-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
UK Government could forcibly relocate Terror 'Suspects'
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I disagree very strongly. Every human being has those rights. The difference is that their government doesn't recognize theirs. Ours is going in the same direction theirs has gone. As for the whole rounding people up, I don't care who is rounding who up. If there isn't probably cause to imprison someone, they should not be imprisoned. Rounding people up because they are part of a group is absurd, unless that group has communicated that they mean to cause harm. For instance, Al Queda has claimed they want to kill Americans. We should round up members of Al Queda. However, there is no individual who speaks for all Muslims. Muslims should only be imprisoned on a case by case basis. And they shouldn't be treated differently because of their religion. That's a concept that neither side seems to grasp.
Im gonna go out on a limb and say you havent left Continental North America. Those dont count as "basic human rights", by very definition. They have never had those rights.
I think you should round up the ones that promote violence (as many of those people do over there).
So humans don't have a basic right to privacy? Do you think it would be morally acceptable for the government to do random anal cavity searches? Again, the Constitution protects our rights, but we are born with them. No person can give me rights, nor can they take them away. In addition, people need to be treated like individuals. I am a Christian. If I'm friends with my Christian neighbor, and he goes out tomorrow and shoots ten people, am I guilty just because I was his friend? Should the fact that we were both Christians even be considered in the report? And there is a very thin line between promoting violence and being associated with someone who promotes violence. Should you go to prison for saying you agree with a violent action? Is that in itself actually promoting violence?
In the USA, a single tip is enough to get you put on a terrorism watch list.
Nobody has to tell you squat.
Rambone buddy, I think a person is more likely to be a victim of frivilous activity harrasment, being spyed on, etc. etc. by citizens via their own liberty to do so. I think our gov. is mainly concerned with the kind of activity that can and will cause destruction on a large scale. These actions endanger our own freedoms. jmo.
If your on the list, so be it. Hopefully they'll figure out their looking in the wrong direction and go after bogus tippers.
post 9/11, when was the last major terrorist attack on the United States?
Do you listen to yourself? We're talking about rounding up people just because the government puts them on some secret watch list. No trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal. Can you see any glaring issue here?
I must be a terrorist anarchist to raise an eyebrow.
What they do to protect their country is their business, can you cite any specific cases where somebody was wrongly accused?
United States citizens are entitled to due process and the constitutional rights, all others Club Gitmo
We need to worry about our own back yard, not Britain's. What they do is their business.
I would think that any fellow supporters of Ron Paul would agree, after all, it is one of the key points he makes when it comes to foreign policy.
I would think that any fellow supporters of Ron Paul would agree, after all, it is one of the key points he makes when it comes to foreign policy.
It definitely wasn't prevented by all these police officers and TSA agents we've got running around. In fact, it's a known fact that the FBI initiates contact with "terror suspects", gives them a fake bomb, talks them into it, and then arrests them. I think our foreign policy AND our security policy are part of the problem.
I don't think the point of Rambone's post was to say that America should intervene. I think he was trying to bring attention to the loss of liberty, which is never a bad thing.
Well obviously something that we are doing is preventing further attacks from occurring. Is it your position that it is due to the Islamofascists turning over a new leaf and now loving us? Obviously not. So there is something that the US government is doing that has prevented another attack. But it seems like, every single thing that has been done is pooh-poohed.
But I think the point that the others were making is that there has been no loss of liberty. That is their system of government. There has been no change in their rights over there. Their government has always had the authority to do it.
I'm not suggesting we do nothing. But trampling the Constitution is not a good option, and it definitely doesn't make us any safer. If ridiculous gun laws were repealed, people would be able to defend themselves and others in areas like NYC much better. They make it harder for the average citizen to defend themselves while giving the federal government more power over our lives. That is the antithesis of liberty. As for your second paragraph, I see your point. I should have said infringement of liberty, rather than loss of.
Trying to argue that the Patriot Act "can" be used to deprive citizens of liberty is akin to saying that simply because the US government has nuclear weapons, they are a danger to the people because they "could" use them on us.
ahh...it's NYC's gun laws that took down the towers, workers in the towers could have shot back! Gun laws are mostly moot when it comes to terrorism, would lose gun laws in Norway have prevented the shooters car bomb?
Wow, that's definitely a faulty argument. So would you be ok with government authority being legally able to do random anal cavity searches? Should they be able to imprison you for not complying? Besides, I don't see the feds using nuclear weapons on it's own citizens, but spying on them and jailing them for "suspicious activity" is far more likely.
I believe many of the flights were going between two points in the U.S. If someone on one of those flights had a gun, more of them might have ended up like Flight 93, or even landed safely, instead of slamming into buildings and killing thousands of people. And surveillance is moot when it comes to terrorism as well. Whatever security measures are in place, the terrorists will be able to find a way around it. Including sitting back and watching the show while we molest our own citizens in airports. Of course, someone is going to misconstrue that statement, and say that I am against security.
I'm simply against the gubmint providing security for us at every turn. Allow people to take care of themselves, and stop our crazy foreign policy. We would be safer from both our own government and terrorists.Until someone can show me that the patriot act is somehow being used to trample the rights of United States citizens (foreign nationals don’t count), it’s all hearsay, tin foil hats, and chicken little. Does anybody know of a case where information obtained from a warrantless wire tap has been used to convict someone of something non-terror related?
I don’t really like the idea of Air Marshals having firearms on planes, much less average citizens…the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters.
And since surveillance on suspected terrorists moot, tell you what…let’s call Langley and tell the CIA all the work they are doing is pointless, while we’re at it we can call the cousins and tell them they can go ahead and shut down MI-6.
I don’t really like the idea of Air Marshals having firearms on planes, much less average citizens…the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters.
And since surveillance on suspected terrorists moot, tell you what…let’s call Langley and tell the CIA all the work they are doing is pointless, while we’re at it we can call the cousins and tell them they can go ahead and shut down MI-6.
It doesn't matter if they are. It matters that they can. But here's some links for you.
[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=88c_1241565657]LiveLeak.com - Patriot Act Being Used Against a 16 Year Old Boy and its Own Citizens![/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydkpWHITlBg&feature=related[/ame]
As for the box cutters on planes, that's a pretty obvious confirmation of my assertion that the terrorists will beat the rules no matter what they are. So why restrict law abiding citizens?
I would like to see the CIA shut down, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that there should be no government surveillance of suspected terrorists. I'm saying that being a Muslim, a Ron Paul supporter, or a gun owner should not be part of the criteria for being a suspected terrorist. It's absurd. There needs to be a real concern for danger. Threats or plans need to have been made, or action needs to have been taken.
