http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/justice/nsa-surveillance-court-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- The government's once-secret program of collecting domestic telephone communication records of Americans was ruled unconstitutional Monday by a federal court.
Judge Richard Leon said the surveillance program of so-called metadata was an apparent violation of privacy rights, ruling in favor of four plaintiffs.
"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval," said the judge, an appointee of President George W. Bush. "Surely, such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."
But the judge stayed enforcement of his order barring the government from collecting the phone metadata, pending an appeal by the government. There was no initial indication whether the Obama administration would seek such an appeal.
Leon said the "plaintiffs in this case have also shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim. As such, they too have adequately demonstrated irreparable injury."
The case is Klayman v. Obama (13-cv-881).

But the judge stayed enforcement of his order barring the government from collecting the phone metadata, pending an appeal by the government. There was no initial indication whether the Obama administration would seek such an appeal.

I... I thought how that worked was that typically judges allowed enforcement of their orders UNTIL such a time as the opposing party appeals, not to stay enforcement on the off chance they happen to get around to appealing.

Otherwise, what do you actually have to do in order to get the order enforced after the fact?

The hell you say.

The NSA is pretty much a good example of what happens when you create a program with zero restrictions and let it run wild.

I feel bad for Obama in this regard at least, he has to keep things like this in place to keep the establishment conservatives happy, while also pissing off libertarians and social conservatives.

I would say we should shut down the NSA, but in this day and age they are most likely just a necessary evil.

"I would say we should shut down the NSA, but in this day and age they are most likely just a necessary evil. "

That is exactly what they are counting on. They are counting on acceptance to the fact that rights are being trampled.

They are counting on us to do nothing. That way it will be easier for the next reduction in rights to occur.

The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

jamesk1973 wrote:
"I would say we should shut down the NSA, but in this day and age they are most likely just a necessary evil. "

That is exactly what they are counting on. They are counting on acceptance to the fact that rights are being trampled.

They are counting on us to do nothing. That way it will be easier for the next reduction in rights to occur.

The NSA as much as you would like to think are not a bond villain waiting for your to get your guard down so he can kidnap your family.

They are just a another government agency, they abuse there power yes, and should restrictions be placed on them? Yes. Should they be shut down? No.

Also privacy rights are murky business, so I get why you might be afraid of them getting up in those but the NSA is not going to come steal your guns or take away your free speach.

"Also privacy rights are murky business, so I get why you might be afraid of them getting up in those but the NSA is not going to come steal your guns or take away your free speach. "

No, they'll just monitor my activities until their is "reasonable belief" that I possess weapons.

Then when the BATF is done collecting the weapons belonging to those folks who registered their weapons or joined the NRA; then they'll get around to me.

jamesk1973 wrote:
"Also privacy rights are murky business, so I get why you might be afraid of them getting up in those but the NSA is not going to come steal your guns or take away your free speach. "

No, they'll just monitor my activities until their is "reasonable belief" that I possess weapons.

Then when the BATF is done collecting the weapons belonging to those folks who registered their weapons or joined the NRA; then they'll get around to me.

Could you use the quote feature for future posts, please?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I get why you might be afraid of them getting up in those but the NSA is not going to come steal your guns or take away your free speach.

Well, first understand that every thread - regardless of how unrelated to the topic - needs to descend into gun rights (or Obamacare) on these fora.

That being said we still need to acknowledge, I think, that this point it's no longer exclusively the arena of the paranoid that citizens who engage in badthink online might, for example, have their taxes scrutinized extra careful like. Sure, it's not happening wholesale, but that's the magic of chilling effects - you only need a few good examples.

Besides, there's probably no good reason to examine all the reasons why these wholesale breaches of privacy are laying the groundwork for future totalitarianism or whatever. The founding fathers already covered that with the 4th amendment so no reason to reinvent the wheel. It doesn't matter how noble the mission of the NSA is in their heart of hearts, it only matters that they have been allowed to overreach and we must now correct that error.

 Ouze wrote:

Besides, there's probably no good reason to examine all the reasons why these wholesale breaches of privacy are laying the groundwork for future totalitarianism or whatever. The founding fathers already covered that with the 4th amendment so no reason to reinvent the wheel. It doesn't matter how noble the mission of the NSA is in their heart of hearts, it only matters that they have been allowed to overreach and we must now correct that error.

This is all especially true, given the apparent apathy that the NSA is able to willfully ignore EO 12223

Those are more like Executive Suggestions, amirite?

guideline, really

Unless it is an Obama executive order then that mofo is the fething law!

 Ouze wrote:
Those are more like Executive Suggestions, amirite?

Perhaps the Head of the NSA's favorite movie is Pirates of the Caribbean??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Those are more like Executive Suggestions, amirite?

Perhaps the Head of the NSA's favorite movie is Pirates of the Caribbean??

Parlay!

jamesk1973 wrote:
"Also privacy rights are murky business, so I get why you might be afraid of them getting up in those but the NSA is not going to come steal your guns or take away your free speach. "

No, they'll just monitor my activities until their is "reasonable belief" that I possess weapons.

Then when the BATF is done collecting the weapons belonging to those folks who registered their weapons or joined the NRA; then they'll get around to me.

I don't get it, what would make them do that?

You made the leap from "People who look at my internet history" to "Evil over watch coming to take away my guns"

The fact that yes they can look to see what you possibly may do (despite the chances of randomly happening to you are about the same odds as being struck by lightning) does not mean they have the right to do anything but monitor.

I understand you believe they are violating your 4th rights, which is understandable, privacy rights have been a constantly moving thing for the past 100 years and need to be properly defined.

 Alexzandvar wrote:


I don't get it, what would make them do that?

You made the leap from "People who look at my internet history" to "Evil over watch coming to take away my guns"

Oh they are not going to come for them tomorrow of the next month.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

They are laying the groundwork for what is to come. This has been in the works for many years.

It is really just nature taking its course.

Every system submits to entropy. The system will attempt to overcome this decline through the increased use of force to maintain itself.

The ever increasing tightening of the government's grip will be crouched in innocuous terms such as safety and equality.

What it really means is dependence, power, and tyranny.

This has all happened before and will again.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:


I don't get it, what would make them do that?

You made the leap from "People who look at my internet history" to "Evil over watch coming to take away my guns"

Oh they are not going to come for them tomorrow of the next month.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

They are laying the groundwork for what is to come. This has been in the works for many years.

It is really just nature taking its course.

Every system submits to entropy. The system will attempt to overcome this decline through the increased use of force to maintain itself.

The ever increasing tightening of the government's grip will be crouched in innocuous terms such as safety and equality.

What it really means is dependence, power, and tyranny.

This has all happened before and will again.

If you are kidding, it is very convincing. If you are not, than you probably have a tinfoil hat. Despite claims by insane people the government is not after your guns or trying to limit you freedom. The NSA is just a governemnt agency that overstepped it's bounds, as sometimes happens. There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.


I never said there was a conspiracy.

Throughout the ages governments and countries have come and gone. We are nothing special. What I am saying is this is how it starts.

Or are they? These are not the droids your looking for! Anyone?

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.


I never said there was a conspiracy.

Throughout the ages governments and countries have come and gone. We are nothing special. What I am saying is this is how it starts.

Did you really just try to compare gun control to the Holocaust?

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.

My god you are a .

First off comparing this to the fething holocaust is wrong and insulting. It's as bad as republicans comparing the ACA to apartheid. Now what you need to do is either provide conclusive evidence that there is a government conspiracy in the US to take way our rights or, and please don't make me repeat myself, stop talking!

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.

Well at first I thought you might be a little bonkers, but now I can see your nuts



Seriously, you just went off the proverbial deep end dude...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.

My god you are a .

First off comparing this to the fething holocaust is wrong and insulting. It's as bad as republicans comparing the ACA to apartheid. Now what you need to do is either provide conclusive evidence that there is a government conspiracy in the US to take way our rights or, and please don't make me repeat myself, stop talking!

I believe he was using the holocaust as a showing that a government doesn't always care about all of it's people. I don't think he was trying to say gun control is equal or worse.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


There is no conspiracy, and you need to stop trying to create one.

...said the Jewish leaders in 1937.


I never said there was a conspiracy.

Throughout the ages governments and countries have come and gone. We are nothing special. What I am saying is this is how it starts.

You know, I've never understood how on Earth people can sit back and declare, "oh that couldn't happen to us!" like something's changed or the world is somehow different now.

I am just pointing out the flaw in your thinking.

No matter how much YOU do not want to believe in something does not make it so.

Throughout history tyranny has shown a common theme.

Disarm the civilian population at the earliest possible opportunity.

Their favorite reason is for the citizen's "protection" or "safety".

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.” - Heinrich Himmler.

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
~Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

It's not that, it was the, "said the Jewish leaders in 1937" comment...

Not to say that I subscribe to any particular viewpoint, but you remember, pre-Snowden leak, how they accused people who believed the NSA was spying on their phone calls and internet history of being overly paranoid?

That word just doesn't quite have the bite it used to.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

It's not that, it was the, "said the Jewish leaders in 1937" comment...

Hrmph... I didn't take it as "it's EXACTLY like when the holocaust happened".

Only that when folks asserts that whole "well.. you don't need all those weapons. That's why you have your government to protect you" argument. This statement assumes that something like the holocaust would never happen again. My point is that, we should be free to make that decision and prepare accordingly without government intrusion.

FWIW: I don't necessarily subscribe to that thinking... and I may look at someone weirdly if they do believe that. But, I don't think we need laws to stop 'em if their armoury looks like this:


Oh... since no one said it... I hereby deem this thread "Goodwin'ed".

Now how long will it take to Draigo'ed & Zimmerman'ed this thread?

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

It's not that, it was the, "said the Jewish leaders in 1937" comment...

Hrmph... I didn't take it as "it's EXACTLY like when the holocaust happened".

No, but the poster's words have been getting more and more of a paranoid nature, and the comment was out of left field without any real provocation, thus the thread being Godwin'd.

Only that when folks asserts that whole "well.. you don't need all those weapons. That's why you have your government to protect you" argument. This statement assumes that something like the holocaust would never happen again. My point is that, we should be free to make that decision and prepare accordingly without government intrusion.

I think that in most 1st or 2nd world countries, the holocaust would not occur due to the proliferation of information in today's day and age. The problem is that we have a semi-holocaust going on in Darfur (or did we solve that issue already?) I'm not arguing for some of the things that the poster is worried about, I'm arguing about the extent with which he's taking his crackpot theories. I'm not saying what he's saying is possible, I'm saying in the current political scheme, such a thing would be highly unpopular and extremely divisive in this country.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

It's not that, it was the, "said the Jewish leaders in 1937" comment...

Hrmph... I didn't take it as "it's EXACTLY like when the holocaust happened".

No, but the poster's words have been getting more and more of a paranoid nature, and the comment was out of left field without any real provocation, thus the thread being Godwin'd.

Fair enough...

Only that when folks asserts that whole "well.. you don't need all those weapons. That's why you have your government to protect you" argument. This statement assumes that something like the holocaust would never happen again. My point is that, we should be free to make that decision and prepare accordingly without government intrusion.

I think that in most 1st or 2nd world countries, the holocaust would not occur due to the proliferation of information in today's day and age. The problem is that we have a semi-holocaust going on in Darfur (or did we solve that issue already?) I'm not arguing for some of the things that the poster is worried about, I'm arguing about the extent with which he's taking his crackpot theories. I'm not saying what he's saying is possible, I'm saying in the current political scheme, such a thing would be highly unpopular and extremely divisive in this country.

See... that's logic in all.

But there are times in our human history that we just go bat gak insane.

Back to Topic:
Does anyone think that PRISM will officially be commissioned? Or, will it move to a black site elsewhere?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

I think a healthy dose of paranoia can be good thing. Amirite?


Especially in a world where courts issue secret warrants. Warrants that cannot be disclosed because they are classified. Takes something away from due process doesn't it?

Almost every podunk law enforcement agency has a SWAT team and surplus military equipment. Case in point...Galveston, TX, an island known as a vacation spot, has an armored personnel carrier courtesy of the DHS. An armored personnel carrier with a turret and a machine gun.

The head of the DHS/CIA/FBI has stated that drones have been used for surveillance within the borders of the United States and assures us that all due process has been abided by. No ones privacy has been violated.

So, you can call me paranoid but I feel you might be a little lax in your own assessment of the government's overruns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Not to say that I subscribe to any particular viewpoint, but you remember, pre-Snowden leak, how they accused people who believed the NSA was spying on their phone calls and internet history of being overly paranoid?

That word just doesn't quite have the bite it used to.

Exactly.

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think a healthy dose of paranoia can be good thing. Amirite?

Sure, but when you're making allusions to 1937 Germany, it's no longer a "healthy" dose.

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think a healthy dose of paranoia can be good thing. Amirite?

Sure, but when you're making allusions to 1937 Germany, it's no longer a "healthy" dose.

What is your hang up?

In 1937 the Jewish leaders had an opportunity to take action against Hitler. Either by getting the hell out or getting organized to resist. The "paranoids" were shot down by the "moderates" and the opportunity to act was lost.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
I think a healthy dose of paranoia can be good thing. Amirite?

Sure, but when you're making allusions to 1937 Germany, it's no longer a "healthy" dose.

What is your hang up?

In 1937 the Jewish leaders had an opportunity to take action against Hitler. Either by getting the hell out or getting organized to resist. The "paranoids" were shot down by the "moderates" and the opportuinty to act was lost.

There is difference between healthy skepticism and turning everything in Nazi Germany.

jamesk1973 wrote:
In 1937 the Jewish leaders had an opportunity to take action against Hitler. Either by getting the hell out or getting organized to resist. The "paranoids" were shot down by the "moderates" and the opportunity to act was lost.

The Nazi Party didn't seize power via force of arms. They did so via popular vote. It's not a gun control issue at all and attempts to paint it as one are revisionist history to serve a bias.

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
In 1937 the Jewish leaders had an opportunity to take action against Hitler. Either by getting the hell out or getting organized to resist. The "paranoids" were shot down by the "moderates" and the opportunity to act was lost.

The Nazi Party didn't seize power via force of arms. They did so via popular vote. It's not a gun control issue at all and attempts to paint it as one are revisionist history to serve a bias.

Considering this thread is about the constitutionality of the NSA and their operations.

A poster said that these transgressions do not mean they are coming our guns. Which I refuted by stating that maybe not tomorrow or the day after but at some time in the future...

THAT is how it got to be about guns.

That said, I think it is actually more sad that Nazi power and the holocaust were the result of a/the popular vote as opposed to a naked seizure via force. But, once the Nazi's were in power one of the first things they did was disarm the populance.

Do I think that America will end up like Nazi Germany? NO.

I think it will end up looking more like Orwell's 1984.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


I think it will end up looking more like Orwell's 1984.

Nah... We're way too diverse and connected for that to happen. Plus there's enought folks out there who will stop that just because they're "anti establishment".

 Alfndrate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You really do not understand why this makes you look paranoid and completely smashes any reasonable argument you might have had, do you?

What's wrong with keeping your weapons? Even *if* you want to have it in case our government goes "tyrannical"?? (mind you, we're no where fething close to that).

Further more... why can't we all be good prepared boys scouts?

It's not that, it was the, "said the Jewish leaders in 1937" comment...

Yeah, I'm fine with his opinion, he can have it, I just think he is being bit overly dramatic.

Edit: Sorry, getting threads mixed up.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
In 1937 the Jewish leaders had an opportunity to take action against Hitler. Either by getting the hell out or getting organized to resist. The "paranoids" were shot down by the "moderates" and the opportunity to act was lost.

The Nazi Party didn't seize power via force of arms. They did so via popular vote. It's not a gun control issue at all and attempts to paint it as one are revisionist history to serve a bias.

Considering this thread is about the constitutionality of the NSA and their operations.

A poster said that these transgressions do not mean they are coming our guns. Which I refuted by stating that maybe not tomorrow or the day after but at some time in the future...

THAT is how it got to be about guns.

Well if we're worrying about something that is downright silly to even consider as a realistic possibility as being possible "some time in the future", I'm concerned about Google acquiring a major manufacturer of robots.

Clearly it's SkyNet!

That said, I think it is actually more sad that Nazi power and the holocaust were the result of a/the popular vote as opposed to a naked seizure via force. But, once the Nazi's were in power one of the first things they did was disarm the populance.

You really need to do some cursory research then. The Nazis actually relaxed gun laws where it concerned the overall populace.
The "populace" at large was not disarmed by the Nazis. Just the Jewish population and others who were deemed "enemies of the state".

For further reading look up the 1938 German Weapons Act, the 1919 "Regulations on Weapon Ownership"(where the German government did seize guns as part of the elements of the Versailles Treaty), the 1920 "Law on the Disarmament of the People", and the 1928 "Law on Firearms and Ammunition"(which completely abolished the 1919 "Regulations on Weapon ownership").

I actually decided to do some cursory research on this bit today hence why I can suggest it. I hear the argument that "The Nazis would have been stopped if only the people had guns!" so often that I finally decided to see if there was any truth to it.

There was not. What is interesting though is that one of the most vocal opponents of the myth of Nazi gun control is the National Alliance & National Vanguard, a white supremacist group, which is also very pro-gun.

Kanluwen, you are awesome.

Just because I'm curious...

I had a google and as far as I can see, EO12223 doesn't appear to exist...

EO12333 does though.

The more you know....

Never did learn about that whole watergate thing. I suppose I should get round to it and see that film...

 Compel wrote:
Just because I'm curious...

I had a google and as far as I can see, EO12223 doesn't appear to exist...

It does, though its appearance in this thread was clearly a typo.


edit - Man I am having a problem with it's and its today.

 Ouze wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Just because I'm curious...

I had a google and as far as I can see, EO12223 doesn't appear to exist...

It does, though its appearance in this thread was clearly a typo.


edit - Man I am having a problem with it's and its today.

Wasn't really a typo... I just remembered the wrong amount of numbers

Eh, we knew which one you meant.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Yeah, I'm fine with his opinion, he can have it, I just think he is being bit overly dramatic.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21975624-new-york-city-council-votes-to-ban-e-cigarettes#comments

Overly-dramatic? The screws continue to tighten. What will be banned next?

I know this has nothing to do with the NSA but is indicative of the erosion of personal freedom we are headed in.

Except that you're still allowed to smoke e-cigs, and real cigs, you just can't smoke them in public places...

Big whoop.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Except that you're still allowed to smoke e-cigs, and real cigs, you just can't smoke them in public places...

Big whoop.

Or;

buy really large sodas

eat anything cooked in trans-fats

possess a rifle or shotgun that can hold five or more rounds

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Except that you're still allowed to smoke e-cigs, and real cigs, you just can't smoke them in public places...

Big whoop.

Or;

buy really large sodas

eat anything cooked in trans-fats

possess a rifle or shotgun that can hold five or more rounds

To be fair, it's what New Yorkers deserve for living in New York.

 daedalus wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Except that you're still allowed to smoke e-cigs, and real cigs, you just can't smoke them in public places...

Big whoop.

Or;

buy really large sodas

eat anything cooked in trans-fats

possess a rifle or shotgun that can hold five or more rounds

To be fair, it's what New Yorkers deserve for living in New York.

LOL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obama is being excoriated by the press in his press conference today.

Looks like we might get some reforms in place for the NSA.

I think a good start would be a repeal of the Patriot Act and unilateral disbanding of the DHS.

The Patriot Act does need to be repealed...

 whembly wrote:
The Patriot Act does need to be repealed...

Hey, I agree with you on something! That's a first.

I'm sure if we dig hard enough there will be some good things in the Patriot Act...possibly...hopefully?

But as a whole it is a giant feth you to the constitution.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sure if we dig hard enough there will be some good things in the Patriot Act...possibly...hopefully?

But as a whole it is a giant feth you to the constitution.

Absolutely...

IF the agencies what certain aspects of the Patriot Acts going forward, then it needs to be discussed in length before re-upping it.

I'd just assume that we trash it.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Except that you're still allowed to smoke e-cigs, and real cigs, you just can't smoke them in public places...

Big whoop.

Or;

buy really large sodas

Ban was deemed a violation of separation of powers, you can buy as much soda as you want.

eat anything cooked in trans-fats

Most fast food places no longer user trans-fats anyways, latest ban seeks to remove trans-fats from things such as frozen pot pies. As 'big government' as this sounds it's within the FDA's powers to regulate the food we consume in this country, and they have said, 'hey this ain't healthy don't use this.' I've given up on arguing for or against trans-fats because it's a stupid argument. They serve no purpose to food, and they've been out of our fast food (the places that were getting the largest amount of flak) for years.

possess a rifle or shotgun that can hold five or more rounds

Possess it in the city limits of New York, they didn't take your guns, they simple said where you can store them. Like I posted in the other thread, why does anyone need to possess a rifle or a shotgun in the city of New York anyways is beyond me. I did say, perhaps if someone wished to go hunting, but then why couldn't you simply store them outside of the city limits and pick them up on your way out.

 Alfndrate wrote:


Ban was deemed a violation of separation of powers, you can buy as much soda as you want.

So, essentially everyone's time and money was wasted. The city council and mayor that made it up and passed it. The health department that circulated then notices. the distributors and companies that changed their orders. The lawyers and judge that reversed decision. The health department for getting word back out, "Oops, we were just kidding". And finally the companies and distributors that have to waste time and effort reverting back to the previous status quo. Yeah, sounds like a fething liberal paradise.

Most fast food places no longer user trans-fats anyways, latest ban seeks to remove trans-fats from things such as frozen pot pies. As 'big government' as this sounds it's within the FDA's powers to regulate the food we consume in this country, and they have said, 'hey this ain't healthy don't use this.' I've given up on arguing for or against trans-fats because it's a stupid argument. They serve no purpose to food, and they've been out of our fast food (the places that were getting the largest amount of flak) for years.

The same FDA that is a puppet for Big Pharma? Again, wasted effort. See above.

Possess it in the city limits of New York, they didn't take your guns, they simple said where you can store them. Like I posted in the other thread, why does anyone need to possess a rifle or a shotgun in the city of New York anyways is beyond me. I did say, perhaps if someone wished to go hunting, but then why couldn't you simply store them outside of the city limits and pick them up on your way out.

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.

You'll notice it does not say, "to keep your arms outside the city limits of NYC".

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


Ban was deemed a violation of separation of powers, you can buy as much soda as you want.

So, essentially everyone's time and money was wasted. The city council and mayor that made it up and passed it. The health department that circulated then notices. the distributors and companies that changed their orders. The lawyers and judge that reversed decision. The health department for getting word back out, "Oops, we were just kidding". And finally the companies and distributors that have to waste time and effort reverting back to the previous status quo. Yeah, sounds like a fething liberal paradise.

Except that the health department didn't go, "Oops, we were just kidding." They were told, "You're fething stupid you can't regulate how much non-alcoholic drink someone imbibes."

Most fast food places no longer user trans-fats anyways, latest ban seeks to remove trans-fats from things such as frozen pot pies. As 'big government' as this sounds it's within the FDA's powers to regulate the food we consume in this country, and they have said, 'hey this ain't healthy don't use this.' I've given up on arguing for or against trans-fats because it's a stupid argument. They serve no purpose to food, and they've been out of our fast food (the places that were getting the largest amount of flak) for years.

The same FDA that is a puppet for Big Pharma? Again, wasted effort. See above.

The same FDA that also have banned harmful substances in the past, substances often put in by Big Phrama, troll harder good Patriot, troll harder.

Possess it in the city limits of New York, they didn't take your guns, they simple said where you can store them. Like I posted in the other thread, why does anyone need to possess a rifle or a shotgun in the city of New York anyways is beyond me. I did say, perhaps if someone wished to go hunting, but then why couldn't you simply store them outside of the city limits and pick them up on your way out.

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.

You'll notice it does not say, "to keep your arms outside the city limits of NYC".

And yet, it doesn't say, "to keep your arms inside the city limits of NYC." it says you can keep them, which this law is still allowing you to do. You are allowed to keep your rifle or shotgun regardless of how many rounds it can hold, but if you wish to keep it in the city limits, you must pin it to hold no more than 5. Otherwise you have to keep it outside of the city limits.

 Alfndrate wrote:


Except that the health department didn't go, "Oops, we were just kidding." They were told, "You're fething stupid you can't regulate how much non-alcoholic drink someone imbibes."

Time and money was still wasted on a state-mandated health directive.

The same FDA that also have banned harmful substances in the past, substances often put in by Big Phrama, troll harder good Patriot, troll harder.

I actually believe that the FDA has a mission. The organization has been compromised by the very industry it is supposed to regulate.

And yet, it doesn't say, "to keep your arms inside the city limits of NYC." it says you can keep them, which this law is still allowing you to do. You are allowed to keep your rifle or shotgun regardless of how many rounds it can hold, but if you wish to keep it in the city limits, you must pin it to hold no more than 5. Otherwise you have to keep it outside of the city limits.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

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.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


Except that the health department didn't go, "Oops, we were just kidding." They were told, "You're fething stupid you can't regulate how much non-alcoholic drink someone imbibes."

Time and money was still wasted on a state-mandated health directive.

New York City =// State of New York.

It was a city health department mandated health directive, not a state-mandated health directive.

Facts are hard...

Perhaps you are just unable to discern meaning through context?

State in this usage is, "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Despite it being a NY or a NYC health department code the fact is time and money was still wasted. Taxpayer money at that.

jamesk1973 wrote:


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

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.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

It depends on how you define the word 'keep.

If 'Keep' is simply given to mean 'own' or 'possess ownership of', then it isn't being infringed. Nobody is saying you cannot own them after all, they're simply placing geographical limitations on the location of the item.

Alternatively, if we understand 'keep' to mean 'store', then the law would be being broken.

If we want to be real sticklers to the letter of the law you could even argue that the 2nd doesn't mention anything about actually using your weapons.

You could keep them, and you could bear them, and they could pass laws throwing you in prison forever if you discharged any of them and it wouldn't be unconstitutional since the constitution never mentions letting you fire them.

 Ketara wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

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.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

It depends on how you define the word 'keep.

If 'Keep' is simply given to mean 'own' or 'possess ownership of', then it isn't being infringed. Nobody is saying you cannot own them after all, they're simply placing geographical limitations on the location of the item.

Alternatively, if we understand 'keep' to mean 'store', then the law would be being broken.

I should also point out that there is precedent for laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm within a city's limits.

Anyone remember Tombstone??? Anyone? I'm not saying that any such laws work, just that they have been done in the past.

Jamesk, I'm not being obtuse, the 2nd amendment allows US citizens to legally own a firearm. States and.cities are allowed to govern their domain as they see fit. If the city of New York wishes to explicitly say where its residents may keep their firearms, then as long as they don't restrict your ability to own a firearm (which they're not) then they're not breaking the 2nd Amendment. If they said, you're not allowed to own a rifle or a shotgun if you live in the city (regardless of where that firearm is stored), then id say you have a decent case of a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Edit: As a note, we already infringe the right of certain US citizens to own firearms, if Irremember correctly, felons cannot own a firearm due to having committed a crime. But I'm sire that's a bird of a different feather.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Jamesk, I'm not being obtuse, the 2nd amendment allows US citizens to legally own a firearm.

I know it is semantics, but feel in this case the difference, though subtle, is important. The 2nd does NOT allow US citizens to bear arms, it denies the federal government the ability to take that right away. Recent SCOTUS cases have further interpreted that this denial applies to state and local governments.

But it's not absolute. NYC can ban magazines with a capacity in excess of X rounds just as surely as the state of Iowa prohibits me from owning an automatic weapon, even if I have an otherwise lawful NFA stamp.

 d-usa wrote:
IYou could keep them, and you could bear them, and they could pass laws throwing you in prison forever if you discharged any of them and it wouldn't be unconstitutional since the constitution never mentions letting you fire them.

IANAL but I suspect firing them recreationally falls under bearing them, since it's otherwise redundant in that sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
why IS this thread about guns now, by the way?

 Ouze wrote:
But it's not absolute. NYC can ban magazines with a capacity in excess of X rounds just as surely as the state of Iowa prohibits me from owning an automatic weapon, even if I have an otherwise lawful NFA stamp.

We'll see what happens when it hits SCOTUS. This one isn't done yet.

And regardless, my point on the 2nd denying gove't power stands. In fact the bill of rights as a whole exists to deny the gov't specific powers in favor of individual and state rights.

Well, I'm just making the silly argument of what happens when you say that everything applies exactly as written and ignore intend in the process.

In the pre-"not just militias" ruling from SCOTUS you could argue that owning and bearing is needed for the possibility of raising militias, but since it doesn't mention actual use of the arms it could be restricted by the state until a militia is raised.

It's a silly argument of schematics, but that's what happens when you argue written text over intend.

I had a coworker who was a super strict "if it doesn't explicitly say it then it's not allowed, the constitution is not organic" adherent. He never could answer me how he could be in the Air Force considering that our non-organic constitution lets us have an army and a navy but no military branch full of airplanes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ouze: because for a certain something its a game of "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon can't have my guns"

CptJake, thank you for that clarification.

 Ouze wrote:

why IS this thread about guns now, by the way?

the original post was about the NSA overstepping its bounds.

Followed by the hypothesis that government is becoming more tyrannical and unconstitutional as individual rights are being trampled.

Followed by a lot of nay-saying

Followed by specific examples of individual rights being violated to support the hypothesis.

Followed by more nay-saying.

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

 CptJake wrote:

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

Honestly, I think a goodly portion of the US Military would side with the people... and use the very same insurgency tactics used against us, against the "Gov't"

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

 Minx wrote:
In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

...and this is exactly why we nip the NSA problem in the bud.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Also from the wonders of the internet

United States Army 541,291
United States Marine Corps 195,338
United States Navy 317,237
United States Air Force 333,772
United States Coast Guard 42,357
United States Army National Guard 358,200
United States Army Reserve 205,000
United States Marine Corps Forces Reserve 39,600
United States Navy Reserve 62,500
United States Air National Guard 105,700
United States Air Force Reserve 70,880
United States Coast Guard Reserve 9,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Honestly, I think a goodly portion of the US Military would side with the people... and use the very same insurgency tactics used against us, against the "Gov't"

A lot depends on the scale and location(s) and the types of incidents Unca Sam tries to use active duty forces (or even federalized NG) to deal with.

A single city riot (Watts type) would not garner the same types of response from the troops that an actual civil war would.

We could go into possible scenarios and prospective 'kick off' events but it would destroy this topic, so this will be my last post on the subject.

In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

I suspect you have little understanding of the US, our laws, how they are passed and enforced, how insurgencies start and maintain themselves, or how civil wars break out.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

And yet we use NONE of those techniques overseas. What odds to you place on a US pilot being willing to carpet bomb or nuke US citizens? Could you get enough pilots to do so to make a difference? (would the insurgents present the type of target that tactic would make sense against?). How many ground crews maintain planes that are used to carpet bomb US civilians?

If only we had used tanks and jets against insurgents in other recent wars, since they would seem to be weapons you feel no insurgent can face....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Also from the wonders of the internet

United States Army 541,291
United States Marine Corps 195,338
United States Navy 317,237
United States Air Force 333,772
United States Coast Guard 42,357
United States Army National Guard 358,200
United States Army Reserve 205,000
United States Marine Corps Forces Reserve 39,600
United States Navy Reserve 62,500
United States Air National Guard 105,700
United States Air Force Reserve 70,880
United States Coast Guard Reserve 9,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft

Ad hominem much?

Approximately 2.2 million active, reserve, and guard service members.

Still approximately a 1:50 kill ratio to hold their own.

No doubt there would be casualties, heavy casualties.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Armed rebellion against incumbent military really isn't about beating the government with military muscle. It's about standing up long enough that eventually the soldiers get sick of killing their brothers and friends.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

Rather than arguing the premise (armed rebellion).

You drew up the specific numbers of service members versus the approximate numbers of service members as refutation in toto that armed rebellion will not succeed.

Then made a snarky "wonders of the internet" comment.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

Rather than arguing the premise (armed rebellion). You drew up the specific numbers of service members versus the approximate numbers of service members as refutation in toto that armed rebellion will not succeed. Then made a snarky "wonders of the internet" comment.

Still not actually an ad hominem argument. I was just giving a more exact amount and links to how many vehicles that the US military has to show how outclassed a civilian militia would be. I was reiterating my previous argument. If I called you an idiot and made personal remarks about you, then it would be ad hominem.

Also, the "wonders of the internet" was a joke, not meant to offend or insult anyone, and giving where I got the information from as well (the internet).

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

How many fully operational battle stations does Darth Obama possess?

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

The "Battle of Athens" was fought against a 1946, rural America police force. Their level of training and equipment would be considered completely inadequate even by the standards of a modern city police force, let alone the US Army.

Also jamesk1973 over there isn't talking about a local riot, he is talking about how owning a few guns will allow him and his buddies to overthrow the Federal Government of the United States and their standing army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

"Stuff that I just made up" doesn't really count as history... So what history are you talking about?

There is, AFAIK, a single recorded incident where a massed number of heavily armed people rose up against the Federal Government (and the army), when they thought that said government was trampling over their rights... I think you guys call it the American Civil War or something like that... How did that end up for the insurgents again?

PhantomViper wrote:

"Stuff that I just made up" doesn't really count as history... So what history are you talking about?

The American Revolution?

The ACW was a loss for the South but it does show that such an uprising can occur.

Pretty much any coup or overthrow of any government by the people since the beginning of time.

Take you pick.

 d-usa wrote:
So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

How many fully operational battle stations does Darth Obama possess?

Darth Obama does have multiple squadrons of armed drones.

The Drone Wars, begun they have?

 d-usa wrote:
The Drone Wars, begun they have?

Dunno... think they've started arming Amazon's fleet of drones yet?

You guy's are great when you work together.

 d-usa wrote:
So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

Not to mention, of those 300 million + firearms in circulation in the US, how many of those "civilians" that own them are also military of some variety?? lol

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

Lol, I must probably fix the crap you break, so my knowledge of the EO comes in the form of the annual CI training we get

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

Lol, I must probably fix the crap you break, so my knowledge of the EO comes in the form of the annual CI training we get

If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

And foxes... and actually, depending on the unit, we DO fix some Mike stuff

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

And foxes... and actually, depending on the unit, we DO fix some Mike stuff

Yeah equipment and unit depending. Our 33W never touched our stuff in my unit. Still was great friends with them and played 40k with them. I want to say most of our stuff at the time was dealt with the contractors though. Either DoD or DIA, learning toward the latter.

 CptJake wrote:
We'll see what happens when it hits SCOTUS. This one isn't done yet.

I'd actually go a step further and say that NYC will get banged for having a de facto unlawful handgun ban, period, and that "may issue" is actually capricious, fickle garbage. It's so difficult and unlikely to get a handgun permit in the city I think they essentially have the same unlawful status quo Chicago did.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Still not actually an ad hominem argument. I was just giving a more exact amount and links to how many vehicles that the US military has to show how outclassed a civilian militia would be. I was reiterating my previous argument. If I called you an idiot and made personal remarks about you, then it would be ad hominem.

You do need people to drive and/or fly those vehicles, I'm afraid. I appreciate your willingness to speak on my behalf regarding my comfort level with dropping on US civilians, but I think you may be, as Bob Uecker would say, juuuuuuust a bit outside.

The other side seems to think that I am comfortable gunning down my government just because I'm a gun owner, so maybe both sides are assuming things here...

 d-usa wrote:
The other side seems to think that I am comfortable gunning down my government just because I'm a gun owner, so maybe both sides are assuming things here...

No. I do not assume that you would feel comfortable doing this.

However, I do feel that your right to keep and bear arms should you feel the need to do so (gun down your government), is worth protecting.



Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

It's hard to take you seriously when you are maintaining two threads: one bitching about elitists being unconstitutional and one where you are an elitist bitching about constitutional rights of women.

This goes back to the whole "you not caring about the constitution except for the parts you like" thing...

 d-usa wrote:
It's hard to take you seriously when you are maintaining two threads: one bitching about elitists being unconstitutional and one where you are an elitist bitching about constitutional rights of women.

This goes back to the whole "you not caring about the constitution except for the parts you like" thing...

A woman's right to abortion is in the Constitution?

No. Seriously though.

It is not that I am AGAINST a woman's Constitutional right, as much as I am for not killing "potential human beings".

A woman's right to privacy between her and her physician is in the constitution.

That's why there are so many court cases that declare so many abortion restrictions unconstitutional.

Judging by your responses one might think that you don't really know very much about the stuff you talk about.

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

It's not the vegan militia burning our flags, reciting from the Quran, that take my guns and allow my women to fornicate with heathens and hippies is it?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

It's not the vegan militia burning our flags, reciting from the Quran, that take my guns and allow my women to fornicate with heathens and hippies is it?

good one.
My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).

I am using elitist in the manner that the liberals would put the needs, wants, and desires of the disadvantaged or the needs, wants, and desires of the middle and upper-class.

Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?

Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.

I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.

Yet I see time and again liberal lawyers getting into office on the promise to make those bastards pay. Yet, I have yet to run across a liberal cum politician who employed feth all.

They just want to tax and regulate the wealth away from the wealthy and into the hands of the poor.

Then they turn around and curse the corporation for moving jobs outside of the country.

Well gak, it's clear that their efforts toward industry and job creation is not valued here, so yeah, move them jobs out of the country.

Somebody thinks they are posting coherent well thought out responses.

But all I read is "rage rage rage filthy liberals rage rage cuss word rage rage cuss some more rage rage"...

Somebody is unable to read.

if I could interject a briefly on-topic comment; another federal judge has found the NSA program to be constitutional, setting the stage for a SCOTUS showdown.

Good, we need to spy on people to find out if they are rich enough to steal money from to pay for abortions, Obama-phones, and crack for liberals that are too lazy to work tax...

"Pauley called the NSA's surveillance programs part of the "the government's counterpunch" against the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which he said happened in part because of a failure to "connect the dots" linking terrorists."

You mean like when Oliver North testified about him (bin Laden) at the Iran-Contra hearings?

Or

When Clinton ignored a CIA missive detailing the threat that bin Laden posed?

Or

When GW receive a memo warning of imminent terrorist attack and didn't both to pass to word to anyone?

Those dots?

SMH

 Ouze wrote:
if I could interject a briefly on-topic comment; another federal judge has found the NSA program to be constitutional, setting the stage for a SCOTUS showdown.

Ultimately, this is the old debate between viewing terrorism as a matter of national security or of law enforcement. Should there be special rules in the post-9/11 age (Patriot Act??) to make it easier for the feds to stop terrorism before it happens? If so, why limit that power to acts of terrorism? Instead of just extending it to other terrible crimes?

My take? I hope the SC strikes down the NSA program.

If this meta-data collection was within the NSA's purview and NOT a 4th Amendment violation why did they need a classified subpoena issued by the secret Patriot Act court?

If it was on the up and up they could have collected the data without a subpoena or at least without seeking a classified subpoena.

The fact that the NSA sought a classified subpoena meant they themselves had questions if not outright doubts about the constitutionality of their actions.

Hence, they sought a classified subpoena under the 4th Amendment violating Patriot Act in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then we had the entire Congressional lying game.

The NSA does not collect data!

Er, okay the NSA does collect meta-data!

Um, the NSA did not listen to your phone calls

Well, actually we did. Sorta.

no, we were completely legal we sought a subpoena...no no no...a classified subpoena...We could tell you what was in it but then we would have to kill you.

We had oversight!

Hmmm, not as much oversight as we thought.

You can keep your plan and your doctor!

Unconstitutional!

Constitutional!

 whembly wrote:
Ultimately, this is the old debate between viewing terrorism as a matter of national security or of law enforcement. Should there be special rules in the post-9/11 age (Patriot Act??) to make it easier for the feds to stop terrorism before it happens? If so, why limit that power to acts of terrorism? Instead of just extending it to other terrible crimes?

My take? I hope the SC strikes down the NSA program.

The really galling thing is the judge in this case said, in a different article I read this morning and I don't feel look looking for now, something like 9/11 happened because of intelligence failures this is designed to stop a repeat of. The problem with that is that all of the 9/11 hijackers assumed that their phones were tapped and this program would have done sweet feth all to prevent it.

I don't have a problem with warranted and judicially-overseeen surveillance in general, it's when it goes domestic and warrant-less that it becomes a problem. I'm not sure that the program as a whole when applied to foreign nationals is problematic, it seems to me that the weak oversight of it is that allows for overreach is the actual problem.

We just got so many programs that suck up money and make everybody miserable (not to mention questionable constitutional violations) while seeming like they don't really do all that much.

We got giant lines in front of the TSA checkpoint in the airport, keeping 500 people confined in a tiny area ready to be the next target in the name of airport security, and in the meantime drunk people just climb fences and run across the runways.

If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it I hate to think what a terrorist with a bomb could do...

 d-usa wrote:
If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it

That's an oddly specific fetish.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a drunk crossdresser can just jump a fence and run up to a Southwest Airlines plane and high-five it

That's an oddly specific fetish.

Looks like he was actually two different people

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/us/new-jersey-airport-security-breach/

When Siyah Bryant, 24, allegedly mounted the barrier at Newark Liberty International Airport, it went unnoticed for a day. On Thursday, a review of security camera footage revealed his ascent, according to Port Authority police.

The cross-dressed suspect then ran across two runways to get to Terminal C, two police sources said. Nobody saw it, but he was literally on the screen at the time.

and

Also on Christmas Day, police in Phoenix arrested 49-year-old Robert Bump after he allegedly ran onto the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, police said.

Tower officials saw a man climb over a fence and run onto the tarmac and taxiway, where he headed for a Southwest Airlines plane, Phoenix police spokesman James Holmes said.

The pilot shut down the plane's engines when told the man was approaching. The suspect, who appeared intoxicated, struck the plane's engine with his hands before heading toward the terminal, where he was arrested.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?

Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.

I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.

As a solidly upper-middle class white guy who's "earned it all by merit", wow.

You're.. you're actually real Ronald Reagan, living in a bunker somewhere, right?

Everybody knows that rich only get rich by boot strapping and refusing to take advantage of anything government has to offer.

If only my parents didn't send me to a public school, I could have been one of them...

Well, in an attempt to steer this thread back OT, I'll report that some other judge (can't be bothered posting a link ) has said that the surveillance programme IS constitutional.

I smell a supreme court case...and burning toast (cooking breakfast!!)

I ninja'd you on that a page back.

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

Touche good sir, touche.

I'm not sure how that judge can deem it constitutional. It wasn't a judge from around the Las Cruces area of New Mexico was it?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I ninja'd you on that a page back.

I looked at your previous posts, and there's no mention of me burning my toast

Touche good sir, touche.

I'm not sure how that judge can deem it constitutional. It wasn't a judge from around the Las Cruces area of New Mexico was it?

I couldn't answer that, but what I can say is, that as a keen student of American history, I do love a good supreme court case. This could be up there with the Pentagon papers, or Sheldon Vs Sill (1850) I remember that one like it was yesterday