# Our Constitutional protections are gone...Please Read



## cclaxton (Jul 10, 2011)

The 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean much if we lose our Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, collecting secret evidence, indefinite detention, rendition, and violent interrogation. This is not a Democrat or Republican agenda... these laws started under Bush and have been supported by the Obama administration. If we allow these laws to stay on the books, we lose American higher moral standing as it relates to protection against government authoritarianism. These powers can be abused by bad actors in a Republican or Democratic administration with a personal or political agenda. This is not about Bush vs Obama, but about a weak-knee'd Congress that has supported these laws in a bipartisan manner, and the worrisome growth of Presidential Power.

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free - The Washington Post

Please write your federal representatives and express your concern over these laws. If you are arrested and detained without trial indefinitely, the 2nd amendment is of no help. 
CC


----------



## Gunners_Mate (Feb 17, 2010)

not if i shoot them before they arrest me...


----------



## cclaxton (Jul 10, 2011)

Gunners_Mate said:


> not if i shoot them before they arrest me...


Good luck with that one....have you seen a swat team in action lately?


----------



## Gunners_Mate (Feb 17, 2010)

hopefully I am too much a small fry for such action and a simple leo or two shall suffice. have you seen any of them in "action" lately? lol

When injustice becomes law Rebellion becomes Duty

From my cold dead hands

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, etc.


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

any thread that links to the washington post as a source for information isnt worth debating.... 

your second amendment rights ensure the posts first amendment rights, not that they care and their freedom of the press doesnt require me to read it.


----------



## Vintage Racer (May 27, 2011)

cclaxton said:


> The 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean much if we lose our Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, collecting secret evidence, indefinite detention, rendition, and violent interrogation.


Sorry, I'd never read the Washington Post.

I think you are referring to Patriot Act (aka, the USA Providing Appropriate Tools Required [to] Intercept [and] Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)?

It's just me but I think the Act is a darn good way to help protect my family from international terrorism. It's not like my local police departments are threatening me (a law-abiding life-long GA citizen).

Terrorists have promised to kill me. My local police shoot with me at the range (and certainly respect my rights and would give their life to protect my family from the bad guys). I know who to trust.


----------



## Cat (Apr 12, 2011)

TedDeBearFrmHell said:


> any thread that links to the washington post as a source for information isnt worth debating....
> 
> your second amendment rights ensure the posts first amendment rights, not that they care and their freedom of the press doesnt require me to read it.


2nd That...


----------



## cclaxton (Jul 10, 2011)

Vintage Racer said:


> Sorry, I'd never read the Washington Post.
> 
> I think you are referring to Patriot Act (aka, the USA Providing Appropriate Tools Required [to] Intercept [and] Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001)?
> 
> ...


I am with you on trusting LEO/IO/DIA...and while I trust the guys I know, there are tens of thousands of people working in Homeland Security and Defense and Intelligence. They are human and they can be subject to personal agendas and they can be directed to do work for political reasons. The problem is that there is no way to monitor those activities because they are secret and subject to "need to know" information control.

Again I go back to the question about Nixon:

Nixon would have used these powers for partisan political purposes and to manipulate elections. If you look at what Nixon was really doing, he was OBSESSED with winning the next election. He was paranoid about the Democrats and that is why he was willing to authorize the burglarizing of the Democratic HQ and a whole host of other improper and illegal activies: bugging the offices and phones of political opponents, using the FBI and IRS to harrass anti-war activist groups, copying confidential private documents, investigating personal behavior of political aides, writing fraudulent documents, etc. If Nixon had done these today, they would not be illegal and can be kept totally secret.

You can't trust the political hacks or prevent someone with a personal agenda from abusing the power.

As to the Washington Post: They didn't write this article...it was written by a Law Professor and the Washington Post published it. It is not from the editorial page.

Besides, everything he wrote can be factually confirmed. 
CC


----------



## Vintage Racer (May 27, 2011)

cclaxton said:


> The problem is that there is no way to monitor those activities because they are secret and subject to "need to know" information control.


You do love conspiracy theories?

Homeline Security can listen and watch me all they want. I have nothing to hide. I talk about guns and cars. I would put them to sleep (the 1911 is better than a Glock; my car is faster than your car). 



cclaxton said:


> Again I go back to the question about Nixon


Please don't go back to Nixon. He is dead?



cclaxton said:


> You can't trust the political hacks or prevent someone with a personal agenda from abusing the power.


Yea, just ask Monica. Clinton left a bad taste in her mouth?



cclaxton said:


> As to the Washington Post: They didn't write this article...it was written by a Law Professor and the Washington Post published it.


A liberal law professor wrote it? And the Post published it? Go figure.

Do you understand why I don't believe a word of it?











cclaxton said:


> Besides, everything he wrote can be factually confirmed.


I can see that you have special powers. :smt082 Is this you?









Do you work for Clinton or Obama?


----------



## cclaxton (Jul 10, 2011)

Vintage Racer said:


> You do love conspiracy theories?


Well, maybe you don't take our constitutional rights seriously, but most Americans certainly do.

The question I have is why are YOU collecting these photos?

My guess is that is really you in the foil hat and that is how you get your news reports.
CC


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

Well. That went south in a hurry.

I don't know about the Washington Post, but I am wary about the Patriot Act. Anyone that wants me to give up my rights "to keep me safe" is on my very own personal "watch list".


----------



## TedDeBearFrmHell (Jul 1, 2011)

while i may not agree with all the details of the patriot act, nothing about the washington post helps me to sleep better.

and just my opinion here, but i got no problem at all with the US targeting american citizens abroad who are terrorists against america. i do not care if they are killed without due process while aiding and comforting our enemies. 

i chose my words, they mean what they say and only what they say.... if you do not like them, i dont care, its not a debate, its a reality. "what ifs" are bullshit scenarios to make you feel better.


----------

