DescentBB

I've seen a lot of talk lately, on this forum and elsewhere, about how Americans are losing their rights through things such as the Patriot Act, wiretaps, etc. As far as I can tell, I haven't lost any of my rights or privacy. Would anyone care to explain how exactly I'm losing my rights as an American? I'm not trying to be obnoxious or anything, I would just like some opinions on this issue.

You're right; the change isn't really perceptible to the average Joe. This is exactly what makes the trap so dangerous. First of all, it's incremental. Secondly, it usually affects other people...until the day trouble comes looking for you, too.

You'll notice it the day the government forces you to sell your house and you can't afford a new place. Or when you're held in a prison for a year without charges ever being leveled against you. Heck, just think about some of the horror stories we've read about on this board, like the guy who was arrested for taking a picture of cops arresting someone else.

Here's a particularly anti-Bush piece about it:
http://blogtemps.com/

And a perhaps more credible one:
http://www.bordc.org/threats/

There's a lot more to be said about this but I'm out of time and there are folks around here better equipped to discuss it.

Genghis wrote:You'll notice it the day the government forces you to sell your house and you can't afford a new place.

Uuuuhhhhh. Too late

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotu ... index.html

Here's where you can lose your rights without the help of the Patriot Act, the potential has always been there. In my opinion it's not the tools they have at their disposal so much as the integrity of the person with the authority.

I'm familiar with the whole eminent domain thing- I hate it, and I don't think I've ever read a single thing in support for it. I'm more interested in hearing what the Bush administration has supposedly done.

Government: \"You have nothing to fear! Provided of course, that you aren't doing anything wrong!\"

Citizen: \"Oh that's good then!\"

Government (whispering): \"Of course, we reserve to right to change the meaning of the word 'wrong', at any time and without prior notice.\"

Citizen: \"OH!\"


----------------------------


You've lost a LOT of rights. You used to have the right to make copies of your music, and your movies - but not any more. You used to have the right to use excerpts from things too - but you lost that long ago.

You used to have the right to use any work you liked after 7 years, in any way you wanted, but that figure is now about 18 Bijillion years.

You used to have the right to reverse engineer things to see how they work. But the DMCA stopped all that.

These are just some of the freedoms which other contries still retain, but which you allowed congress to give away to Big Money.

I don't have the details on which specific rights to privacy you've lost - but you better believe that if George Bush decides he wants you tucked away somewhere, he has no problems about breaking the law in order to detain you.

As a US army/navy/air force person, you used to have a right under the Geneva Convention to be treated fairly. But bush fucked that up, so if you are captured by the enemy then it's most likely you'll be tortured, because the US has been torturing its captives in violation of an international agreement which has stood for over 60 years.

Basically, you're like a frog in a pot of water, that's on the stove. By the time you ntoice it's hot, you're already cooked.

Nosferatu wrote:Uuuuhhhhh. Too late

Yes, the Kelo case is very well known. That's my point: all my examples above are of things that have actually happened to average citizens. This illustrates that loss of rights is not hypothetical, but a real danger to all of us.

Firewheel wrote:I'm more interested in hearing what the Bush administration has supposedly done.

Well my first link has some of what you're looking for. But maybe I misunderstand your question. You say you're aware of the warrantless wiretapping. Another example is the required storage and accessiblity of all your emails. So basically anything you say on the phone or on the Internet could be eavesdropped on by strangers. If you were gay or had HIV or were a closet atheist that information could easily become public even though it's nobody's business but yours. I think that constitutes a serious infringement on my right to privacy.

It seems to me like you've lost your rights, but you haven't seen the effects of this loss yet. Is that what you're asking? "How does this affect me?" Because the loss of rights is pretty clear. It's just that life goes on normally for you, except now it's easier for the government to search your home or arrest you and hold you indefinitely.

Mobius wrote:You've lost a LOT of rights. You used to have the right to make copies of your music, and your movies - but not any more. You used to have the right to use excerpts from things too - but you lost that long ago.

You used to have the right to use any work you liked after 7 years, in any way you wanted, but that figure is now about 18 Bijillion years.

You used to have the right to reverse engineer things to see how they work. But the DMCA stopped all that.

These are just some of the freedoms which other contries still retain, but which you allowed congress to give away to Big Money.

SO what your saying is that you no longer have the right to steal from people, because all the things you mentioned all amount to theft. and by the way theft has been against the law in this country since its founding

Mobius wrote:I don't have the details on which specific rights to privacy you've lost - but you better believe that if George Bush decides he wants you tucked away somewhere, he has no problems about breaking the law in order to detain you.

so what your saying is you have NO IDEA if you've lost any rights at all, you just suspect that you've lost them because you hate Bush.

Mobius wrote:As a US army/navy/air force person, you used to have a right under the Geneva Convention to be treated fairly. But bush **** that up, so if you are captured by the enemy then it's most likely you'll be tortured, because the US has been torturing its captives in violation of an international agreement which has stood for over 60 years.

outside of the abborations of Abu Grabe, please let us in on the Turture that we are imposing on our detainees at Gitmo, which is what I assume you are refering to.

Oops, I should have been more clear in my first post. I want to hear *both* sides of this issue, because there seems to be a lot of vague rambling about how \"...the Patriot Act is taking away all of our rights!\", etc, without much backing it up. I'll have to check out those first two links; I've just been a bit busy today.

I am quite aware of stuff like eminent domain, and I am totally opposed to it. I was referring more to controversy over the stuff Bush has done.

Mobius wrote:As a US army/navy/air force person, you used to have a right under the Geneva Convention to be treated fairly. But bush **** that up, so if you are captured by the enemy then it's most likely you'll be tortured, because the US has been torturing its captives in violation of an international agreement which has stood for over 60 years.

I agree with you about the copyrights and patent stuff, but I don't think this is quite right. I don't think Bush came in and told the armed forces to start torturing people... this is the kind of thing that would happen anyway, we just haven't had much in the way of "wars" since everyone's gotten internet access and cell phone cameras.

And secondly, most of the enemies we fight these days are signatories to the Geneva Convention, anyway.

CUDA wrote:SO what your saying is that you no longer have the right to steal from people, because all the things you mentioned all amount to theft. and by the way theft has been against the law in this country since its founding.

While I can see your point on the copies of movies and music thing, when it comes to 7 years until public domain and amateur reverse engineering, I can't agree. 7 years is more than enough time to popularize a monopoly, afterwards it becomes unprofitable(excepting a few cases, i.e. Disney characters). As for amateur reverse engineering, it can be the easiest way to learn how to make something, because you have an example. It seems childish to me to prevent that, because it effectively says "You can't learn from my idea, because it's my idea, harrumph".

reverse engineering is done for one reason, it is not to get a general knowlege of a particular piece of equipments workings. it is to get specific knowledge of the inner workings of that device, to learn it secrets. companies spend millions upon millions of dollars developing their technologies for the purpose of sale and profit. that is their business. and that is why there is Corprate espionoge. there is little reason for an amature to reverse engineer somthing as they probably would not have the proper tools to do it in the first place,it is more likley they would be doing it for the reason of profiting off it.and if the tech is out dated, then the workings of it can probably be found on the internet. hence no reason to reverse engineer

CUDA wrote:reverse engineering is done for one reason, it is not to get a general knowlege of a particular piece of equipments workings. it is to get specific knowledge of the inner workings of that device, to learn it secrets. companies spend millions upon millions of dollars developing their technologies for the purpose of sale and profit. that is their business. and that is why there is Corprate espionoge. there is little reason for an amature to reverse engineer somthing as they probably would not have the proper tools to do it in the first place,it is more likley they would be doing it for the reason of profiting off it.and if the tech is out dated, then the workings of it can probably be found on the internet. hence no reason to reverse engineer

that only holds true if reverse engineering always means a complete reproduction of the original patent, rather than producing something that works in a usuable fashion similar to the patent. Thats how Compaq got started, thats where all the bios companies got started.

Without reverse-engineering, Dell wouldn't be here.

CUDA wrote:there is little reason for an amature to reverse engineer somthing as they probably would not have the proper tools to do it in the first place,it is more likley they would be doing it for the reason of profiting off it.

You, my friend, have obviously never set foot in the software development world.

Case in point: Digidesign, a subsidiary of Avid, sells a product called Pro Tools, the many versions of which are the definitive standard in audio recording and production. You can only get Pro Tools if you buy Digidesign audio hardware, and the cheapest that gets is $500 a pop for a basic two-input one-output box, and it doesn't even come with the most powerful version of Pro Tools.

The radio station I work for bought six of these boxes. The communications department at my college is looking at purchasing 20 more. That's $3,000 in made sales and $10,000 in potential sales. The radio station has a server set up for users to store files on. Everyone's home directory (the Mac/UNIX version of the My Documents folder) is stored on this server.

I installed Pro Tools to find out there's a bug in it that it doesn't work properly when the home folder is stored on a network volume -- it refuses to let you exit the program, which in turn prevents the user from logging out of the workstation.

I have two options here: tell my boss that the $3,000 he spent is useless, or find a workaround. Technically, option B is illegal under the DMCA since it involves reverse engineering. But I did it anyway, using tools provided by Apple to figure out what Pro Tools was doing and why it was failing. I emailed Digidesign customer support and they appreciate my efforts and are looking into releasing a patch.

Reverse engineering is also a major component of vulnerability research. And disaster assessment. And actuarial science. And a whole slew of other things that don't necessarily involve computers.

In short, you know not what you speak of.

Mobius:
\"As a US army/navy/air force person, you used to have a right under the Geneva Convention to be treated fairly. But bush **** that up, so if you are captured by the enemy then it's most likely you'll be tortured, because the US has been torturing its captives in violation of an international agreement which has stood for over 60 years. \"

Mind explaining how Bush screwed things up to the vietnam vets who were captured and tortured. Or to the WW2 vets who were captured and tortured. Or to the crewman of the USS Pueblo who were captured by the N. Koreans and tortured. So take your anti-Bush propaganda back to Kiwiland

DCrazy wrote:

CUDA wrote:there is little reason for an amature to reverse engineer somthing as they probably would not have the proper tools to do it in the first place,it is more likley they would be doing it for the reason of profiting off it.

You, my friend, have obviously never set foot in the software development world.

Case in point: Digidesign, a subsidiary of Avid, sells a product called Pro Tools, the many versions of which are the definitive standard in audio recording and production. You can only get Pro Tools if you buy Digidesign audio hardware, and the cheapest that gets is $500 a pop for a basic two-input one-output box, and it doesn't even come with the most powerful version of Pro Tools.

The radio station I work for bought six of these boxes. The communications department at my college is looking at purchasing 20 more. That's $3,000 in made sales and $10,000 in potential sales. The radio station has a server set up for users to store files on. Everyone's home directory (the Mac/UNIX version of the My Documents folder) is stored on this server.

I installed Pro Tools to find out there's a bug in it that it doesn't work properly when the home folder is stored on a network volume -- it refuses to let you exit the program, which in turn prevents the user from logging out of the workstation.

I have two options here: tell my boss that the $3,000 he spent is useless, or find a workaround. Technically, option B is illegal under the DMCA since it involves reverse engineering. But I did it anyway, using tools provided by Apple to figure out what Pro Tools was doing and why it was failing. I emailed Digidesign customer support and they appreciate my efforts and are looking into releasing a patch.

Reverse engineering is also a major component of vulnerability research. And disaster assessment. And actuarial science. And a whole slew of other things that don't necessarily involve computers.

In short, you know not what you speak of.

Should I give you the Dictionary description of reverse engineering? reverse engineering is theft according to websters. what your describing is NOT reverse engineering

"quote"
re‧verse-en‧gi‧neer  /rɪˈvɜrsɛndʒəˈnɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-vurs-en-juh-neer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
to study or analyze (a device, as a microchip for computers) in order to learn details of design, construction, and operation, perhaps to produce a copy or an improved version.

For example, one might take the executable code of a
computer program, run it to study how it behaved with
different input and then attempt to write a program oneself
which behaved identically (or better). An integrated
circuit might also be reverse engineered by an unscrupulous
company wishing to make unlicensed copies of a popular chip."unquote"

why would you need to copy a program that behave identical, when that program is already available. and in "most" cases that program would be compatable with your system? the rest of the example speaks for it self

CUDA wrote:re‧verse-en‧gi‧neer  /rɪˈvɜrsɛndʒəˈnɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-vurs-en-juh-neer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
to study or analyze (a device, as a microchip for computers) in order to learn details of design, construction, and operation, perhaps to produce a copy or an improved version.

And that's what he did, he produced an improved version of the software by analyzing the origional software.

Dcrazy's example is flawed, it just showed him being a \"hacker\"(debugging isn't reverse-engineering anyways), there needs to be a component of intent to produce a new product, rather than fixing a current one.

Mine's better. here's the wikipedia article on Rerverse Engineering.

Freedom to protest was lost when the 'free speech zones' went up.

Freedom of association went out the window when unwarranted wiretaps were authorized.

Freedom of speech disappeared when dissenters were placed on no-fly lists.


Those are the ones I can list off the top of my head.

I would say most of us are gaining the right of security by Bush's new programs. Sacrifice the privacy of a few suspicious people for the security of the many.

\"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.\"

DCRAZY although initially it seemed to be so, now i'm not entirely sure that what you did was illegal under DMCA law.
it may come under this loophole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#DMCA_ ... urance_Act

Aggressor Prime wrote:I would say most of us are gaining the right of security by Bush's new programs. Sacrifice the privacy of a few suspicious people for the security of the many.

and BING, being suspicous becomes a defacto crime.

roid wrote:BING, being suspicous becomes a defacto crime.

Wait, isn't that the exact opposite of the "innocent until proven guilty" method of justice?

Also, DCrazy, don't worry about digi, they're worse then Microsoft for acting like an overly litigious monopoly, but they won't care about what you did.

Ferno wrote:Freedom to protest was lost when the 'free speech zones' went up.

Really? Then how did a bunch of illegal immigrants get away with marching about their rights?

Ferno wrote:Freedom of association went out the window when unwarranted wiretaps were authorized.

How so? You have a lot of overseas calls from known terrorists that are essential to your way of life?

Ferno wrote:Freedom of speech disappeared when dissenters were placed on no-fly lists.

Just what "dissenters" might you be refering too?

Losing your rights..

Ask yourself this:

• Do you own your car?
• Do you own your house?
• Do you own your land?
• Do you own your body?
• Can you drive a car without government approval?
• Can you modify your house without government approval?
• Can you open a bank account without government paperwork? Without government oversight? (IRS)
• Can you talk on a cellphone while driving?
• Can your purchase and consume drugs in the privacy
• of your own home?
• Can you purchase a firearm without government approval?

To all of these above and more: NO

• Can you be arrested for no cause?
• Can you be arrested for things that are not a crime?
• Can your money be stolen from you at any time by almost any branch of government?
• Can your car be confiscated without due process?
• Can your house be confiscated without due process?
• Can your house be confiscated through taxation? (Regardles of your working status)
• Can your house be confiscated for possession of private entertainment? (drugs, whatnot)
• Can your car be confiscated for possession of private entertainment? (drugs, whatnot)

To all of these above and more: YES

It's a sad shame that most Americans don't even know what they've lost. They've been well programmed to sit down, shut up, work, go home, breed, and watch TV. @#$%ing lemmings. Disgusting.

Nice intro to a book I'm considering. Hits every mark you should know about.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Freedom to protest was lost when the 'free speech zones' went up.

Really? Then how did a bunch of illegal immigrants get away with marching about their rights?

Just because free speech zones aren't ubiquitous doesn't mean they don't impinge on free speech. You are effectively saying that free speech is only occasionally at risk. I think it should always be guaranteed.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Freedom of association went out the window when unwarranted wiretaps were authorized.

How so? You have a lot of overseas calls from known terrorists that are essential to your way of life?

To decide whether you're talking to an overseas terrorist, they have to monitor all overseas communications. Or do you think they have a magic 8-ball helping them out with that problem? It seems like you're saying "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?", which we know is an easily deconstructed argument.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:Freedom of speech disappeared when dissenters were placed on no-fly lists.

Just what "dissenters" might you be refering too?

Don't even get me started on the no-fly list (hint: it's not a simple no-fly list). Furthermore, there are a ton of false positives resulting from this list, screwing over innocent people.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 ... light.html

As for Ferno's dissenters, that's hard to prove but statistically about half of the innocent people on the no-fly list will be anti-Bush, thus making them dissenters. You can google for dissenters and no fly list for examples.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

roid wrote:

Aggressor Prime wrote:I would say most of us are gaining the right of security by Bush's new programs. Sacrifice the privacy of a few suspicious people for the security of the many.

and BING, being suspicous becomes a defacto crime.

Wait, isn't that the exact opposite of the "innocent until proven guilty" method of justice?

yes, that's my point: we're supposed to have an "innocent until proven guilty" method of policing, just-cause used to be required for search warrants and invasive surveillance. These things used to be to protect our privacy, when being searched ment that a crime had been commited and you were under high suspicion of being the perpetrator.
Now you have to start worrying about what you might LOOK like you are doing. Evidence is unneeded, and thanks to the pre-emptive nature of the new system there doesn't even need to be a crime involved at all - just suspicion that there WILL be one in the future. And you're on your way to Guantanamo Bay for years. No rights for you, "innocent until proven guilty" is a historical term, it's a police state now and will remain that way.
Self-incrimination, Presumption of innocence, Due process

Testiculese wrote:Ask yourself this:

• Do you own your car?
• Do you own your house?
• Do you own your land?
• Do you own your body?
• Can you drive a car without government approval?
• Can you modify your house without government approval?
• Can you open a bank account without government paperwork? Without government oversight? (IRS)
• Can you talk on a cellphone while driving?
• Can your purchase and consume drugs in the privacy
• of your own home?
• Can you purchase a firearm without government approval?

To all of these above and more: NO

Presuming that you did purchase land, house, cellphone and car, and some other conditions are met, the answer to all of these is "yes, you can do all these things; nobody is forcing you to not do them". However, the question you were supposed to ask was "can you do any of these things without getting in trouble with police and such?", but 'being able to commitan illegal crime without punishment' is not one of the basic human rights.

I was under the impression that the Lexmark case had established a precedent that reverse engineering of any computer technology was illegal, but upon further Googling it seems like it's still a bit of a gray area.

Thanks guys.

TIGERassault wrote:Presuming that you did purchase land, house, cellphone and car, and some other conditions are met, the answer to all of these is "yes, you can do all these things; nobody is forcing you to not do them".

What? Where do you come up with this stuff? You did read the post, right?

I did not ask if you can not purchase these items. I didn't even bring up the purchase of a cellphone. I asked if you buy certain items, do you own them. Sure, you can buy them, but you DO NOT own them.

Everything else you typed makes no sense in context of what I posted. It's hardly even related. I asked all the right questions, you just don't know the answers.

Testiculese wrote:Losing your rights..

Ask yourself this:

• Do you own your car?
• Do you own your house?
• Do you own your land?
• Do you own your body?
• Can you drive a car without government approval?
• Can you modify your house without government approval?
• Can you open a bank account without government paperwork? Without government oversight? (IRS)
• Can you talk on a cellphone while driving?
• Can your purchase and consume drugs in the privacy
• of your own home?
• Can you purchase a firearm without government approval?

To all of these above and more: NO

• Can you be arrested for no cause?
• Can you be arrested for things that are not a crime?
• Can your money be stolen from you at any time by almost any branch of government?
• Can your car be confiscated without due process?
• Can your house be confiscated without due process?
• Can your house be confiscated through taxation? (Regardles of your working status)
• Can your house be confiscated for possession of private entertainment? (drugs, whatnot)
• Can your car be confiscated for possession of private entertainment? (drugs, whatnot)

To all of these above and more: YES

It's a sad shame that most Americans don't even know what they've lost. They've been well programmed to sit down, shut up, work, go home, breed, and watch TV. @#$%ing lemmings. Disgusting.

Nice intro to a book I'm considering. Hits every mark you should know about.

Then pray tell, when did we ever have those rights? Please tell me you do not rationally believe they all disappeared when Bush was elected as Ferny seems to imply.

Heh your right Wood most of those \"RIGHTS\" as they would like you to believe were lost, were done so decades ago.

Can you drive a car without government approval?

I assume you mean either a drivers license or your tags, sure lets not license anyone, let have all the blind people or idiots in the world out there endangering all of us, maybe 9-10 year old kids behind the wheel too. driving is a privledge not a right, you must prove that you will not go out there and kill the first person you run across with your 3000lb missle. so its a SAFETY ISSUE

Can you modify your house without government approval?

uhm permits are done for SAFETY ISSUES, so some moron doesn put an addition on his house and have it fall on the neighbor during a wind storm

Can you talk on a cellphone while driving?

why did the government install a camera in your car? I'll refer back to your point number one on this one. there is already too many idiots driving without distracting them furthur and becoming a SAFETY ISSUE.

# Can your purchase and consume drugs in the privacy
# of your own home?

this one isnt even worth the bandwith you typed it on.

Can you purchase a firearm without government approval?

if your meaning the backround checks you cannot be serious, you would allow guns to anybody???? again Kids? the mentally unstable??? convicted criminals?????URM SAFETY ISSUE ?

cmon testy please give us a specific example of a right you have lost by a new law in the last 6 years that has effected you personally, not something that \"might\" effect you in the future but one that has today.

just finished the book intro testi linked to, reads like it was written in the 90's and makes alot of claims without citing any sources ....

on \"innocent until proven guilty\"
why would anyone bring someone they though was innocent into court .... they wouldnt, in court you are guilty until proven innocent, else you wouldnt be there

ccb056 wrote:on "innocent until proven guilty"
why would anyone bring someone they though was innocent into court .... they wouldnt, in court you are guilty until proven innocent, else you wouldnt be there

Very true, but no one said anything about going to court.

Also, innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that the accuser won't assume the defendant is guilty, it means that in the event that insufficient evidence is presented to prove guilt within reasonable doubt (about 51% proof in civil cases and virtually 100% proof in criminal ones, at least up here) then the accused is free to go without charge.

Woody, no it's been an encroachment of decades, so the average lemming wouldn't notice.

So there are no idiots on the roads, eh Cuda? No licensed 16yo's plowing into people, killing and maiming on a daily basis?

Driving IS a right. You have the right to transport yourself anywhere in the country by ANY MEANS. The roads are public. You are free to use them (except for commercial gain) any way you choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another person. This has been stated year after year by uncorrupt judges and uncorrupt state police. A license was an insurance premium reduction document that was lobbied to the government. It was seen as a cash cow, and you have been lied to about it ever since. Did you know that if you never signed the contract, you are never required to be licensed to drive? You can also lawfully revoke your license and drive without it?
Just because a few bad drivers (but wait, they're licensed, they can't be bad drivers!) crash their cars on the phone, now nobody can talk on one? What about those who crash 'cause they dropped their cigarette? Spilled their soda? Were changing the radio? Talking to their passengers? It's a bull★■◆● law that has absolutely no effect except it now gives the police yet another reason to pull you over and search your vehicle or take more money. I see COPS driving with cellphones! Everyone and their mother drives with a cellphone in their ear. It's an ineffective regulation (NOT a law) that was created that you are supposed to follow because you are under contract to do so.

Building permits are required because you don't own your house. If you build an addition to my house and it falls over, you wouldn't be responsible for the damages. The bank owns your house until you pay it off, then you sort-of own your house, as long as the government doesn't want it for a profit. But don't forget the insurance company also has a vested interest in your property, and has lobbied the government to create an unconstitutional law that requires you to get a permit for any modifications (on a house that you are supposed to rightly own)

I've owned and operated firearms since I was 5 years old. If your kids, or someone else's kids, are too stupid to handle guns, that's your/their problem, not mine. If a criminal buys a gun and commits a crime with it, they should be put away for life, or put down. The problem with it now is that they are back on the streets in a year or two because the government is busy filling the prisons with people who drove a few mph over the 'limit' or someone guy who was smoking a joint in the park. Prisons are a huge profit, don't forget. It's in the government's interest to keep them filled. 'Criminal' has been terribly misconstrued, and hardly reflects it's true meaning.

Sad. So sad. The safety fetish is disgusting. You are no safer now than before the cellphone+car ban was enacted. You house is no safer from you or your neighbors because permits are required. You are no safer from criminals because of a background check.

Blanket laws do nothing but take away from the many to protect from the few.

News flash, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to create these blanket laws in the first place. For the very same reason that cops are not authorized to 'protect' you. Their only official job is to respond to criminal activity, and put them where they belong (back out on the streets, haha).

ccb, it doesn't have to cite sources. It's obvious to anyone who opens their eyes.

Testiculese wrote:I did not ask if you can not purchase these items. I didn't even bring up the purchase of a cellphone. I asked if you buy certain items, do you own them. Sure, you can buy them, but you DO NOT own them.

Yes, that part confused me. Why would you not own something you purchased?

I'm not gonna comment on any of the other points. They all seem to be based along "our neighbour is not us, therefore we should not care about them".
And it's all too easy to see why that's a bad thing.

I didn't say THAT either. You put ideas in posts that are simply not there. If anything, it would be \"My neighbor is not me, therefore I should not care about what they do.\" What you do is your buisiness. What they do is theirs. The only time that this would change is if one or the rother does something that affects another's civil or property rights.

Search the internet. Your house, your body and your car are not yours. Sky should have links to decent sites that explain why. I'd like to see what links he has too, since mine are out of date.

Testiculese wrote:I didn't say THAT either. You put ideas in posts that are simply not there. If anything, it would be "My neighbor is not me, therefore I should not care about what they do." What you do is your buisiness. What they do is theirs. The only time that this would change is if one or the rother does something that affects another's civil or property rights.

Search the internet. Your house, your body and your car are not yours. Sky should have links to decent sites that explain why. I'd like to see what links he has too, since mine are out of date.

1: In that case, I'm not gonna comment on any of the other points. They all seem to be based along "our neighbour is not us, therefore we should not care about what they do".
2: I checked, and I couldn't find anything.