Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.