People do not need assault weapons: defense secretary

Jan 17, 2013 Full story: Reuters 4,995

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

Full Story

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2738 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
See prohibition
In a functioning Republic a mistake can be corrected.
Yeah. Tell that to the Germans. You are aware of what it took to correct that mistake, aren't you?

And, if you noticed, that mistake was corrected using the Constitution.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2739 Feb 14, 2013
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 pretence, raised in the United States."

Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution", 1787

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2740 Feb 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I am dead-center. I am a Constitutionalist.
"... shall not be infringed" is the exact working in the Constitution.
I don't think that is too difficult to understand when read.
The government is authorized to conduct "due process" for any individual. And, they have the right to compare purchasers with their list of individuals whom have been subject to "due process".
But, as stated in the Constitution, "the people" shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
"Infringed" is an interesting word they chose. The could have said "obstructed" or "denied". But, they chose to say "infringed". The government cannot, in any way, inhibit "the people" from having and bearing arms.
So, no, I am not in favor of any infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This includes the infringement caused by the govenment collecting data.
The government can collect all the data it wants, within the law. However, the collection of data cannot infringe on the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Other than those who actually desire the tag pariah we all believe we are dead center correct.\
I was talk about a theoretical model.
traditional politics is viewed as having only two poles right and a left pole.
You bring to mind a tri polar theory with a left , a right and a libertarian pole.
The explanation i had read had the extreme ends of each concept ending thusly. The right extreme Nazism the left extreme Communism and the Libertarian extreme is anarchy.
The difference is the Left and right extremes end in a anti-democratic extreme, while the libertarian extreme is a lack of Gov't as opposed to omni present Gov't.
Just a little theory, which from my angle fits

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2741 Feb 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not.
There has to be a crime first. If there is no crime detected, then the government cannot invade anyone's privacy.
Additionally, after the crime has been detected, an officer of the court must authorize the government to invade any individual's privacy.
If no crime is detected, the government is not allowed to collect data on that individual, effectively separating that individual from "the people".
If no officer of the court signs a warrant to invade an individuals privacy and collect data on that individual, then the government cannot separate that individual from "the people".
The government must remember that there must first be a crime before there can be an investigation that warrants collecting private data on an individual.
Purchasing a firearm is not a crime.
we have to disagree here
Gov't collects an awful large quantity of information with no crime suspected.
Tax data and income data are accumulated with no suspicion that you have evaded taxation,.
Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien
Weddings are recorded with no assumption of bigamy
Voters are kept track of not because they are committing fraud....

Sometimes data is collected with out suspicion of a crime having been committed.
The reason you see it this way, i believe, is contained in my previous posting, on a tri-poler political model

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2742 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
we have to disagree here
Gov't collects an awful large quantity of information with no crime suspected.
Tax data and income data are accumulated with no suspicion that you have evaded taxation,.
Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien
Weddings are recorded with no assumption of bigamy
Voters are kept track of not because they are committing fraud....
Sometimes data is collected with out suspicion of a crime having been committed.
The reason you see it this way, i believe, is contained in my previous posting, on a tri-poler political model
Yes and google is their main source. Obama used it greatly to have instant access to current voter data and trends. It didn't matter it was illegal and a invation of privacy.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2743 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than those who actually desire the tag pariah we all believe we are dead center correct.\
I was talk about a theoretical model.
traditional politics is viewed as having only two poles right and a left pole.
You bring to mind a tri polar theory with a left , a right and a libertarian pole.
The explanation i had read had the extreme ends of each concept ending thusly. The right extreme Nazism the left extreme Communism and the Libertarian extreme is anarchy.
The difference is the Left and right extremes end in a anti-democratic extreme, while the libertarian extreme is a lack of Gov't as opposed to omni present Gov't.
Just a little theory, which from my angle fits
But, we do not all believe in the Constitution.
The Constitution is dead center.
Those who believe in it are dead center.

And, I know many people who will freely admit they are not dead center. I often disagree with them, and almost always over whether the Constitution should be followed in that particular case or not.
I am a Constitutionalist. That is dead center.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2744 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
we have to disagree here
Gov't collects an awful large quantity of information with no crime suspected.
Tax data and income data are accumulated with no suspicion that you have evaded taxation,.
Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien
Weddings are recorded with no assumption of bigamy
Voters are kept track of not because they are committing fraud....
Sometimes data is collected with out suspicion of a crime having been committed.
The reason you see it this way, i believe, is contained in my previous posting, on a tri-poler political model
Tax data is collected in accordance with the authority given to the government in the Constitution to collect direct taxes from the individual.

Just because the government is collecting data, though, does not mean that it is collecting that data constitutionally.
From time to time the FBI gets busted for spying on innocent Americans. It draws attention because it isn't constitutional. Otherwise, it would never have become newsworthy.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2745 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
we have to disagree here
Gov't collects an awful large quantity of information with no crime suspected.
Tax data and income data are accumulated with no suspicion that you have evaded taxation,.
Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien
Weddings are recorded with no assumption of bigamy
Voters are kept track of not because they are committing fraud....
Sometimes data is collected with out suspicion of a crime having been committed.
The reason you see it this way, i believe, is contained in my previous posting, on a tri-poler political model
Here, "Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien" was a command from Obama for the most recent census.
The Constitution does not define the data elements to be collected for a census. It only orders that a census be taken.
andsoitgoes

Elizabeth City, NC

#2746 Feb 14, 2013
I disagree with those that believe in the constitution are dead center. I am not dead center and I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights. I also believe that because of those very items, conservatives are wrong in their beliefs in abortion and gay marriage based on the 9th and 14th amendments, making me a liberal. On the other hand, I believe that gun bans are a direct violation of the 2nd amendment, making me a conservative. So which is it? I find myself at odds with EVERY political theory out there because they are all biased against one theory or another. Our forefathers had a simple plan, and somehow it has been twisted in to a legal mumbo jumbo of red tape and bureaucracy.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#2747 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
all of your data computer data is collected and usable by law enforcement.
If you thought else wise, think again.
When tey catch a perv for sending and obtaining child porn, how do they know who is downloading what....clearly they have access to that information...this page keep a rolling log of content.
The Gov't collecting data on who attend what church.... I can't see why ...however I might be available with a search warrant....Also with the way faith is viewed by a majority of the population,....i don't fear that.
You and I are the guardians of our liberties . When ever we feel our rights infringed upon we protest the infringement . when we hear such protests fair minded citizens weigh those protests and if valid to any degree we join the opposition all part of democracy.
Thus the serious, contributors who I disagree with, I respect. and then I can learn to respect an outcome that i disagree with , and strive to change it.. As long as we , folks like us, who have a serious interest, remain interested i feel optimistic.
And how did any "protest" against having your transmissions (your device isn't in a government registry) monitored and recorded work out?
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#2748 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
See prohibition
In a functioning Republic a mistake can be corrected.
How many people's lives were taken or ruined by that "mistake"?
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#2749 Feb 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because the government is collecting data, though, does not mean that it is collecting that data constitutionally.
See: American Community Survey.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#2750 Feb 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Here, "Census data is collected with no assumption that you may be an illegal alien" was a command from Obama for the most recent census.
The Constitution does not define the data elements to be collected for a census. It only orders that a census be taken.
See: American Community Survey.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2751 Feb 14, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>

Just because the government is collecting data, though, does not mean that it is collecting that data constitutionally.
From time to time the FBI gets busted for spying on innocent Americans. It draws attention because it isn't constitutional. Otherwise, it would never have become newsworthy.
Right you are...
Engaged citizens, to my left , right and libertarian flanks who squawk, carp and complain keep Gov't honest.
As honest as it is....
In the case of the USA we must all be doing a fair job complaining.
I don't know, if that there is any other nation that has been 'called out'' on it excesses by it citizens, and is still loved by its people

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2752 Feb 14, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people's lives were taken or ruined by that "mistake"?
name me a nation that is perfect and has never abused any citizen ever.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#2753 Feb 14, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
And how did any "protest" against having your transmissions (your device isn't in a government registry) monitored and recorded work out?
as of yet it has not. read my previous response also to one of your posts. And then ponder the following.

My Grandfather worked for the N.Y. central RR way back there was a strike looming over a contract.... the union was playing hardball with a company that was weak. That weakness only served as blood in the water the union broke off talks. The company would have to adopt the union proposal, as is line for line , all or nothing.
Grandpa opposed the union , his reason. If you say 'all or nothing' and nothing is what you end up with, don't complain because, nothing is exactly what you had asked for.
Where is the NY central RR today?

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2754 Feb 14, 2013
Say the Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
See: American Community Survey.
See Obama phones give direct access to transmissions, data and contacts for propaganda.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#2755 Feb 14, 2013
andsoitgoes wrote:
I disagree with those that believe in the constitution are dead center. I am not dead center and I believe in the constitution and the bill of rights. I also believe that because of those very items, conservatives are wrong in their beliefs in abortion and gay marriage based on the 9th and 14th amendments, making me a liberal. On the other hand, I believe that gun bans are a direct violation of the 2nd amendment, making me a conservative. So which is it? I find myself at odds with EVERY political theory out there because they are all biased against one theory or another. Our forefathers had a simple plan, and somehow it has been twisted in to a legal mumbo jumbo of red tape and bureaucracy.
It seems the 10th amendment is most applicable in the abortion issue. A right against self incrimination and privacy are a Constritutional concern. The right to make the determination as to when life begins isn't addressed in the Constitution, therefore it is by default command of the 10th amendment the perogative of the state, or "the people".
If you try to invent rationale not in the Constitution to support a position, when the 10th amendment is very explicit about what and who have authority when something is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, you are not a constitutionalist.
You can't ignore the 10th amendment and be a constitutionalist.

The best thing that can happen is for everyone to have studied the Constitution before they finish high school.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#2756 Feb 14, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
name me a nation that is perfect and has never abused any citizen ever.
That's not the point.
andsoitgoes

Elizabeth City, NC

#2757 Feb 14, 2013
Interesting comment DB... But I disagree... here is an example of why....

In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice william o. douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution.

Only briefly discussed in Douglas's majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice arthur goldberg's concurring opinion. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers' original understanding that "other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed" in the Constitution.

Specifically, the 9th amendment was placed in the constitution to protect anything not covered elsewhere. It's pure genius.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 12 min CunningLinguist 115
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 13 min BigDaddy 4,207
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min EasyEed 1,110,806
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 14 min Jaxxon 262,624
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min DITCH MITCH 153,719
Border wait times 15 min huey goins 29
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 min OzRitz 46,698
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Aura Mytha 116,678
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••