds, we would now be a loose confederation, not a strong central gov. We would be more like Canada or perhaps dissolved into numerous small nations. Had the southern states won, we would be two (or probably more) small countries, each with a separate history and destiny. each of those histories would tell its sons and daughters the "truth" of their nation and the separate truths would likely not be symmetrical except in the most generalized outlines.

The point is that there is no inherent goodness about our government that we should trust it in perpetuity to do our bidding. there is no government that ever existed that was perfect. Worse, the history of the planet is that governments eventually abuse their power and enslave their people.

Bot

OK Bot, nice dissertation, but were you responding to my post or to someone else's post???

I agree, governments can't be completely trusted (I work for the gov't, trust me, I know).

I do not see, however, how carrying high powered rifles could or wold keep the government honest. They already have the best and coolest weapons.

Botnst · #28 09-22-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

OK Bot, nice dissertation, but were you responding to my post or to someone else's post???

I agree, governments can't be completely trusted (I work for the gov't, trust me, I know).

I do not see, however, how carrying high powered rifles could or wold keep the government honest. They already have the best and coolest weapons.

Howw many soldiers would fire on civilians in this country? If it comes to a revolution, it wont be a matter of who has the most B-52's. As with most revolutions, it will be an escalation of atrocities between loyalists to the government and rebels. The right and wrong wil lbe sorted out when the history is written.

GottaDiesel · #29 09-22-2006, 09:53 AM

Often you don't know what rights you've lost until you need them -- or test them.

I pretty much think the NSA could do what it wanted long before Bush. Is that a good thing? Probably, I don't have anything to hide.

What rights have *I* personally lost? Well, for one, I've lost the right to feel safe when I fly. Because we've managed to piss off so many people and airplanes are a great target. The policy of the current administration has caused us to be hated more now than pre 9-11. So that is one right I've lost.

Although I've never been searched at the airport I have been with people who were. And if you want to talk about feeling violated (loss of rights) -- that takes the cake. Do you realize they can just pull you out of the line, and search you from head to toe. For no reason -- just because? Innoncent until guilty -- ?.

Some people have been more impacted than others. I would imagine that a United States citizen that is Muslim in appearance, etc. Has lost a lot more. Just look at all the threads on here lately bashing them. It is really sad.

Does it effect me directly? Sure. Because if today we can do it toward Muslim looking people, next will be Italian people, or blacks, or so on...

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live like that. We're all created equal -- and we should be treated as such. If you think we are... think again.

dannym · #30 09-22-2006, 10:19 AM

Have you ever read this before?

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

-Our jobs are moving overseas at an incredible rate
-Health Insurance has skyrocketed and nonexistent for many
-Social Security has been run into the ground by irresponsible bureaucrats
-The national debt is eight trillion+ dollars thanks again to irresponsible Govt.
-Employers are offering less and less benefits
-Education is a joke

How does all this guarantee me what is written in the above quote?

Those are the freedoms that I personally have lost.

Danny