George W. Bush ripoff to the American public George W. Bush - AT@T, BellSouth, Verizon, releasing private information to the government. Nationwide Washington DC

I do not have the time to note who said what:

1) I want it noted that I am not a fan of Bush. He was so-so until he tried to pull this Amnesty crap.

2) If you have a problem with the whole phone issue you should get a life. It's not worth getting upset over, and it does more good than harm.

3) I hate to break it to you, but the people will not be able to rise up and take this country back if they have no guns.

4) All these gun laws are heading towards the removal of our 2nd Amendment rights. They tried this in Australia and major crimes have gone up over 600% overall and over 900% in some of the major cities (statistics obtained from my friend who is a cop in Australia). D.C. also has a gun ban and it has extremely high crime rates...especially vioent crimes.

5) What is this doing on Ripoff Report anyways? There are a million political forums to debate this stuff. Stop hijacking the site for your political ranting.

I will freely admit, I know nothing of Hayden outside his role in NSA. And really, I know nothing of NSA. I do know that there is a possibility my calls are being listened to, or even this quick note is being read, by the government or their designee. This bothers me. And not for the reasons you think.

I do fully understand I have no RIGHT to privacy outside my four walls of my privately owned home. I also understand when I pick up the phone or go online, I am not protected from people knowing what I am saying or typing. My issue is why they would listen to me. I have no connection to any terrorist, past or present. I love my country (and all of its flaws...you all have to admit, we are a flawed country). I am a law abiding citizen. And yet, my governement feels it necessary to listen in on the communications of me, and those who are like me. I question their methods, rather than their right to do so. I understand, racial profiling is a no no in this day and age, that's fine. But couldn't there be another way? I don't know, I am not involved in the process.

Here is what I do know. I was sixteen on 9/11. At 5:46am (PST) I watched my world fall apart on national tv. Before that day, before that hour, I knew nothing of this world who hated my land. I knew nothing of corrupt Presidents, or politcal hatred. I was a child, in nearly all respects, and I should have never had to learn. At least not that way.

Now, I had known of wars and I had known of death and destruction, but none here. For those of you who are of the Vietnam, or even later, generations, you must understand. Mine was a generation of no wars. Until that day we had seen no real violence in our day to day actions. We just did not know. Many of the "liberals" are young people. Many are acting out of hurt and anger. I understand this. I am hurt, and I am pissed. Some chose to take that pain and that anger and use it to fight those that attacked us and fight in other wars as well, some chose to turn their anger on their fellow country men. To those I say this: you have allowed the terrorists to win. The terrorists know that united we cannot be brought to our knees, but divided we may fall. Congratulations.

For those out there who will take this tragedy in American history, for those who will take those 2,996 lives and use them to belittle and trash Bush, you disgust me. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a terrible president. He's an idiot, laughs like an evil villain, and looks like a d**n monkey. But it is wrong, disrespectful and reprehensible to use the death of others to your own gain. You do not deserve the right to do so, but you have it, because of those who have fought and died in wars. You don't have to like what our military does, but you do have to respect them. And if you can't do that, you do not deserve to profit from what they give you.

For those who have fought in this, or any war, I commend you. You are brave souls who deserve nothing but the highest honors. For those at war now, may God bless you and bring you home safely. And for those who have family away at war, may God comfort your heart, and bring your sons, daughters, husband or wife home safely.

God Bless America.

I admit I make mistakes. They are few, and far between, so make the most of it. ;)

Go to your other post about this and read the facts. Hayden is the 4th Active duty member to hold the Director's position, but only the 1st to be appointed by a Republican.

I thnk we can all see the ONLY real issue James has with General Hayden.

James, you rant ad nauseum. Simple fact:

"Privacy is a right of ALL citizens!"

It may interest you to know, the word PRIVACY, does not appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution of the United States. Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.

However, as with all amendments, and Supreme Court Decisions rights are subject to change with time and legislation.

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

The Attorney General or his designate, absent a warrant, may require providers of Electronic Communications to monitor and provide this information to the U.S. Government.

So, as you see, your right to "privacy" was legislated. The right for the government to "monitor" your "privacy" was also provided.

Simple fact. Laws and "rights" change with the times. In a nation of 200 million plus you simply cannot satisfy everyone.

Well, here we all are again, because James of Tupper had nothing to contribute to back up his bullshit claims on the Other Report, and apparently, he's not getting enough attention there, either.

So now, he creates a new Report. Hmmm...I have to wonder about the "donations" James has to offer this site---I mean, the kind of donation that requires an open wallet, as opposed to an open mouth?

At any rate, I, too, was impressed to read that Ben and I might actually agree on something (owning weapons for collection or protection reasons, and not having to have them Registered). I have to say, that I'm not crazy over the waiting period...but that's mainly because the criminals aren't gonna wait that long.

Luck would have it, that those willing to wait aren't the probem, as far as crooks having guns.

Aside from that, the Government is welcome to look at my phone records (y'all do reallize, that means they'll be looking at the bill, not listening in on your Aunt's secret Recipe for Awesome Potato Salad, right?). I have nothing to hide, so I don't really fret over it.

Oh, and to our good Buddy James...the joy of freedom is, that I don't have to sit and "listen" to you rhetoric. I can tra-la-la skip past your babble and thus I'm not in a position where I WILL have to sit and listen to you. And I'm totaly cool with you extending the same courtesy to me. After all, you can only respond to me by calling me clever little names like "b***h" (did your Mommy help you strain your brain for that one?), but you can't seem to post a single shred of proof to back up your pissing and whining. Not ONE single post of any form of proof. Not a one.

Seems to me, you're the "dumb b***h" here, when it comes to proving any points.

And Charles, last I checked, none of us here jumped outta the blue singling out a specific person BY NAME and calling them "white trash" like you did on Steve Of Sterling's Report...so it's not "Us" specifically targeting anything other than skewed information, much less "picking on the poor little Democraps". What, you gonna sue us,too? Are you "Destroyed a little bit"?

Oh, Brother. {Eyeroll}

Oh, and FYI, I haven't the slightest interest in "turning anyone into a Republican"..so you can stay on your side of the fence. To be something ther than a Liberal Democrat, you'd have todo awful things like "Research Facts" and "Present Accurate Information", and you're nowhere near that, so don't worry. It's no like you've really contributed anything other than whining to any of the political Reports, anyhoo. What with all the nonsense claims and ALREADY DEBUNKRED THEORIES, like, "Bush Stole The Election!" (It was the MEDIA that tried to, if anything)And, "Bush Invaded a Sovereign Nation For OIL and Hikes The Gas Prices!" Or "The War Is Illegal!", just to name a few.

So yeah, you can go ahead and keep to your side of the sandbox. The side that wants welfare to sprawl, and wants the support of the ACLU, the UN, and NAMBLA, the side that'd vote for Hillary, while you surrender your self protection rights freely and greedily gobble up all the government freebies. By all means, do this while you seek out some poor sonuvabitch to sue so you can have your forty grand to piss away while everyone around you pays your bills.

I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Guess what mine is? ;)

Toodley-Oodley-OO!

Privacy is NOT a right. It is guaranteed by no Constitution in this country.

Who told you the Director of the NSA is a CIVILIAN position? The Headquarters for the NSA is on Fort Meade, a MILITARY base. It is part of the Department of Defense, the MILITARY. It was originally called the Armed Forces Security Agency...MILITARY. Just for fun, I will give you the list of all of the Diractors since it's inception:

Directors of the National Security Agency

Lt. General Keith B. Alexander, 16th and current director of the NSA (2005?).1952?1956 Lt. Gen. Ralph J. Canine, USA
1956?1960 Lt. Gen. John A. Samford, USAF
1960?1962 V. Adm. Laurence H. Frost, USN
1962?1965 Lt. Gen. Gordon A. Blake, USAF
1965?1969 Lt. Gen. Marshall S. Carter, USA
1969?1972 V. Adm. Noel A. M. Gaylor, USN
1972?1973 Lt. Gen. Samuel C. Phillips, USAF
1973?1977 Lt. Gen. Lew Allen, Jr., USAF
1977?1981 V. Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, USN
1981?1985 Lt. Gen. Lincoln D. Faurer, USAF
1985?1988 Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, USA
1988?1992 V. Adm. William O. Studeman, USN
1992?1996 V. Adm. John M. McConnell, USN
1996?1999 Lt. Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF
1999?2005 Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, USAF
2005?Present Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, USA

You will notice that ALL of the directors were in the MILITARY, while they served as Director.

So I will ask you a simple question. What is your ACTUAL complaint with a MILITARY member being appointed to a MITARY position? Did you voice the same complaint when Clinton was President, and had 3 different MILITARY members during his tenure in office? Notice the current nominee was one of them? If he was good enough for Slick Willie, he should be good enough for Bush.

What exactly is your complaint, other than it involves Bush?

I am the Author of this report and the George W. Bush-repulsive President, who lied to invade a sovereign nation for oil and allows oil companies to profit! I don't care if you call me names or anything else. I am a citizen of the United States of America and I will be heard expressing my opinion. If you don't wish to hear me express my RIGHT to Speech, TOO BAD! You will sit down and listen. Bush needs to stop overstepping his boundaries as President, he is not GOD! I feel that he is not justified in illegaly wiretapping, listening in on conversations, or acquiring millions of phone numbers of us citizens. I ask you naive people that like the idea of big brother watching you? The government already spies on us through satelites, now phone records, wiretaps without court orders. We have our rights being slowly erased due to the Patriot Act, now N.S.A., and if General Hayden becomes head of the C.I.A. we are in big trouble. I see tracking devices in cars and miniature transmitters in houses and businesses, maybe even cameras. The USA is becoming Communist real fast! This is no longer a FREE country! WAKE UP PEOPLE!

The War between the Sates was not called "The Civil War" untill the Federal government got involved in education.

In reality, it was one group of States versus another. In a true Civil War, the population would be fighting amongst themselves, with no distinctions between the opposing armies. In the War Between the States, you had the Union Government fighting the Confederate Government...two completely independent standing Governments and militaries. Granted, there were cases of "brother against brother", but they were few and far between. "Civil Wars" are based on class warfare. Either way, it was a waste of life, and resources.

Now, on to the subject at hand.

I heard on the radio the other day something pretty fuuny. A guy claimed the Feds are spending about $500/person to check out phone records. He said he was willing to record all of his conversations and let them hear them for $250. He also said he was tired of hearing every idiot around him yelling into their cell phones, and then complaining about people listening to the conversation.

Looks like the bush fans, have hijacked this forum to harass us how can anyone have a civil discussion about anything with the bush fans causing these arguments. No matter how much they argue or harass us, we will not turn into republicans nor will we ever support bush so they can just forget that!. Bush fans, cannot make us support bush no matter what they say they try to make us so miserable or they think they make me miserable but they are dead wrong, if they enjoy paying high for gas then vote republican. By the way, americans aren't obsessed with oil bush is with all the money he is making from it, & he accuses his own voters of being obessed with oil, no we are just fed up with making the oil companies rich & them making us more poorer!.

Ben, Robert and All others!

I am the author of this post and George W. Bush repulsive President, and I am sticking to my guns that this guy has overstepped his boundaries as President. He is supposed to represent the WILL of the People of America! Well, with Bush's ratings at All time low, it seems he is doing what he wants, and what is best for him and his rich supporters. Whatever happend to Americas checks and balances system which was designed to make sure one part of the government didn't get too powerful and that people were fairly represented? Bushs' government consists of majority of Republicans in House, Senate, U.S. Supreme Court, and of course Bush's pick of Attorney General. Who in government is going to speak up???? I also, find it funny Bush now wants the former NSA head-who dreamed up the secret wiretapping and spying of USA Citizens phone records, to become the C.I.A. Head. He is a 4 Statr General in our military for gods sake. I know this as a serious conflict of interest on Haydens part, as he is a military officer and should not be involved in a civillian post. People think their civil liberties are being violated now, if Hayden gets in C.I.A., I hope you all get prepared for vehicle tracking systems, more cameras in the sky-(satellites), cameras installed in homes, fm transmitters in homes,etc. Believe me, this country is heading down a dangerous perilous path and sooner or later the citizens will take back this country.

In my view of history, the civil war was the armed populace standing up to the military. A battle that was lost. It involved not only military members shooting citizens of the U.S., although "seceded" but brother shooting brother. It can, and did happen. Again, owning firearms and actually having the mental capability to shoot another person are two entirely different things.

Would it happen if there is a revolt? Who really knows? Keeping and bearing arms has always been, and will always be a heated debate for our country.

As for the original subject, as I said, I could care less if the government has numbers of every call I dialed or received. For that matter they could listen, in, I say nothing on the telephone that would interest them unless they want to know about the new trick my dog learned, how pissed I get at my job or children etc.

I just don't believe any constitutional right is being violated by obtaining these numbers. IMHO simply another issue for one political party to use to bash the other.

I vote my conscience not the party line.

First, automatic weapons ARE legal to own. The paperwork is minimal, and the same background check for a handgun is about all that is done. The license is the only real "cost", after the purchase price of the firearm. I own one. It's a real hoot to shoot.

Otherwise, I fully agree with your stance on "spying". If the Government was actually spying on it's ctizens, I would be among the first to take a stand. It hasn't gotten that far yet. But, just like gun laws, it all comes a little at a time.

Eventually, there will be another revolt. It will get real ugly, real fast. As for the idea that the Citizens of this country will be wiped out quickly by the military, I doubt that. There are more firearms in private hands, than in the entire US Arsenal. Remeber Boris Yeltsin? He stopped the Soviet tanks by simply talking to them. One man. The Soviet Union collapsed, due in part to their military was not willing to kill it's own people.

The only area of superiority the US Military holds, is the airspace. They have air superiority. Even this can be taken away with a handfull of appropriate weapons. Remember Bosnia? They shot down F117's. There are more retired and former miltary persons in this countrythan there are active duty/reserves. Very few of us forget our training.

History is a great teacher. So far, NO military has been able to stand up to an armed populace. It never has happened, and never will. There are just too many people to fight.

All anyone can do is just keep an eye on what the Feds are doing. Vote Libertarian, and you won't have to worry so much.

Federalist papers? Constituition?

Which were our laws founded on?

We can sit here forever debating what we THINK should be the law. But what actually IS the law?

Which one is the "law of the land"? which one should the nation follow.?

I'll follow the Law....thank you.

George Washington could have said millions of things in his lifetime. But its what he helped put down in writing. What he helped put down in LAW that matters. Some things were put down, some things were not. If I sat here and spouted everything a founding father SAID, rather than what they really implemented as law, we could be here for ages (much like our current politicians).

Our constitution says this.

Our Bill of Rights says that.

But at one point even Benjamin Franklin said we should have a monarchy. Do we have one? NO!

Should I now say "Because Benjamin Franklin himself said we should have a king and queen... we should have one!"?

Its the LAWS they left us, and how we put them to use that matters.

Hell, George Washington could have hinted at space aliens for petes sake 200 years ago. But he didnt make that LAW during his presidency! Thus it isnt a foundation of our nation. Just the same as Ben Franklins comments about a monarchy.

Fine....spy on us.

Just dont be pissed when those upset about the spying start taking up arms against the government based on the belief that "we cant take up arms against the government for government abuse" based on the same loose interpretations of our constitution that enabled us to take up arms in the first place!

Loose basis to take our rights away, our privacy away.

Loose basis to fight back.


Scary! Double edged swords are always that way.


It boggles me to hear people banter about Waco, TX. Saying that the government overstepped its bounds and that David Koresh was justified in his "defense" when the ATF stormed that compound. Why? Because the government invaded his little cults privacy. Never mind that the ATF tried several times to question him about his hoarding of illegal weapons (Illegal by ALL states laws....automatic weapons are NOT LEGAL anywhere that I am aware of without special circumstances). Yet the same people that defend Koresh, are defending this "DOMESTIC spying".

Its not ok to invade the privacy of a bunch of firepower hoarding cultists. But its ok to invade the privacy of the entire nation?

I wish I would have known that when I was fresh out of college working my first pathetic job in Hollywood and the cops kicked in my door on Xmas day at 6am. In an instant, instead of telling my roomate, still drunk from Xmas eve earlier, to shut up and do NOTHING, I could have told him to blow the cops away with the rusty old illegal shotgun he had in his closet. After all, they were invading our privacy.

Good thing I didnt say that. I'm sure my roomate wouldnt have listened anyway (rightfully so!). After all. We knew it could only be a mistake (It was....someone called in they heard "shots" at the house next door....we didnt....oh well!).

Most importantly....we knew we had done nothing wrong.....and........


WE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE.

In the end, and about 7 Hollywood cop cars later (thats a LOT in Hollywood terms!!...I mean it!), the call was determined to be a hoax, and the cops apologized. By 8am it was all over, and we got to sleep off our hangovers. (thank the powers that be for youth! Still...Xmass morning, OUCH!....bah..its Hollywood!) 8)


Of course.....we could have taken the other route. Instead of the "pro-spying" lobby sitting here hating me, I could still be sitting in that house in the darkest depths of Hollywood. Holding out against "the government". We could be their heroes! Defending PRIVACY. Defending AMERICA! We could go out in a massive blaze of gunfire defending the constitution!

And if we survived, we would be here defending the right of the Bush administration to spy on us!

Good thing we were not like Koresh. You know he would be in favor of spying if it kept his flock in line!

How mixed up can you be!

Cant invade my privacy! But I'll defend you when you spy on us!

Now I had no intention of tying in religion to the political state of our nation in the present times. If you have that impression, Im sorry. And I deeply apologize. My intention was to use issue of guns as an example ONLY. The same with the subject of Waco, TX, and David Koresh. My only intention was to show how twisted we ALL can be into our beliefs and interpretations of our Constitution. I used "Firearms" and "privacy" as my main subjects....period, and used examples of such to my opinion. I feel this thread has been without the childish namecalling, and mudslinging, and I wish to continue as such.

Where does it stop?

Lets make laws about where it stops, then make laws about where we can go to up too, but not beyond, that point. Some would say that the Constitution defines where it stops. The arguments we face in this day and age say otherwise. It is more blurred and messed up than ever. Thus, I still stand by my comments that it is obsolete in part. I will never waver that it is STILL the foundation to BUILD on for our nation.

Until we get that clarity, we will always ride that double edged sword. We will always get cut twice when we ride it to the end.

Our founding fathers made it. Screw JUST defending it, hold it dear, and BUILD ON IT!

Robert, as you can see from my previous posts I am in support of the NSA having telephone lists. It harms no one who is innocent.

Yes, I am aware of history and of the occurrences during World War II. I also contend that one of the reasons prior to 9/11 our country has not, for hundreds of years, experienced a substantial attack in the continental U.S. is due to private citizens owning guns. On the obverse, 9/11 has shown this is no longer a deterrent. When our chief enemy does not employ the means of utilizing and armed invasion force we no longer accomplish this goal of national security. Where were the "gun toting" citizens in preventing 9/11?

Now we deal with a more dangerous enemy. One who will utilize covert means to obtain entry into our country, act as a "sleeper cell" waiting for us to lower our vigilence. Then they attack heretofore unknown targets. The right to bear arms did nothing to prevent the latest attack on our sovereignty.

"You'll notice a few of those quotes are from the last 50 years. One of them was from Bill Clinton's Chief of Domestic Terrorism, Janet Reno. " - In this quote you partially prove my point. Peaceable citizens, keeping and bearing arms, were exercising their constitutional right. The government, with or without legal standing, summarily executed these citizens. These gun owners, some proud of their experience and training with the same, were unable to stand up to government law enforcement agents. Why, I believe most simply did not have the capacity to take a life.

The inherent power of the standing Army, the National Guard, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can not be stopped by an armful of citizens bearing arms. Should it ever, God forbid, come to another civil war those against the government would simply be wiped out. The government has successfully supressed sales of such items as automatic weapons and the like, while possessing the same as well as military weapons. I contend that 10,000 organized citizens with the highest powered legal weapons available could not stand 24 hours against the U.S. Government should they revolt to curb government oppression.

As for the Florida law. I have no disagreement with the law. Although, as you claim, no one has been held to task for it, it will happen. Wait until ONE homeowner has a Federal Agent at the door and shoots and kills him. Federal law will then take precedence, and this gun owner will find hiding behind Florida will do no good.

Robert, as you can see from my previous posts I am in support of the NSA having telephone lists. It harms no one who is innocent.

Yes, I am aware of history and of the occurrences during World War II. I also contend that one of the reasons prior to 9/11 our country has not, for hundreds of years, experienced a substantial attack in the continental U.S. is due to private citizens owning guns. On the obverse, 9/11 has shown this is no longer a deterrent. When our chief enemy does not employ the means of utilizing and armed invasion force we no longer accomplish this goal of national security. Where were the "gun toting" citizens in preventing 9/11?

Now we deal with a more dangerous enemy. One who will utilize covert means to obtain entry into our country, act as a "sleeper cell" waiting for us to lower our vigilence. Then they attack heretofore unknown targets. The right to bear arms did nothing to prevent the latest attack on our sovereignty.

"You'll notice a few of those quotes are from the last 50 years. One of them was from Bill Clinton's Chief of Domestic Terrorism, Janet Reno. " - In this quote you partially prove my point. Peaceable citizens, keeping and bearing arms, were exercising their constitutional right. The government, with or without legal standing, summarily executed these citizens. These gun owners, some proud of their experience and training with the same, were unable to stand up to government law enforcement agents. Why, I believe most simply did not have the capacity to take a life.

The inherent power of the standing Army, the National Guard, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can not be stopped by an armful of citizens bearing arms. Should it ever, God forbid, come to another civil war those against the government would simply be wiped out. The government has successfully supressed sales of such items as automatic weapons and the like, while possessing the same as well as military weapons. I contend that 10,000 organized citizens with the highest powered legal weapons available could not stand 24 hours against the U.S. Government should they revolt to curb government oppression.

As for the Florida law. I have no disagreement with the law. Although, as you claim, no one has been held to task for it, it will happen. Wait until ONE homeowner has a Federal Agent at the door and shoots and kills him. Federal law will then take precedence, and this gun owner will find hiding behind Florida will do no good.

Robert, as you can see from my previous posts I am in support of the NSA having telephone lists. It harms no one who is innocent.

Yes, I am aware of history and of the occurrences during World War II. I also contend that one of the reasons prior to 9/11 our country has not, for hundreds of years, experienced a substantial attack in the continental U.S. is due to private citizens owning guns. On the obverse, 9/11 has shown this is no longer a deterrent. When our chief enemy does not employ the means of utilizing and armed invasion force we no longer accomplish this goal of national security. Where were the "gun toting" citizens in preventing 9/11?

Now we deal with a more dangerous enemy. One who will utilize covert means to obtain entry into our country, act as a "sleeper cell" waiting for us to lower our vigilence. Then they attack heretofore unknown targets. The right to bear arms did nothing to prevent the latest attack on our sovereignty.

"You'll notice a few of those quotes are from the last 50 years. One of them was from Bill Clinton's Chief of Domestic Terrorism, Janet Reno. " - In this quote you partially prove my point. Peaceable citizens, keeping and bearing arms, were exercising their constitutional right. The government, with or without legal standing, summarily executed these citizens. These gun owners, some proud of their experience and training with the same, were unable to stand up to government law enforcement agents. Why, I believe most simply did not have the capacity to take a life.

The inherent power of the standing Army, the National Guard, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can not be stopped by an armful of citizens bearing arms. Should it ever, God forbid, come to another civil war those against the government would simply be wiped out. The government has successfully supressed sales of such items as automatic weapons and the like, while possessing the same as well as military weapons. I contend that 10,000 organized citizens with the highest powered legal weapons available could not stand 24 hours against the U.S. Government should they revolt to curb government oppression.

As for the Florida law. I have no disagreement with the law. Although, as you claim, no one has been held to task for it, it will happen. Wait until ONE homeowner has a Federal Agent at the door and shoots and kills him. Federal law will then take precedence, and this gun owner will find hiding behind Florida will do no good.

You'll notice a few of those quotes are from the last 50 years. One of them was from Bill Clinton's Chief of Domestic Terrorism, Janet Reno. Remember her? She's the one who brought us such infamous events as Ruby Ridge, and Waco. I call her the Chief of Domestic terrorism because that's exactly what her tenure as US Attorney general resulted in...death and destruction. She made John ashcroft look like a cubscout. At least all he was bothered by was nudity. Bush got rid of him. Clinton stood by Janet Reno all the way through. Tim McVeigh even stated one of his prime motivators for his bombing attack was our Government's horrifying overkill response to anything.

The quote by Hubert Humphrey says it all. He understood the real threat to American citizens was not from foreign enemies, but by our own Federal Government.

I notice you live in Germany. You may notice most of the architecture is less than 60 years old. There's a reason for that. Germany had among it's people, the "Gretaest Motivational Speaker" of all time. He was also a rabid gun control freak. All the good, law abiding citizens turned in their arms, and by 1939, nobody was left to resist. Funny story for you. The Germans dropped sabotage teams on the East Coast. They were given detailed instructions to AVOID the local populations at all costs. They were told this because the Germans knew our citizens were armed, and would defend this country. Every one of them was killed or captured. It's hard to be a threat when you're outnumbered.

The 2ns Amendment is NOT obsolete.

Here in Florida, the Legislature passed a wonderful piece of legalese known as "The Castle Doctrine". It allows people in Florida to shoot first, and ask questions later if a threat is acknowledged. Nobody has abused it. When Florida passed it's "Right to Carry" laws years ago, crime rates plummetted. The only people the criminals could successfully target were tourists. The Castle Doctrine allows ANYONE in Florida to defend themselves. Crime rates in ALL states that have adopted RTC Laws have gone down. Any criminal in jail will tell you the same thing..."We look for easy prey".

I abhor any Government that actually spies on it's citizens. This is a different world we live in though. Perhaps if Janet Reno and her boss were more interested in Terrorists('93 WTC Bombing, USS Cole, Saudi Arabia bombing, Embassies, etc), instead of worrying about Randy Weaver's shotgun that was 1/4 inch too short, or Branch Davidians, who never threatened ANYONE, and even had a very amicable relationship with the local Law Enforcement, because the Feds THOUGHT there MIGHT be something going on(it was for the children...that's what the Feds claimed, just before they sent in tanks and burned them all alive, or shot them as they ran out of the burning building).

If Bush wants to see who I call, so what? He can have my phone for all I care. At least he doesn't want my guns, like the last guy did.

This Federal Beuracracy has gotten too big and outlived most of it's usefulness. It would be nice if someone would run from the Libertarian Party who could actually get TV time. The Dems and Reps make sure the Libertarians are not part of a televised debate. They did this because John Anderson put a real hurt in their poll numbers in 1980, the last time a Libertarian was allowed in the debates.

The basic platform is simple...do whatever you want, but do not expect someone else to pay for your stupidity.

But the criminals already turn them in. Buy back programs have been in the forefront of the press many times. I can't quote the exact media source, as it was a story I read years ago, however, I recall a story about this type of program in which more than 50% of the firearms bought back were verified or discovered to be stolen. The theives were the ones turning them in. Reward for theft, not a pretty idea.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "

I make note of the use of the term "peaceable citizens". I can't help but picture any uprising against our government for perceived or real wrongs, a group of citizens takes arms up against the government. The government, that controls federal courts where federal crimes are tried the declares these citizens are committing treason - a crime. As peaceable citizens do not committ crimes intentionally, are they now considered other than peaceable?

The idea, of keeping and bearing arms, was fostered in a time our nation was young and vulnerable. We were not a strong nation, and although rich in resources, not a wealthy nation. The ability to maintain an adequate force for national defense was sketchy at best. A well regulated militia was necessary, in lieu of a standing army. The militia, after all, had been a large contributor to repelling the British, even from the outset. Many revolutionary war soldiers enlisted with their own arms. Without the militia the war would have gone much differently.

What did the right to keep and bear arms provide us a short time later. The ability of a rich cadre of landowners, interested in retaining slave labor, to revolt against the standing government as they believed the government was tyrannical. Even at this early time in our history the right to keep and bear arms had become obsolete.

Is it necessary today? Not in my opinion. For many reasons. From the statistics showing rising gun violence in domestic disputes to those showing guns kept for self defense are most often used against their owners.

The idea of keeping firearms for self defense is a noble one. However, having a firearm and possessing the personal ability to take a life are two wholly different things. Very, very few could do it.

Early in my life I recall a local news story. An elderly man, living in a remote location kept a shotgun next to his bed. One evening, he was visited by his son as he had been ill. Late in the evening, after the visit ended the son left and was reportedly half way home when he realized he had left his house keys behind. He returned, and knocked several times with no response. He then retrieved a key from a hidden location and began to open the door. The old man, who had been roused from his sleep and was frightened, killed his son firing through the door. One of many stories of guns kept for "self defense" that has gone awry.

This will come as a surprise to you, but the Federalist Papers are used when the Constitution is interpreted. They are used so the original intent is known. Here are some qoutes:

What the Framers said about our Second Amendment
Rights to Keep and Bear Arms

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Many of the qoutes specifically mention being able to defend against our own Government. I love the one by Hubert Humphrey. At that time, he was considered a far left-wing liberal. Today, he would be considered conservative, in comparison to the Democrats currently in office.

Maybe you'd like the ones by the #1 fan of gun control himself though:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

Or, perhaps you like more recent events:
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal"--(Janet Reno)

And finally, try to answer this one simple question TRUTHFULLY, with no spin. It IS a simple YES/NO question. This is for everyone, not just Ben:
"Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window or the front door
of your house saying 'I am an anti-gun person--there are no guns in this
[car/house]'"

The only reason we have ANY rights at all is because of the 2nd one that Guarantees us all, the protection needed to defend ourselves. With over 10,000 gun laws on the books, criminals still manage to get them. They STEAL them. DUH!

They are conducting a "buy-back" program here in DuVal County. It's a joke. The only idiot who thinks it will do anything is the Sheriff. Everyone has told him repeatedly, "Criminals don't turn them in". He doesn't care. He's a nutcase.

I was able to follow your reasoning easily Ben.

The roots of the public uproar on this matter are that our right to Privacy has been violated. As Ben stated, the word PRIVACY appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.

The government already had the legal capability to monitor electronic communications:

:The Omnibus Crime Act provides for electronic surveillance either on warrants issued by a magistrate, or on the sole initiative of the designee of the Attorney General who reasonably determines that there is an emergency situation respecting conspiratorial activities which threaten the national security or which involve organized crime."

A standing law, duly passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. Have no doubt it was quickly noted and challenged by citizen organizations as a violation of Privacy as no warrant is required if the Attorney General deemed it unneccessary. Until the Supreme Court of the United States finds it is in violation of the Constitution it is valid.

I've composed a list of quotations from the guys who started this experiment we call The United States:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun.-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "--Samuel Adams

Get the point, Ben? If not here's another little ditty you might like:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."-- Adolph Hitler

""This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."--Adolph Hitler/1935

After confiscating the guns, he eliminated the Free Press. The rest is History.

We have over 10,000 gun laws on the books already. How many do you think the CRIMINALS follow?

You want to talk about spying on citizens. As long as you still have your guns, you're still free. For the record, I do NOT register my weapons with anyone. Registering is the first step to having them confiscated.

Sorry for the misunderstanding but my intention was not to hijack this thread into a pro/anti firearm issue. I think the honesty in my comment comes from the fact that most if not all that have responded OWN guns. I am not here to debate guns in general (thus hijacking the thread). I was using this as an example of how the current status quo can be hypocritical.

Now still using the firearm issue, with its spy issue tie in......

Robert stated....

"This will come as a shock to you, but the 2nd Ammendment was NOT to allow people to target shoot, or hunt. It was so the populace will be able to defend themselves, from both civilian, and Governmental abuses."


The 2nd amendment is actually this....

"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."

Notice the line "being necessary to the security of the State". It says nothing about "defending from Governmental" abuses. The way I see it, its almost the opposite! Defend the government. This amendment was written shortly after we became a nation that we fought a war over. Our entire army was mainly made up of militias. At the time our country didnt have a true standing army and the reasoning was to enable the militia to be reformed in times of national crisis. Not for home defence, not for hunting, not for target shooting. Its been over 200 years, we now have a robust government and set of laws. We also have a standing army. And any enemy that manages to invade our nation obviously would need to beat that army first. If an enemy was capable of doing so...then a guy named Earl standing on his porch with a shotgun is not going to do any better at defending this nation! Thus the amendment and its wording are completely obsolete for this day and age. Its wording is dubious, and the rift seen here is obvious proof of that.

Now such loose break downs of our Constitution is what causes such problems.

If the constitution is going to be used word for word and held in concrete like some want to do, then it must be done to all parts of it, and not pick and choose.

The Constitution does not guarantee privacy...yes. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not provide the government with the ability to spy on its own citizens. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

I can go on and on.

I just find it hard to say we CAN spy on our citizens...based on a hardline stance that the government has a right to defend itself by any means. Then turn around and say that our right to bear arms is in concrete based on a term saying we can only use them in the defense of the State. Concrete, loose, concrete, loose, concrete, loose. Thus the hypocritical nature of our nation.

The anti-spying lobby here could easily use this exact reasoning to USE GUNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. After all, many belive that this whole spying issue is a government abuse.

"The government is spying on me, thus I will use my constitutional right to bear arms against it"

THAT WOULD BE A SCARY NATION!

Now if I have confused anyone here with the back and forth flow of this post, GOOD! That was the intention!

My purpose was to show how hypocritical we ALL are on such subjects. And to show what a slippery slope we, and our government are walking on.

In instances where the Constitution is vague or obsolete, we have made laws on the both the State and Federal level to clarify over the last 200+ years. We have done so for guns, and we have done so for spying. I just dont feel that the current administration has followed those laws in regards to the spying issue.

If the current administration wants to continue spying based on loose interpretations of our laws, I see nothing stopping anyone from actually making the scary scenario of using guns against it to stop the spying.

Sorry for the misunderstanding but my intention was not to hijack this thread into a pro/anti firearm issue. I think the honesty in my comment comes from the fact that most if not all that have responded OWN guns. I am not here to debate guns in general (thus hijacking the thread). I was using this as an example of how the current status quo can be hypocritical.

Now still using the firearm issue, with its spy issue tie in......

Robert stated....

"This will come as a shock to you, but the 2nd Ammendment was NOT to allow people to target shoot, or hunt. It was so the populace will be able to defend themselves, from both civilian, and Governmental abuses."


The 2nd amendment is actually this....

"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."

Notice the line "being necessary to the security of the State". It says nothing about "defending from Governmental" abuses. The way I see it, its almost the opposite! Defend the government. This amendment was written shortly after we became a nation that we fought a war over. Our entire army was mainly made up of militias. At the time our country didnt have a true standing army and the reasoning was to enable the militia to be reformed in times of national crisis. Not for home defence, not for hunting, not for target shooting. Its been over 200 years, we now have a robust government and set of laws. We also have a standing army. And any enemy that manages to invade our nation obviously would need to beat that army first. If an enemy was capable of doing so...then a guy named Earl standing on his porch with a shotgun is not going to do any better at defending this nation! Thus the amendment and its wording are completely obsolete for this day and age. Its wording is dubious, and the rift seen here is obvious proof of that.

Now such loose break downs of our Constitution is what causes such problems.

If the constitution is going to be used word for word and held in concrete like some want to do, then it must be done to all parts of it, and not pick and choose.

The Constitution does not guarantee privacy...yes. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not provide the government with the ability to spy on its own citizens. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

I can go on and on.

I just find it hard to say we CAN spy on our citizens...based on a hardline stance that the government has a right to defend itself by any means. Then turn around and say that our right to bear arms is in concrete based on a term saying we can only use them in the defense of the State. Concrete, loose, concrete, loose, concrete, loose. Thus the hypocritical nature of our nation.

The anti-spying lobby here could easily use this exact reasoning to USE GUNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. After all, many belive that this whole spying issue is a government abuse.

"The government is spying on me, thus I will use my constitutional right to bear arms against it"

THAT WOULD BE A SCARY NATION!

Now if I have confused anyone here with the back and forth flow of this post, GOOD! That was the intention!

My purpose was to show how hypocritical we ALL are on such subjects. And to show what a slippery slope we, and our government are walking on.

In instances where the Constitution is vague or obsolete, we have made laws on the both the State and Federal level to clarify over the last 200+ years. We have done so for guns, and we have done so for spying. I just dont feel that the current administration has followed those laws in regards to the spying issue.

If the current administration wants to continue spying based on loose interpretations of our laws, I see nothing stopping anyone from actually making the scary scenario of using guns against it to stop the spying.

Sorry for the misunderstanding but my intention was not to hijack this thread into a pro/anti firearm issue. I think the honesty in my comment comes from the fact that most if not all that have responded OWN guns. I am not here to debate guns in general (thus hijacking the thread). I was using this as an example of how the current status quo can be hypocritical.

Now still using the firearm issue, with its spy issue tie in......

Robert stated....

"This will come as a shock to you, but the 2nd Ammendment was NOT to allow people to target shoot, or hunt. It was so the populace will be able to defend themselves, from both civilian, and Governmental abuses."


The 2nd amendment is actually this....

"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."

Notice the line "being necessary to the security of the State". It says nothing about "defending from Governmental" abuses. The way I see it, its almost the opposite! Defend the government. This amendment was written shortly after we became a nation that we fought a war over. Our entire army was mainly made up of militias. At the time our country didnt have a true standing army and the reasoning was to enable the militia to be reformed in times of national crisis. Not for home defence, not for hunting, not for target shooting. Its been over 200 years, we now have a robust government and set of laws. We also have a standing army. And any enemy that manages to invade our nation obviously would need to beat that army first. If an enemy was capable of doing so...then a guy named Earl standing on his porch with a shotgun is not going to do any better at defending this nation! Thus the amendment and its wording are completely obsolete for this day and age. Its wording is dubious, and the rift seen here is obvious proof of that.

Now such loose break downs of our Constitution is what causes such problems.

If the constitution is going to be used word for word and held in concrete like some want to do, then it must be done to all parts of it, and not pick and choose.

The Constitution does not guarantee privacy...yes. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not provide the government with the ability to spy on its own citizens. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. (I challenge anyone to find where it does...and the wording must be exact)

I can go on and on.

I just find it hard to say we CAN spy on our citizens...based on a hardline stance that the government has a right to defend itself by any means. Then turn around and say that our right to bear arms is in concrete based on a term saying we can only use them in the defense of the State. Concrete, loose, concrete, loose, concrete, loose. Thus the hypocritical nature of our nation.

The anti-spying lobby here could easily use this exact reasoning to USE GUNS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. After all, many belive that this whole spying issue is a government abuse.

"The government is spying on me, thus I will use my constitutional right to bear arms against it"

THAT WOULD BE A SCARY NATION!

Now if I have confused anyone here with the back and forth flow of this post, GOOD! That was the intention!

My purpose was to show how hypocritical we ALL are on such subjects. And to show what a slippery slope we, and our government are walking on.

In instances where the Constitution is vague or obsolete, we have made laws on the both the State and Federal level to clarify over the last 200+ years. We have done so for guns, and we have done so for spying. I just dont feel that the current administration has followed those laws in regards to the spying issue.

If the current administration wants to continue spying based on loose interpretations of our laws, I see nothing stopping anyone from actually making the scary scenario of using guns against it to stop the spying.

I had to reread what you wrote in order to be thoroughly appalled.

You claim women who are raped, and other innocents who are attacked, should have been more prepared. You're blaming the victim? Are you nuts? Wait...that's an issue that has been beaten to death already.

I just love people like you. You have yours, so everyone else is SOL. You keep your guns unloaded? Good for you. I do not. Newsflash! My guns are all loaded, and have yet to fire a single round all by themselves. My kids have never played with them. Their friends haven't either. I also own automatic weapons. Great fun!

You use a bat? Excellent. I suppose you know that after fists, bats and other blunt force objects are the number two cause of death and injuries. Did you have to wait any sort of delay in order to buy that bat? No? Why not. If deaths, and injuries are the reason to delay someone from purchasing a handgun, why not delay the causes of far more deaths and injuries?

I certainly hope you and your wife are never accosted by anyone who means you harm. While you swing your bat, he'll put holes in you. After that, your wife may recieve far worse. I do hope you both have trained properly in the use of firearms.

And Aafes? There is not a single state in this country that does not allow you to walk around with firearms exposed. Some states do not allow them to be carried in a concealed manner. Most are adopting "right to carry" laws. These simply mean you can conceal your weapon. The states who have adopted such sane, rational approaches, have seen dramatic DECREASES in violent crime. The bad guys like easy prey, not ones who can defend themselves.

Ben, I know you and I butt heads on just about everything, but seriously, you need to rethink your position that people who are raped, or murdered should have been more prepared.

Once again, a thread on a prevalent topic of interest has been hijacked. Now we speak of firearms, driver's licenses etc.

Only one comment on "the right to keep and bear arms" - if your constitutional right is so protected in this area why can't you bear the arms you are allowed to keep. Few states allow you to walk about openly with a loaded weapon strapped to your hip. The discussion and debate about the right to keep and bear arms could easily monopolize the entire webpage, it was not the topic of this post. I respectfully ask all the posters who want to morph this topic into a debate on this subject to start a post for that purpose.

Is the subject political? I don't believe so. I, and many registered voting Democrats have no reservations about having a list of telephone numbers provided to the NSA if it is conducive to the security of our nation. If you are of the belief that your calls are being monitored I ask what interest you think the NSA has in your conversations that is germaine to their purpose. Perhaps you are having "phone sex" with a partner and are afraid they will see you on the street and laugh at you. Again, unless you are using a telephone or cellular phone to conduct illegal activities you have no concern. No one, the NSA, myself or others overhearing your telephone conversations as a bystander could care less what you are saying to whom - unless I hear you talking to someone named Osama about when you will plant the bomb.

Those against the NSA having this information, are in my belief, only screaming foul because it is yet another "conspiracy theory" they have discovered to make themselves prevalent in the public eye. Once the uproar blows over, the same people will find another topic. Consider it, before this information became public the very same people were crying foul that the Government was responsible for high gasoline prices. Before that, crying foul about whatever subject was at hand.

To all those protesting this action by the government in this thread a question: Had it been your wife, husband, brother or close friend working in the World Trade Center on 9/11, and now they were no longer with you, would you be screaming foul today?

If the NSA and other intelligence agencies had been doing their job prior to 9/11, and found patterns of telephone calls made and received between suspect parties, there is a chance the attack could have been prevented. A much smaller cost would have been paid to save thousands of lives, the simple cost of the NSA having a list of telephone numbers.

It saddens me to see that so many posting here have lost sight of what happened in 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, seeking to make their mark in the world have not forgotten the successful attack on our homeland. Once and enemy finds a vulnerability they will always exploit it unless due diligence it taken to prevent their actions.

They will try again. Perhaps not on airlines, and not on the infrastructure the government has made the world aware we now seek to protect because we know it is vulnerable. Targets such as reservoirs, power plants etc. are unlikely now as they have been focused on by the government.

They sit, they watch they wait. Already they accomplish part of their goal, our citizens slowly forget and relax our vigilence. They wait for us to sleep.

Drunk drivers are responsible for approximately 17K deaths, and 500K injuries each year. Non alcohol related crashes account for another 50K deaths each year.

Guns account for a mere tiny fraction of those numbers. Which weapon needs a waiting period again?

You go in, take the tests, and get your license. Having a driver's license is NOT guarenteed by ANY Constitution. Being able to "keep and bear arms", IS.

Do you ever plan to actually visit Realityville? I know life must be wonderful in Fantasyland.

"Ben, in all due respect, I agree with your stance on firearms. I do own my share. and like you, not a member of the NRA. I am nowhere near an "ultra-conservative", but any steps taken to protect our lives as American citizens, I am willing to agree with."

Really? How does a 6 month wait, protect the lives of anyone? How does a 15 day wait? A 3 day? 15 minutes? This will be difficult for some of you, but here is an UNDISPUTABLE fact. ONLY criminals use firearms in the commission of a crime. ALL other uses are legal.

Uh Robert...this line boggles me....

"This whole thing is much ado about nothing. I didn't even care about it when your hero, Bill Clinton, did it."

First, when did I say that Clinton was my hero? I may have brought up Clinton because a certain person on another thread constantly bashed him with baseless claims, and I just asked for sources (which I never received). I have many times bashed Clinton myself. I really dont like either party, and have made that well and clear many times. Clinton dropped the ball just as many times as Bush has flattened it.

Second, you say he "did it" too? I dont remember that!! Had he done so, you would be hearing a much larger outcry from the conservatives using that as an angle to justify what Bush is doing now. Like many times in the past, once more, I will retort with the same......You should have used that "excuse" months ago when the story first broke. Its a little late now.

So my questions to you are....

If Bill Clinton DID do it....would you be upset?

If Ted Kennedy did it.....would you be upset?

If Al Gore did it....would you be upset?


I bet you would! I KNOW YOU WOULD!

Its ok when Republicans do it, but not Democrats with you I'm sure. I know this as MY OPINION. I base this on the fact that you have consitantly said you hate both sides as well.....yet only bring up your opinions (but call them facts) to bash Democrats. Which leads me to believe that, NO, you do not hate them both....you are firmly in the ultra-conservative camp. If you were not you would be able to give just as much flak to Bush as you do a President that has been gone for over 6 years. You dont. You never have. Bush and the entire conservative ticket have walked on water and are completely incapable of doing any wrong in your book. That is certainly not the belief of a person who dislikes BOTH parties.

More Robert-logic......

"Here goes. Your numbers(good Lord, here we go again) include what the Brady Clowns and HCI consider "innocent children"...Gang members up to the age of 21. Another newsflash! With very few exceptions, ALL of those 10K you mention are gang-related. Another newsflash! NONE of them waited to buy a gun legally. They stole them, or bought a stolen gun from someone else."

Ok so are you saying that "gang-related" shootings should not be counted???


On this point yes, I agree, most of THESE guns were obtained illegally. But if a system was in place, to track and register ALL firearms, then it would be very hard to GET some unlicensed weapon.

I've never said outlaw guns, just CONTROL them. The tighter the control the harder it is to GET ONE! Do you think these gang idiots would have been able to get one if Midnight specials were outlawed? It would be harder. And do you think they would be able to get one if all the rest had to have their serial number recorded along with WHO purchased it from a legitimate dealer? If every gun sold had a number matched to a buyer, I guarantee you the gangs would start coming up short on firepower.

I have a relic and curio license. Most of my firearms are considered antiques. My serial numbers are recorded and saved along with my name both at a federal level and city level (I have to give numbers and ammo counts to the city I live in for the relic and curio license). If one of my firearms were stolen, lost, or given away....it can be traced to ME! I have no problem with that at all. I have a safe to protect from theft. Because they are antiques and rarely if ever get taken out the chance of being "lost" is nil. I am not stupid thus I wont GIVE one away. I have nothing to hide.

Now further on the security front.......If you need security in a hurry, by all means, get a gun if it makes you feel safer. But if you didnt plan ahead, or the situation came upon you suddenly......there are plenty of sporting goods stores that sell things like LOUISVILLE SLUGGER bats!

I have one in my closet, right next to the gunsafe. If I have an intruder, I'm reaching for the bat! Screw fumbling with all my weapons, ammo, etc. And screw leaving one ready and loaded for months at a time. That WILL bring disaster, kids or no kids. Only a moron leaves loaded firearms around. Or somebody with something to hide.

Robert you said....

"What about C, Ben. What about the people who are threatened by someone and need protection. What about all the women who get raped because they are unarmed. How about the homeowners who find out the local police are useless, and have been robbed repeatedly."

Well Robert, I think I addressed this as well in a later post since I thought my first got nixed. I did add one for "home security".

My response was the same. PLAN BETTER.

If people need a license for a car, and must go through a process to get one, I see no problem with people going through a similar process to get a gun!

People gotta get to work and the store too ya know!

You know, I could really care less if the governemt knows who I call. Honestly.

Once again. They're NOT tapping your calls, they are VIEWING the outgoing and incomming call NUMBERS!

If it wasn't for the government you wouldn't have a cell phone! It's the government that oversee's the rules and regulations of cellular phone use. Verizon doesn't get to pick and choose exactly where towers go. The government must approve them to be safe to the environment as well.

The government GIVES you the right to a cell phone. The people who serve and protect our country should have the right to know if something fishy is going on and if knowing who made a certain cell phone call is going to help, then by all means nessecary!

Have you ever looked at cell phone bill? It gives you the location of city and cell phone number. not a name or a brief description of your call.

What is there to worry about? Has there been ANY incident yet to where an "average" cell phone users call records were viewed and something happened to them as a result?

I'd like to 2nd the comment about calls being made out in the open. I mean there are millions of people talking on cell phones all the time out loud in public all the time. If you can spray it in public, then the public has the right to know!

I'd also like to 2nd the comment about calls being made over public/private property. If your calls are being made to other places than your own then they should be allowed to be monitored. phone line wires and towers are not your property, you do not control who can and cannot use those towers. If your cell phone can willingly make a call to anywhere (which is also a given privelage) than any goverenment agency should be allowed to stop it if it's nessecary.

It's the governments choice to let you have a cell phone, not your right. Otherwise there's a can and string for those who call next door!

I mean if any joe schmoe were looking at my call records, then I might see a complaint, but as far as government goes, honestly. WHO CARES. No harm is being done to anyone, and if anything knowing if a criminal had a cell phone and who they were calling would be protecting you from harm!

Ben, in all due respect, I agree with your stance on firearms. I do own my share. and like you, not a member of the NRA. I am nowhere near an "ultra-conservative", but any steps taken to protect our lives as American citizens, I am willing to agree with. If I knew at least one terror cells' plans is foiled as a result of telephone records being seized, why not? America can be a vain society at times, like I have mentioned before, I come across many a people who violate not only mine but others space by speaking on their cell phones in public. In these instances, unfortunately, I unvoluntarily become part of their conversation. I am sure these same people have a hissie because they feel that their "rights are being violated" because their conversations are potentially monitiored. Now, this becomes a cry from the radical left-wing to discredit GWB. Please, try something else!

GOD BLESSES!!!

"I guess I could say the same thing about the NRA and other gun nuts that fight the 15 day waiting period for a firearm. Seems its ok to spy on our phones because if your against it "you have something to hide". But when someone wants to do a background check before selling you a weapon, suddenly the ultra-right starts screaming "our rights are being violated!"."

That's because the 2nd ammendment DOES guarantee us the Right to own weapons. There is NO right to privacy.

"Now if there are any pro-gun people out there getting ready to flame me....wait! I OWN MANY GUNS! Many many many guns. (mainly antiques..its a hobby) I'm just NOT a member of the NRA, and I have NO problem whatsoever with waiting periods. Hell make it a 6 month waiting period for all I care! Anyone that needs a gun so quickly either......

A. Didnt plan their hunting or shooting range trip very well.

Or.

B. HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE."

What about C, Ben. What about the people who are threatened by someone and need protection. What about all the women who get raped because they are unarmed. How about the homeowners who find out the local police are useless, and have been robbed repeatedly.

This will come as a shock to you, but the 2nd Ammendment was NOT to allow people to target shoot, or hunt. It was so the populace will be able to defend themselves, from both civilian, and Governmental abuses.

A 15 day waiting period? What for? Every police dept in this country has the ability to do a background check in less than 5 minutes. Maybe when you are confronted by someone who means you harm, you'll ask him politely to come back after your 6 month waiting period. I'm betting he doesn't wait at all.

""For the sake of preventing many events such as....the near 10,000 shooting incidents each year, American people should not worry about having to wait a month or two for a firearm."


Lets see some of the ultra-right take that stance.

I doubt we will.

But they certainly will defend spying? Hmmmm."

Here goes. Your numbers(good Lord, here we go again) include what the Brady Clowns and HCI consider "innocent children"...Gang members up to the age of 21. Another newsflash! With very few exceptions, ALL of those 10K you mention are gang-related. Another newsflash! NONE of them waited to buy a gun legally. They stole them, or bought a stolen gun from someone else.

The mere showing of a firearm prevents criminal acts over 1.5 million times per year...no shots fired. You can find this information from the NRA, FBI, local law enforcement, etc.

As for spying, on what? There was no spying. he NSA simply got copies of phone records, that bill you get each month. It shows who you called. If you call someone who has been linked to a terrorist, I want the Government to find you. This whole thing is much ado about nothing. I didn't even care about it when your hero, Bill Clinton, did it.

I find it odd that a "spying" issue can polarize people along political lines. But I guess this is America and nothing will ever make sense eh?


Now if someone other than a Republican were in office and did this spying garbage then every single person here that supports Bush doing it would be up in arms claiming "out Civil Rights are being trampled!".

Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Clinton or Gore were in office and did this? The ultra-right would be rioting in the streets! BUT...since its Bush Jr. that did it, its ok.

Hypocrites to the end.

Lets take an example.....

Someone in an earlier post said "what do you have to hide" in regards to someone else being against the spying. They say if your "not doing anything wrong...you have nothing to worry about".

Well, thats pretty much true. You wont hear me argue that.

But on to the example....

The NRA and pro-firearm advocates often fight against waiting periods for firearm purchases. They argue that its their right under the constitution and any, and I mean ANY regulation is just a first step to outlawing them completely.

Now why cant we say the same thing.....GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE?

If you cant wait 15 days for a gun (or longer) you either.....

A. Didnt plan your hunting trip well.

B. Didnt plan your home defense very well. (go by a Louisville Slugger for petes sake!)

C. HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE


I dont think we even need to dabate WHERE and WHO the firearm lobby sides with in regards to the political spectrum.


Now I can think of two people that post on this site most likely gearing up to flame me hard for this. I bet it will be along the "you anti-gun idiot" angle. Well, all I can say is.....I own plenty of firearms. And I have no problem with a 15 day waiting period. Hell, I dont care if they make it 6-months! I am NOT a member of the NRA.

I also dont have.....anything to hide.


Another thing to keep in mind is that not EVERYONE in this country is interested in getting a firearm. Thus any regulation would only affect those that WANT one.

To allow spying in the sense that Bush is doing......ALL Americans are targets.

While the constitution provided for certain rights if you READ the Constitution of the United States no where will you even find the word "privacy". The presidential oath is not germaine to this subject.

Privacy laws have been legislated, long after our Constitution was written. The president's duty is to oversee the government in the enforcement of written laws. With current law, had the government "demanded" the information be provided by the telephone companies a warrant would have been required.

However, the focus of this post has not been on what actually occurred. The telephone companies voluntarily provided this information in absence of any warrant or court order.

The telephone companies are in violation here, not the government.

"As a general rule, telecommunications companies require law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they will turn over a customer's phone records. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, phone companies are prohibited from giving out information about their customers' calling habits."

The detractors in this post are slamming the government, instead of the actual perpetrator. As I posted earlier, my personal belief is that this is for the greater good in any event.

Someone said.....

"what do you have to hide?"

and....

"For the sake of preventing another event such as 9/11, American people should not worry about having their phone conversations monitored. "


Well personally I dont have anything to hide thus I am not worried so much about it. But it still bothers me that it seems certain laws were not followed when implementing this.

Of course then there is this issue of "what do you have to hide?".

I guess I could say the same thing about the NRA and other gun nuts that fight the 15 day waiting period for a firearm. Seems its ok to spy on our phones because if your against it "you have something to hide". But when someone wants to do a background check before selling you a weapon, suddenly the ultra-right starts screaming "our rights are being violated!".

So in that case....RIGHT BACK AT YOU!

Now if there are any pro-gun people out there getting ready to flame me....wait! I OWN MANY GUNS! Many many many guns. (mainly antiques..its a hobby) I'm just NOT a member of the NRA, and I have NO problem whatsoever with waiting periods. Hell make it a 6 month waiting period for all I care! Anyone that needs a gun so quickly either......

A. Didnt plan their hunting or shooting range trip very well.

Or.

B. HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.


So let me rephrase one of those earlier comments.......

"For the sake of preventing many events such as....the near 10,000 shooting incidents each year, American people should not worry about having to wait a month or two for a firearm."


Lets see some of the ultra-right take that stance.

I doubt we will.

But they certainly will defend spying? Hmmmm.

Oh boy, here we go again. The name of the play is different, but the actors are all the same. All we need now is for Robert, Ben and B in Colorado to join in, and then the gang's all here!

With regards to monitoring phone calls and email. Do you honestly think that the government employs enough people to monitor each and every phone call made, or every piece of email that is sent to or received by an American citizen? As was already stated, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

James, if you hate it here so much, or think that the government is out to get you, why don't you just pick up and move to Canaduh? Here's an idea, go live with your twin in Calgary. I'm sure you two would get along just swimmingly!

If you consider that the phone lines cross public property for at least part of the transmission, the government has every right to know who is using them.

Your rights to privacy should not be guaranteed if you are on public property.

"With millions of phone records being spied on, do you actually believe that that many terrorists are in the U.S.? If that really were the case, they would have taken over a long time ago."

For my part, if monitoring every telephone call made in the United States results in catching ONE terrorist cell, preventing a repeat of 9/11 it is worth it. Preventing the loss of a single American life, caused by one or many of these fanatical persons is a small cost to pay to protect our citizens and our sovereignty.

It is easy, as the memory of 9/11 fades, to slowly find ourselves returning to our old habits of apathy and the belief that America is untouchable. Witness, the myriads of American flags you found flying proudly from homes, automobiles, freeway overpasses and displayed in every conceivable location following 9/11. Now, this is again a rare sight. What happened to our pride and patriotism? Are the lives lost on 9/11 now no longer important as time fades?

This is precisely what these terrorists are counting on. In the interest of "protecting our privacy" we now see public outrage over a measure used by our government to weed out those supporting these terrorist cells. It is not only the actual terrorists that are a danger but those that support and communicate with them. Providing funding, logistical support and otherwise aiding in their continued quest to wage war on our nation. Osama Bin Laden is not dead, he is not in custody, and you can believe he has not decided that his war on America has ended. He is quietly waiting, planning, and biding his time for us to relax and feel safe.

Part of our freedom allows that we have always had "consipiracy theorists" who constantly maintain that "big brother" is violating our freedoms. I contend, instead, that actions such as this, when taken by our Government, serve to protect our freedom.

Yes, the Government often misleads the public. Whether for the public good, or for protecting the interest of the politicians in power, it occurs. This is but one cost of Democracy. To our credit, we know this occurs, because as citizens of a government "Of the people, for the people, and by the people" we are constantly vigilant to these transgressions and when discovered, hold those responsible accountable.

I ask, what damage is done by the Government having a simple list of telephone numbers a citizen has dialed or has received calls from. Absent the determination of a pattern of making or receiving calls to known terrorist groups you are not going to find your calls subject to monitoring. Simply put, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." - Confucius

Lori:

You are the same as all the typical democrats. When Bill Clinton used the same methods and it was not a time of war that was OK????

None of you were complaining then. Bill Clinton gathered more information then George Bush. Bill Clinton actually had the NSA listen to conversations that his political opponents had.
your comments are one sided and i bet you would be the first one in line tyo complain if somnething happened and it could have been prevented.

I couldn't have said it better. Especially, the Whiskey and Cheeze-doodle vision. I rolled on the floor on that one. Tupper Lake Jim shure is full of those lately. Must be something not combining properly in his digestive system, judging by the rancid BS he keeps shoveling.

First of all, if you trust our government well, do I really need to say it? And, if you really believe that they are telling the truth, then I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

Our government has lied to us for so many years about numerous issues. How can you possibly trust them now?

With millions of phone records being spied on, do you actually believe that that many terrorists are in the U.S.? If that really were the case, they would have taken over a long time ago.

You people are the ones our lovely government absolutely loves right now. You know the "I don't care what civil rights are violated because our government says they are hunting terrorists" mind set. YOU are the true danger to our society.

Second, when the President takes the Oath of Office, part of that oath is to protect and defend the constitution, is he? I think not.

Third, would someone please give Bush a blow job so we can have him impeached?!

With nothing to hide there is no need to worry. Having a list of telephone numbers called means virtually nothing, unless the Cray computers at the NSA find a pattern of calls made and received to known terrorists - If you are doing that worry, worry a lot, and run to your terrorist buddies.

The reference to Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam means nothing. This was during a period in which the U.S. was working to trying to use diplomatic means to stem reported manufacture and and use of chemical weapons which had been reportedly used during the Iran/Iraq war.

No fourth amendment violation has occurred. Laws are on the books permitting this:

The Omnibus Crime Act provides for electronic surveillance either on warrants issued by a magistrate, or on the sole initiative of the designee of the Attorney General who reasonably determines that there is an emergency situation respecting conspiratorial activities which threaten the national security or which involve organized crime.

If terrorism and 9/11 did not constitute an emergency situation I cannot fathom what would.

Amusing how all the hicks and yobos come out with something about 9-11, patriotism or terrorism everytime an intelligent comment is made regarding Bush & Cheney's dismal record on maintenance of the credibility of the government. There always is some far fetched reasoning why people can be held without charges, international standards ignored and of course American citizens being completely withheld rights our ancestors fought hard to wrest from government hands and give us.

The arbitrary, boorish manner in which they lie and mislead demonstrates how pathetic you have to be to take what these people say at face value, its appalling. I guess nothing really hits home if its not happening to you.

The truth is with the exception of Vietnam and maybe the internment of Japanese Americans no president in history has made such disastrous decisions which reverberated in the greatest decline of America's international standing and rise in global Anti-Americanism. Nor has their been greater polarization of the general public and strife at home.

For the sake of preventing another event such as 9/11, American people should not worry about having their phone conversations monitored. Really, are we going to have this information broadcast nationally so everyone should know? I am not a fan of GWB, but it seems as if he is taking a proactive step to protect our LIVES! Privacy infringement is if someone walked in on you in the restroom stall while you are doing your business (whatever that business is), but I am sure at some point you had your cell phone and took that call in front of other people, without a care. Many people do this (which is extremely annoying), yet, our "privacy is being violated"? I found, instead of finding reasons to dislike Bush, commend him on actions that are taken for our welfare.

GOD BLESSES!!!

Did he come to you in a Whiskey and Cheez-Doodle induced vision?

I'd love to see any real proof you have that supports this. Go ahead...do something you've NEVER done before. Provide proof that supports your insinuations. I know that's a toughie, and that you haven't provided any proof of your bullshit claims on #154773, but let's try something new here.

I tell you, I'd rather have the CIA look my way and find nothing, than to have them overlook a terrorist in the name of "political correctness", as supported by your precious Thought Police at the ACLU.

I'd rather have that, than the major credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and Trans Union, among others) making a buck off my information by selling it to anyone interested in my credit.

And the information doesn't even have to be accurate for them to turn a buck. So any shmoe who could get my Social Security number can steal my identity and ruin my life, but it'd take an act of Congress, with a Co-Sign by God Himself, for me to get that damage off my Report.

Oh, and by the way, your Internet service sells your info too; why do you think those ads appear in your mail or pop up on you, in addition to the spyware and malware that finds you when you enter a chat.

Same with your Cel Phone, any magazine you subscribe to, and any sweepstakes you enter. They keep track of how you respond to surveys, and tailor your junk mail. God help you if you use your credit card in conjunction with any Val-Pack coupon!

The point, my little Delerium Tremor, is that if Uncle Sam wants to know where you are, there's not a d**n thing you can do to prevent it. The Army knew where Clinton was, when he dodged the draft, and they knew Carter pardoned him.

Just like they know the real truth regarding the Elections; the Media tried to give it to Gore by pulling an early call; I've proven this on the other two Reports and backed it with information obtained as a matter of Public Record from the US Supreme Court.

With the second election, it was a matter of picking the stronger candidate, or the lesser of two evils---and voter turnout was in RECORD NUMBERS. You'd have to have been there, to know that....but I understand....maybe, Jimbo didn't get past the dry-heaves and shakes until a couple hours after he woke up, at three in the afternoon that day....I'm sure you have your reasons.

More of that infamous "We didn't win. Wah."

Don't you have enough of your poisoned and totally erroneous polemic all over this board?

What's the matter...is the discussion over at the other Report that you've created getting too intense? Or is it that you still have nothing of truth or proof to add to it?

My guess, is that you're tired of that Report and want attention on a new one.

Hope you're happy! :D
Here lies yet ANOTHER opportunity for myself and others to show the world a fine example of your complete lack of knowledge on how the world works!

Be prepared...you're gonna see alot of references to your other Report (#154773) with dates and post-titles.

Semper viglio, paratus et fidelis, Chum---much to your dismay!! ROTFLMAO!