Government response to Boston Marathon bombs; warrantless searches & soldiers

[Blackhawk2001]

So far as I am concerned, the last word as an end in itself is meaningless. As for my worldview, compare the nation as we know it to the nation as it was in generations past.

1. Exercise of constitutional rights was under most circumstances not infringed, particularly regarding the Bill of Rights. This did not cause the sky falling scenarios we are told would result if we were left in actual possession of our rights, which are properly ours.

2. We had a robust and growing economy in which a person could use and develop his talents as he was able. While still technically possible, a bewildering array of regulations, a byzantine tax code, and liability issues in which even the most stupid of people can sue the productive to collect on their own stupidity make it anywhere from improbable to impossible.

3. In the past, it was a safe rule of thumb that if you paid your taxes and lived by the Ten Commandments, there was no need to be concerned about the law. Now, we have to worry about predatory law enforcement, especially in the event that there is anything of value to be confiscated/stolen.

4. In the past, we had a solvent government which, prior to the FD Roosevelt administration, largely limited itself to performing the duties delegated to it by the Constitution. Today, we have a bloated, insolvent government with its nose into everything, Constitution notwithstanding.

5. While this is really a restatement of points 1 and 2, in generations past we were free to exercise our rights without any official permission to do so--which is a critical distinction between a right and a privilege. Exercising a right does NOT require permission.

Yep. Our society has certainly changed in major ways in the past few generations. The question I have for you, which I've reprised in another thread, is: Where are you going to go to regain those conditions previous to today? Seems to me our choice is to emigrate to another place that seems more free to us, or to attempt to push back at the cultural changes which have allowed our current society to exist in its present form. Do you see another choice?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yep. Our society has certainly changed in major ways in the past few generations. The question I have for you, which I've reprised in another thread, is: Where are you going to go to regain those conditions previous to today? Seems to me our choice is to emigrate to another place that seems more free to us, or to attempt to push back at the cultural changes which have allowed our current society to exist in its present form. Do you see another choice?

You are correct that there is nowhere left in the world to where a person can go to escape. Then again, some 238 years ago, a number of good men did not try to escape but rather acted to correct the problem. One of them was an ancestral grandfather of mine.

 

[Sharpie]

So far as I am concerned, the last word as an end in itself is meaningless. As for my worldview, compare the nation as we know it to the nation as it was in generations past.

1. Exercise of constitutional rights was under most circumstances not infringed, particularly regarding the Bill of Rights. This did not cause the sky falling scenarios we are told would result if we were left in actual possession of our rights, which are properly ours.

2. We had a robust and growing economy in which a person could use and develop his talents as he was able. While still technically possible, a bewildering array of regulations, a byzantine tax code, and liability issues in which even the most stupid of people can sue the productive to collect on their own stupidity make it anywhere from improbable to impossible.

3. In the past, it was a safe rule of thumb that if you paid your taxes and lived by the Ten Commandments, there was no need to be concerned about the law. Now, we have to worry about predatory law enforcement, especially in the event that there is anything of value to be confiscated/stolen.

4. In the past, we had a solvent government which, prior to the FD Roosevelt administration, largely limited itself to performing the duties delegated to it by the Constitution. Today, we have a bloated, insolvent government with its nose into everything, Constitution notwithstanding.

5. While this is really a restatement of points 1 and 2, in generations past we were free to exercise our rights without any official permission to do so--which is a critical distinction between a right and a privilege. Exercising a right does NOT require permission.

I don't have time to reply to each point, as I'm about to go out for the day. But I must say that most of your post is revisionist or outright false. The late 1700s up through the early 1900s was no panacea, and certainly not the magical place that you make it out to be. Especially for anyone other than a white male, and a wealthy white male at that. A point-by-point refutation of your argument is not something I have time for, as it is far too complicated to reduce to internet bickering. Suffice it to say that anyone who knows the history of this nation knows better than to believe that we were a land of milk and honey prior to FDR.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't have time to reply to each point, as I'm about to go out for the day. But I must say that most of your post is revisionist or outright false. The late 1700s up through the early 1900s was no panacea, and certainly not the magical place that you make it out to be. Especially for anyone other than a white male, and a wealthy white male at that. A point-by-point refutation of your argument is not something I have time for, as it is far too complicated to reduce to internet bickering. Suffice it to say that anyone who knows the history of this nation knows better than to believe that we were a land of milk and honey prior to FDR.

Your argument has one serious flaw. I did not claim any guaranteed outcome, only opportunity and freedom. It is a modern 'gift' of the left to mistake equal opportunity for equal outcome (although your are correct that ethnic equality was far from happening at that point--still, exchanging one set of problems for a new set that threatens the existence of the republic is not the solution).

 

[in625shooter]

Not to get off topic but sort of related. I believe that somewhere in the age of equality a lot of people are not stopping at equal rights but also want special treatment, "status" if you will. That is a high expectation for them because some have forgoten that the world aint fair all the time!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not to get off topic but sort of related. I believe that somewhere in the age of equality a lot of people are not stopping at equal rights but also want special treatment, "status" if you will. That is a high expectation for them because some have forgoten that the world aint fair all the time!

You are exactly right. They want not only a guaranteed outcome (as opposed to a fair chance to make their own outcome) but they do indeed want privilege as exemplified by civil rights legislation that creates de facto preferred classes rather than addressing wrong behaviors.

 

[HmDBrian]

Are you serious or generating argument for the fun of it?

The problem with Benghazi is that our people were under attack for hours and not only was assistance not given, those who could have given assistance in time to save those lives were forbidden to do so. The problem is Boston is that the rights of the people were trampled on WHICH DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING contributing to the apprehension of the fugitive. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other either in theory or practice.

Nicely said. If the police wanted to go door to door, to me that would be fine, because yea it was a possibility he was in a home with hostages. The RIGHT way would have been a simple knock on the door and if the owner come to the door and said everything was fine, that should have been it. As dave states, nothing possitive came from the way they went about this, the suspect was caught because of a tip, not because they ambushed every single home.

 

[TheReaper]

Nicely said. If the police wanted to go door to door, to me that would be fine, because yea it was a possibility he was in a home with hostages. The RIGHT way would have been a simple knock on the door and if the owner come to the door and said everything was fine, that should have been it. As dave states, nothing possitive came from the way they went about this, the suspect was caught because of a tip, not because they ambushed every single home.

Show us the proof that this happened.

 

[ModernGunner]

So... ?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Show us the proof that this happened.

Prove it didn't

 

[TheReaper]

Prove it didn't

So it's guilty until proven innocent? The one thing you people **** and moan about the most?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So it's guilty until proven innocent? The one thing you people **** and moan about the most?

Maybe because that's the way it works in the real world, one is always guilty until proven innocent unless they have butt loads of money or know someone

 

[TheReaper]

Maybe because that's the way it works in the real world, one is always guilty until proven innocent unless they have butt loads of money or know someone

LOL....suuuure..whatever you need to say to convice yourself that you're not a bigot.

 

[Bunnykid68]

LOL....suuuure..whatever you need to say to convice yourself that you're not a bigot.

Now you have confused me sir, why am I a bigot?

 

[rambone]

Hmmmm. We should not judge gun owners by what they wear, you know, legally OCing with a CCW badge. If they want to look like a tool, it's all good. We should not judge black rifles because they look evil...they LOOK like military weapons. But it's 100% ok to judge LEO's by the clothes they wear? Gotcha. That camo is SCARY!!!!!!

Denny, I respect your views and I know the point you are trying to convey. But we aren't discussing rights here, we are discussing subsidized materials and practices. It comes with the territory of working for the people. They are the "boss."

My boss requires that I wear a collared shirt to work. That's his preference for people that serve him. That's the image he wants his operation to be known by. The public has the right to make the same decisions regarding their servants.... for any reason. It might be because of fear, cost, personal preference, or something else.

If I was designing a police force from scratch, they would wear polo shirts and abandon the whole paramilitary ranking system (Sergeant, Captain, etc). The masks, combat fatigues, and ninja costumes are a big turn off for me. Its nothing personal. Its also not the biggest topic of concern in this thread.

and assumptions that there were any types of types of 4th ammendment violations are simply that, assumptions.

From the very first post there has been valid concerns. The Governor of Massachusetts announced that there would be random searches of commuters in Boston. He called it an "inconvenience." I'll post this for a 3rd time since you keep missing it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbFg9QcyIb8"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbFg9QcyIb8[/ame]

This is the problem, people like you overreact and think they're going door to door and kicking doors in and searching or forcing their way in. You simply say, "no thanks, everything is under control here." and then they leave.

These were consensual searches, nobody has any proof otherwise.

What is the point of voluntary house-to-house searches then? As soon as they get to the terrorist's hideout, he's not going to answer the door. And the people that actually consent to a search, are just humoring you and wasting your time. The terrorist isn't going to talk to you or invite you in. Its all just a big show for the public. Its security theater. Its a giant waste of time.

Most of this massive rollout of police was just to give the public the perception that they were doing SOMETHING. In the video I posted above, the Police Superintendent said the enhanced police presence was "to provide comfort." The same line of thinking is why people accept (presumably voluntary) house-to-house searches. It feels like they are doing SOMETHING.

In my opinion, these house-to-house searches are a fruitless endeavor designed for sheeple. Talking at the door is one thing, entering every home is another.

 

[Trigger Time]

Hmmmm. We should not judge gun owners by what they wear, you know, legally OCing with a CCW badge. If they want to look like a tool, it's all good. We should not judge black rifles because they look evil...they LOOK like military weapons. But it's 100% ok to judge LEO's by the clothes they wear? Gotcha. That camo is SCARY!!!!!!...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Leo's while in a uniform or on duty answer to the people. While obviously a citizen cannot and should not be able to order around law enforcement officers, it is within our rights to contact our elected officials whom the Leo's DO answer to and let them know our greviences with department policies or actions. To which if the Leo's wish to continue employment they will abide with those decisions. Don't hate me just because I disagree with the policies of your department. It's not a personal attack on you as an individual. But if I don't like something I see law enforcement or an elected official doing then I'm going to voice my opinion through the proper channels and encourage others to do the same. It's called being a good citizen and taking an active role in my government. But some call it cop bashing. Names don't bother me. I support Leo's for the most part and don't give them any problems. I don't have a problem with properly wielded, granted authority.

 

[HmDBrian]

Show us the proof that this happened.

Prove what? They were openly admitting to going house to house to search them. Look on youtube there are plenty of vids of homeowners standing in front of their homes with about 12 swat checking inside their homes.

Also you want to go that route, prove to me these two brothers planted the bomb. I seen a video of them walking by a camera as many were doing at the time. I see a picnof the younger brother behind a crowd of people and a backpack on the ground next to a fence. That dont prove ****. Im not saying I dont think its them, im just saying your asking for proof for my statment, but I dont see you asking for proof these two did it.

 

[TheReaper]

Prove what? They were openly admitting to going house to house to search them. Look on youtube there are plenty of vids of homeowners standing in front of their homes with about 12 swat checking inside their homes.

So hey knocked doors off the hinges or drove armored vehicles through the homes to "ambush" the home owners?

 

[HmDBrian]

So hey knocked doors off the hinges or drove armored vehicles through the homes to "ambush" the home owners?

Ok maybe ambushed was the wrong word, but they knocked on doors and told them to step in the front yard as they searched their home. They were showing it happening on cnn I believe. I tried to find the footage, but no luck.

 

[Destro]

Ok maybe ambushed was the wrong word, but they knocked on doors and told them to step in the front yard as they searched their home. They were showing it happening on cnn I believe. I tried to find the footage, but no luck.

does not make it illegal