We all know about the Bill of Rights. We've been discussing ad nauseum the 2nd amendment. I'm just curious with this poll, how people feel about the Bill of rights in it's entirety and how they feel about possibly having certain rights taken or not taken.

For those who want a refresher as to what they are, here's a link

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Other:

I think it would be bad if the government attempted to do away with amendments in the Bill of Rights, but I think the hyperbole and hyperventilating over this current government doing anything remotely close to that is stupid and that the people who peddle the idea that this government is attempting to "take away our rights!" are awful, lying pieces of shit.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You may believe that, but there is a solid contingent of citizens who are ok with having at least one of those amendments repealed, so to say the possibility for an attempt exists isn't hyperbole. Saying it's actively happening would be a lie, but it's not a lie to say it isn't wanted by a good number of people and that is how these things start out.

"That is how these things start out."

What things? The repeal of an amendment? The removal of a right granted in the Constitution?

Pray tell, can you point me to evidence of any of the Bill of Rights being repealed before so we can see exactly how it "started out"?

Again, interpreting a small but vocal minority as "a solid contingent" is like saying that there is a "solid contingent" of Christians who love that our soldiers are dying because America accepts gays because the WBC folks get so much attention.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The Bill of Rights is a living document. It should be altered as necessary but not without significant discussion and reason.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

How these things start out is not simply about the repealing of the 2nd amendment, but it is how major changes are started.

Just because you may or may not agree with it, there is a rather large part of the populace (a minority still, but a growing one) that wants to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you can't see this, than either you don't want to see it or you are delusional, neither being great qualities in a debate format. It doesn't take a minute to do a google search and find tons of editorials and other stories written in major publications across the nation, discussing this very thing.

And as far as government taking away rights, they rarely ever do it in one big sweeping motion, it's generally more of an erosion of a right until there is not enough left of it to recognize it. Think of the Patriot Act if you don't realize that government eroding rights isn't exactly fantasyland material

Welp, I've been called a conspiracy theorist, paranoid, an idiot, and now an awful, lying piece of shit. When will you call me a terrorist?

They don't have to amend the bill of rights, all they have to do is put further restrictions on it. Choose who gets the rights and who doesn't. Standing too close to a secret service agent? You lose your right to peaceably protest. Want to get on a plane? You lose your right to unreasonable searches and seizures. Want to blow the whistle on the government torturing people? You lose your right to habeous corpus. Cruel and unusual punishment? Well, if your one of the aforementioned "whistle blowers" they can do whatever they want with you. Not to mention if you are a "terrorist."

You can be ok with the way the government is behaving, but don't call me a lying sack of shit for not being ok with it.

http://www.vice.com/read/the-torture-of-bradley-manning
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ja ... al-delayed

I'll call you a terrorist if you start killing innocent people for political ends, I suppose.

How do you lose your right to peaceably protest if you are "standing too close to a secret service agent"? How is the security detail at airports "unreasonable" in anything but the time it takes to get through some of those lines?



See, I completely disagree with that "rather large part" thing. I think that's complete bullshit. Editorials and stories in major publications are megaphones for a HANDFUL of people. Go instead and talk to people around you. I think you'll find most of them are far more level-headed and less reactionary than you might think. Journalists are peddlers of opinions, and I have seen many professional journalists take on opinions they might not even believe because it contributes to the hot discussion of the day.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Vols, you seem to be of the opinion that these are only editors and journalists, but some of these pieces are being written and discussed by politicians, and many letters to the editor coming from the average joe. Not to mention the fact that there are even some in this very forum who aren't opposed to repealing the 2nd amendment. There's plenty of evidence of it all around you. Definitely it's not a majority, but it's more than the 10% cutoff number where I believe on either side, 10% is the maximum number of people on the extreme spectrum

Unreasonable searches and seisures. Here are a couple from Youtube.




There are plenty of more examples. I consider all of those unreasonable, as well as most of what the TSA does.

They recently passed HR 347 a law that made it a felony to protest in the presence of the secret service, or during 'National Special Security Events'. Punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison. Its been a law since 1971 in a different form but it gained more notoriety recently when it was amended a bit.

Here are two opposing view points of the law, I always try and look at a couple opposing sources at least. I always find it funny how different the opposing sides of an argument can see something:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanine-m ... 28205.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama- ... ee-speech/

There are just too many laws and actions of this government that aren't well-thought out and well-worded. Many of them can be used to "take away our rights!!"

No, I am of the opinion that the voices heard mostly are editors/journalists, and other people whose job it is to be in front of cameras. I don't believe in any way that people who were against gun control before Aurora and Sandy Hook and the resurrection of the gun debate were any more or less against it once the debate started up again. And I also think that the people who are for gun control now are essentially the same people who were for it before these tragedies. Nothing is changing or has changed.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You're caught up in the dramatization of these videos. A woman with "breast milk" that doesn't have a baby with her is a little odd. Especially when she requests "alternate screening" because she doesn't want the "x-rays" to go through her "breast milk".

Factcheck already destroyed your HR 347 paranoia.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

As for the TSA, I haven't seen any scenarios play out like the videos you linked. I don't have issues with the principles behind the TSA and their policies, though the implementation of any law can be flubbed in some situations.

As for the trespass law, I read the 1971 version and some info about the recent amendments to it. I don't see the big deal. I think Ms. Molloff's line "potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S. a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison" is pretty much ridiculous and hyperbolic, though.

I guess it comes down to a couple of things... whether you live your life as an idealist or a pragmatist (or somewhere in between and to what degree), and what your general view on government is. For me, I tend to lean toward the pragmatic. And I simply don't view the government as a shady organization bent on destroying my precious freedoms or as an imminent threat to my way of life (regardless of which party is in power).

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

What does the before/after Sandy Hook have to do with it? There has long been a movement towards banning guns in this country. I don't believe it will gain enough strength in the near future to actually change the amendments, but that doesn't mean that it's not a growing force of people. Any one event won't be the catalyst for the change, it's a gradual building of a mindset that causes major change like this. Although there are exceptions, such as 9/11 where people decided they were willing to give up a portion of their freedoms to feel safer, that doesn't translate to gun violence in the same manner.

What before/after Sandy Hook and Aurora has to do with it is that it has brought the gun debate back to the forefront of our media, whereas it had been pretty dormant for a while. And what's funny is that while you say no one event will be the catalyst for the change, that's what several of the editorials and articles you mention have said regarding gun control. Many of them have pointed to Sandy Hook as a "turning point." So what I am saying is that I reject the notion that Sandy Hook will be any sort of catalyst because it didn't really change anything. And I reject the notion that there's any sort of "growing force" behind taking our guns away.

As for 9/11, I don't recall being asked if I was willing to give up a portion of my freedoms to feel safer. But in the end, it didn't really affect me at all.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Volsung, if you don't believe that the Patriot Act has an effect on pretty much every person in this country, then I really have nothing more to say about erosion of rights in this country.

I will say that it is possible the idea for total gun bans may not be rapidly growing, and it could just be the mere extra media presence that gives it that appearance, but I still strongly disagree about the fact that there's a large contingent of Americans who would like to see a ban on all guns by civilians. I'd put the number in the one in four range. To me, even though it's a strong minority, it's still a large presence.

What, specifically, has the Patriot Act done to change your life? Yeah, I get the principle that it's overstepping boundaries and all... but I'm curious about the real, tangible effect it's had.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Yea I am kind of an idealist when it comes to government. I just believe that the government should be there to serve the people and not the other way around. I don't think the government is bent on destroying my freedoms or anything, they're just bumbling idiots who don't know that the way they word a law can be used against citizens rights in the future or at any time really. Now a shady organization? I'd say that they are. They are bought and paid off all the time, with the amount of lobbyists in the white house I don't know how people can think that the campaign contributions and the like don't have an affect on policy. Hell, the people who are ambassadors to other nations get their posts based on how much money they gave for campaign contributions. The best posts in the well-developed countries go to people who gave the most money, while career diplomats tend to go to 3rd world countries.

The wording of these laws are just stupid. Fact check doesn't destroy the argument, it just spins it towards the exact opposite direction from "the government is trying to steal our rights!" The way the law is worded can be used to arrest protesters. The point isn't that they are going to use it in that way, its that there isn't a need for the law to be worded in a way that it can be used against peaceful protesters.

Gah, I just hate all the bureaucracy of government. It's hard for me to explain my points without sounding like I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I'm not sure the point of the question...is it like saying that since I'm not now nor do I plan to ever commit crimes, that the abolition of the 5th amendment wouldn't be a big deal? What about any of our other rights? Just because I may never be personally affected by them doesn't mean they don't exist for a reason.

There are many provisions inside the Patriot act that erode away the rights of citizens for the "safety" of the rest of the citizens.

The point is that I noted that the Patriot Act didn't really affect me at all, and you chose to make that the focus of your response. I'm not talking about any of the Amendments or the Bill of Rights... but the specific effects of the Patriot Act.

If a new law reduces the allowable speed on interstate highways to 55, I can point to that and say, "Yes, that affects me because I prefer to drive over 55 on the interstate, and it has forced me to go lower than my preferred speed as a result."

What effects can you point to when it comes to the Patriot Act?

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.