| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
Comments:
<0> there's no meaning of the term I know that can be used to justify large-scale warrantless searches.
<1> Lupine: The SCOTUS has been wrong before.
<1> Many times.
<2> leave my scutus out of this
<3> hehe
<1> Your appeal to authority is therefore flawed.
<3> R v W
<4> icmps: on a scale of offensives, this is tiny. the all-but-banning of the 2nd amendment is far far more serious
<5> i could send you a 50 page document and claim that my point is in there and that the burden lies with you to sort through it all and find it, OR i can take the relevent quotes and give them to you in a manner that's coherant and decisive
<6> Lupine ins;t that interesting?
<3> the decline of federalism
<4> cry: yea
<7> Cop Admits He Thought McKinney was Muppet "Beaker"; Wanted Autograph for His Kid http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3019/666/1600/untitled.1.jpg
<6> tracert times out too
<0> Attorney Thomas Nelson discusses his lawsuit against the National Security Agency and his evidence that the Bush administration's secret domestic surveillance is much broader than reported and may include secret physical searches.
<8> icmps - executive power - for purposes of national security -- might want to pay attention to it
<4> icmps: but it IS the law until changed
<9> Abusive Domain or User
<7> U.S. Counters Iranian Missile Demo with Short Film: "Hiroshima, A Retrospective."
<9> Abusive Domain or User
<1> Lupine: As if you are any kind of supporter of the 2nd amendment ? You acquiesce by asking for permission to carry a weapon 'concealed'
<8> we either have an oopsie or an attack going on -- again
<10> haha
<4> oh jeeze.. +i +i +i +i +i
<1> The 2nd amendment has already been banned.
<1> By your precious scotus
<3> I can carry a concealed weapon
<3> on my person, and in my car
<0> USSC held that the president did not have the authority to conduct domestic warrantless wiretaps and flatly rejected the ***ertion that national security somehow trumped the 4th amendment.
<5> I'm just as outraged about the 2nd as i am the 4th
<2> I carry a meat puppet
<7> concealed weapons make donkeys nervous
<1> And you think citing the scotus is the end-all argument to provide the basis for constitutional authority of the executive-- its not.
<1> They're ****ing wrong about the 2nd amendment and they're wrong about this.
<0> Who has over ruled the USSC
<4> AAAman: we are not discussing blanket domestic warrantless wiretaps
<6> notG....tell them to leave.....
<8> AAA -- where is this at - URL
<1> And they were wrong in the 1790s with the alien and sedition acts.
<4> AAAman: but thanks for trying.. ;-)
<0> The court held that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to collect national security intelligence information domestically.
<3> icmps: because they don't agree with your view, they are "wrong"?
<4> icmps: yea well, rather be able to hvae a gun on my side.. than sit in jail.
<11> i'm glad though that the second amendment is finally being pushed into question to the point where people have to defend their right to own a firearm with more words than "omg there's a second amendment"
<8> AAA -- URL -- post it
<4> AAAman: no ****. we were not discussing that.
<0> Lupine -- It is noteworthy that the court rejected to decide what powers the president had to collect national security information internationally.
<12> iNFAMY, you are devoiced (Requested by Cryolas - Reason: detracting from dialogue )
<1> Lupine: I'd rather break an unconstitutional law :P
<4> Kal: he's moving the goalposts
<11> int his debate people love to act as though the second amendment is the undeniable unchangable word of god, they forget the fact that IT'S AN AMENDMENT
<0> UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) .
<8> Lupine -- kinda thought so
<4> icmps: and serve 15-30 years?
<8> AAA -- ahh since changed -- see 1994
<11> if you can't defined the right to own a gun without mentioning the second amendment, you need to re-evaluate your so-called beliefs
<7> suna, so is free speech, no point for you today
<11> because you don't know what they are
<4> kal: heh, it was the case I was referring to :-)
<8> ayup
<13> anyone see this State Farm lawsuit? they denied Trent Lott's insurance claim (katrina destroyed his house) and he is sueing them, claiming that they are destroying documents
<5> argg where is FreeTrade or some libertarians when i need them
<0> Kaluina -- The USSC has not changed in 1194
<1> Lupine: I doubt I would. But that implies I'd get caught.
<11> darthburg: huh? my point applies to free speech as well
<12> _, you are devoiced (Requested by Cryolas - Reason: detracting from dialogue )
<11> which most americans don't believe in btw
<0> Kaluine - The ruling still stands
<11> most americans believe in free speech until it pisses them off
<7> lol
<3> Bokavitch: I'm a Libertarian... just not the average one
<4> icmps: well, if you travel on airliners with a firearm, you will be "caught"
<1> Lupine: If more people would simply refuse to go along with these bull**** laws, they'd simply be unenforceable.
<7> suna, just donkeys
<9> Abusive Domain or User
<12> thugs, you are devoiced (Requested by Cryolas - Reason: detracting from dialogue )
<11> omg G you moron
<11> I hope you die
<8> AAA -- did you bother to read the article I posted earlier 1994 -- suggest you do
<5> Meathook: well what do you think of the warantless wiretapping?
<4> I told you morons.. +i +i +i +i +i +i
<8> TT - can you set +i for a bit
<4> Kal: he'll refuse to at all costs
<1> Lupine: If you travel on an airplane with a permit and a firearm, you'll both be caught (probably) and also go to jail.
<0> Lupine -- the court has upheld the presidents inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence gathering. This is true.
<3> Bokavitch: in the context of communication with a foreign agent? or just in general?
<1> So, that example is moot.
<4> icmps: um, I do it all the time.
<0> Lupine -- This is what you are talking about and have confused the issue
<10> ah there we go. nice and exclusive just like the coutnry club
<1> Um. I doubt your permit allows you to travel with your gun on a plane.
<7> carry a gun on a plane? thats only a problem to donkeys
<4> AAAman: AND it ruled, when ONE party is in the US, and one party is EITHER: out of the US.. or a foreign agent
<0> Lupine -- Court prohibit domestic spying without a warrant
<5> MeatHook: With someone in a foreign country though not necessarily an agent of a foreign goernment or terrorist organization
<0> Lupine -- WHen one party is domestic, it is domestic
<6> notG ...that approach will accomplish nothing at all
<11> anyway, gotta go make some food, but my point applies to all amendments. If you can't defend your rights without mentioning the simple fact that other people at one point agreed with you (a constitutional amendment), then you have nothing
<4> AAAman: only in your ignorant mind.. [ oh, and you are way out of date in your rulings ]
<8> no AAA -- apples >< oranges
<11> I can tell you why I should have the right to free speech without mentioning the constituion
<0> Title III. We do [407 U.S. 297, 324] hold, however, that prior judicial approval is required for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case and that such approval may be made in accordance with such reasonable standards as the Congress may prescribe.
<11> same with why I should own a gun
<11> same with everythign else
<3> Bokavitch: tapping personal calls from the middle east doesn't bother me in the least, given the circumstances
<6> one sec tailor
<1> Lupine: "Transporting a weapon on a commercial airline is legal under the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, travelers must comply with certain security procedures. Generally speaking, the FAA requires that weapons be unloaded, stowed in hard-sided, locking luggage, and declared at the main ticket counter at the time of check-in. At check-in, you will receive proper documentation to place inside the g
<4> kal: I like it, the court says "United States Citizens in the US" but AAAman is jacking off they didn't say "domestic intelligence"..
<7> suna, still lacking a point
<3> Bokavitch: tapping calls from California to Texas is another matter altogether
<11> darthburg: I made the point earlier, it's way to common in the gun debate that all people do is say 'LOOK! THERE WAS A SECOND AMENDMENT!'
<8> Lupine I know - checked it -- he's mixing apples - oranges -- not same thing at all
<4> icmps: no ****. i know the procedure well.
<11> without actually supporting their right to own a firewarm
<11> or making any significant attempt to justify it
<4> Kal: i just love he denie's one ruling is "not applicable".. yet, intentionally ignores the same logic for his own claims ;-)
<7> suna, don;t you think that since it got its own amendment, it might be relevant?
<4> suna: that is the basis of the law of this land
<11> if we're talking about the right to own a gun, i want YOU to tell me why YOU think we should have hte right ot own guns. Not why some other people did
<8> Luipine -- I know -- getting a bit ludicrous
<11> hundreds of years ago
<3> Bokavitch: sometimes I can't stomach people who think that a man with a gun to your head shouldn't be acted upon until after he shoots...
<4> suna: because I am a US citizen, in lawful standing.
<6> notG ye there????
<14> yup i am here
<4> kal: next up, they said "domestic surviellance".. and not "domestic spying" :-)
<11> darthburg: It's only relivant if you mention the rasons behind the amendment
<11> which people rarelyd o
<11> all they say is "the second amendment gives me the right" and that's it
<6> yer #gods buddies are not helping things at all
<4> suna; yea well, it works for "freedom of speech"
<5> Since 50 U.S.C 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. 1(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially compos
<8> Lupine - ya ehh - we can always hit "what does 'is' mean" :)
<11> lupine: and as I said earlier, it shouldn't
<14> Cryolas i agree but i was not doing anything wrong
<14> Cryolas i was simply trying to find information for thetailor and he felt i should have had it handy
<3> Bokavitch: now if a gov't agency was to start surveillance on a domestic simply because of the number of calls they recieve from certain area of the world, I get a lot less happy.
<7> suna, nonsense, the amendment is relevant in and of itself. The Constitution Exists. You PERSONALLY may FEEL it is is better to have more to your argument than a simple amendment, and MOST gun debaters do. Dismiss the constitution simply because of your feelings is pretty silly.
<11> I can defend my rights, I don't have to mention the constituion while i'm doing it.
<4> Bok: um.. "power inherent" means.. it is not derived from what the congresional law says
<6> as I said..it does not look good when you get kicked for violating a rule here...and they join....
<6> can ye dig it?
<11> I can tell you why I should have the right to free speech
<11> I don't need to point to some damn document
<15> notG, you were devoiced for childlike behavior, if you want to discuss it further do it in message.
<14> nah i didnt know the f word was against the rules i do appoligize
<11> I didn't dismiss the constituion
<6> no biggie on that...
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#red
cyberhellas
#beginner
#gamedev
ntl chipped box
#gamedev
#politics
#solaris
#freebsd
#computers
|
|
