Posted on 12/16/2005 10:58:09 AM PST by new yorker 77
"Before I retort to your scurrilous cant,"
My post simply took the text of the provisions that would have expired and, laying out what they meant, asked you to say what you objected to about them. That was the sum and substance of my questions, questions which made no implication whatsoever about how I would work against any form of dictatorship. You make all kinds of "scurrilous" suppositions based on your own imaginings and nothing more.
Unlike you I acknowledge that the fact that the "loopholes", as you call them, exist makes everyone more vigilant about their not being abused. That fact alone, between the Congress, the Courts and the rest of us will provide something of a sentry on them. In the meantime, also unlike you, I am certain that keeping the existing provisions in force while congress continues to rangle about the "loopholes" is preferrable for dealing with the real issues of security against the potentiality of other problems.
You seem to ignore the fact that given the existence of a foreign army living among the civilian population, you can either keep the government out of knowing anything going on in the "civilian" activities of people, and wait until that army lobs another bomb, or you can provide windows for the government into that activity, with some checks on possible abuses; but any "civilian" activity that can be used in any way by the terrorist army, hiding as if they are "civilians" among us, cannot be off limits or your "freedoms" are nothing but a shield for their perfidy.
I do not seek a totalitarian government, nor am I not vigilent against one, nor am I statist; but I do disagree with you on how intrusive are the provisions of the Patriot Act, given the enemy we are up against and where that enemy is working - here among us.
Unlike you I do not tout anyone else's arguments and I do not give a damn whether or noot i doot vry I nd crss evr t; and people for whom such is of extreme importance live on their own intellectual arrogance.
Instead of retorting with snide remarks you could have tried to demonstrate precise answers to my questions, which came from the substance of the provisions that will lapse and simply asked what your objections were to each of those provisions. I must therefore assume that you cannot demonstrate why they are unreasonable at this time and under our current circumstances.
You want to ignore the dog while he eats your foot.
Okay, well, I guess we disagree. You want a fascist police state that is marginally safer, and I want the America promised to me by the Founding Fathers -- even if there *is* a 0.0000000000007% chance I might be killed by a terrorist.
You're arguing with a party fanatic, Laz. But I've figured out that if we hold the line on statist measures in the PA, they'll figure out that they have to deal with our Muslim immigration problem. The same people who want to spy on Americans say that we should continue with our Civil Rights movement era immigration policy. See how they're related? If we let wogs in, we have to spy on everyone.
When I see yet another statis control-freak and hater of American ideals, I simply remind myself that lots of people voted for Hitler, too.
It astounds me that these people really believe that the permanent power to search gun records without a warrant will accomplish anything against al Queada seeking to use WMD.
OTOH, it WOULD accomplish a great deal toward precluding Americans from using their guns to resist a socialist tyranny.
And since Neocons are merely socialists (and/or globalists) who have usurped the Republican label, this would delight them to no end.
Still have that lying tagline I see. And you are clueless as to the constitutionality of the Law as well.
Only the DUmbasses believe this law has turned America into a police state. Nothing could be further from the truth but that does not even cause Liars to slow down. Liars who claim Bush called the Constitution a "piece of paper" cannot be relied upon to recognize must less tell the truth.
Any legislation Dick Durbin supports is useless. One need know no more than that.
'Fraid so. I've called Larry Craig's office to thank him.
I hope we meet someday.
Only a dumbass believes that it doesn't have the potential to do so in the wrong hands.
Hey guess what there are nuclear bombs which the President can launch do you propose we get rid of them because a RAT may again be president someday?
I fail to see how unconstitutional access to gun records will do anything to preclude a nuclear attack. Perhaps you can elighten me there?
DU complains about our fascist police state but anyone with half a brain knows there is no such thing here.
C'mon by if you're in the Bay Urea an I'll crack open a Jail-Bait Ale brewed by FReepers NattieShea and PowerBaby.
It's really good.
You deliberately miss the point. You complain about the potential dangers of this Act when nothing could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of those potential abusers.
Do you propose we get rid of our nuclear weapons because we may elect a scumbag as president again?
Glad it got shot down!
At issue for gun owners is a provision that would allow the FBI to obtain "firearms sales records." The bill extends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and allows agents of the federal government to get "firearms sales records" which, in their opinion, are relevant to investigating terrorism.
These records would be obtained from gun dealers, who are required by law to keep the gun purchase records (4473 forms). Thus, an anti-gun administration could then easily compile gun owner registration lists -- an enterprise which has often been a prelude to gun confiscation.
Nonsense. The point is that access to gun records without warrant is in the PATRIOT Act and that's why Larry Craig objected. THAT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
You complain about the potential dangers of this Act when nothing could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of those potential abusers.
You've proven my point. The government does not need access to gun records without warrant to protect this country from nuclear or biological attack.
Do you propose we get rid of our nuclear weapons because we may elect a scumbag as president again?
Oh goody, a nuclear strawman. How about sticking to the topic of the thread, or is that just too difficult for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.