Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


To summarize, your entire argument is based on "They didn't give your the rights, so they can't take them away."



Nope.. try again




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Your full of #.

We aren't bombing any nazis anymore.
edit on 15-10-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Can you give me a little bit more info here? And please keep in mind ive been trying to answer everyones responses.

Nvm - you edited as I responded.

The nazi comment was in response to the other guy, not you, and was to point out that just ebcause something is deemed "right" at the time, doesnt mean it is. Before telling me im full of something, at least put it in perspective and think about it first.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No, figure it out for yourself.

You want a question answered, well here we are getting into detail.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No, figure it out for yourself.

You want a question answered, well here we are getting into detail.


Your the one who said I was full of it and that we werent bombing nazis. The post was not directed at you, yet you responded to it, so you can clarify it.

Secondly, calm down some. You seem to have gone a full 180 in the conversation for no reason at all.,



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Sure, Progressives of yesteryear sought to destroy governmental corruption. They achieved some good things for equality. Progressives of today seek socialist and an end to individualism and capitalism.

Not sure what that has to do with this topic, or me, but I digress.


reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What a politician says and what a politician DOES are two different things. See: Barrack Obama.

I have a feeling this is heading right back to the age old argument of peaceful protest versus violent revolution, because those are basically the two sides of the coin to repairing government.

In the end, all that matters is the same answer, no matter how you get to it, and that is that GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN. Peace has had a chance to fix it and failed, and Occupy Wall Street is no different. Sure, the politicos will say everything they want to hear and promise the best of changes, but in the end it never- EVER happens, and people will just go on home.

The influence that people have over government occurs when they point a gun barrel at them. Otherwise, they don't have anything to fear. They are in control. The game is rigged. The elections, the laws, the regulations, the right violations, the economy - it doesn't matter what the people say because the government is going to do whatever it is they want to regardless. It doesn't matter if people stand in the park for 20 years, how is that going to hurt the government? Life goes on for them as they control the other 299 million Americans who aren't standing in a park and having their get togethers.

Education would work if people listened and people don't. They are controlled and they are complacent. No one will question the "official story" of things. Hell, most people are too afraid to question exactly why the Civil War was even fought, never questioning the government story of "ending slavery". People trust the government because they are afraid of what would happen without them. Therefore any education you plan to spread better be government sponsored and supportive, or it isn't going to happen.

I interpret the Constitution strictly. I believe in freedom for all man, so long as he doesn't interfere directly with another man's freedom. That means no killing, no trespassing, no stealing, no forcing beliefs, ect. That is the way the majority of Founding Father interpreted it, so if you believe that to be wrong, then you have an up hill struggle there.



and yet a person can jump through those hoops and get a gun.


Illegally. There was a class action court case posted on ATS only a few weeks ago in which a group of people were denied that privilege with no grounds. The judge deemed that it was simply unnecessary for them to have guns. This is a "hoop" that they had no hope of getting through.




As far as the reasons given for your search, I dont buy it. What state did this occur in? What agency? what time? where were you at? what was the reason for the stop?


I do not know the law as it is impossible to know the ins and outs of such a pervasive system that differs from region to region. I do know the Constitution, however, fully, and I understand it.

As far as my stop, it was in Oklahoma by the Oklahoma State Police. It was about 3:00 in the afternoon and we were passing through I don't know what town on our road trip. The police officer stopped us (myself and two friends) stating that it was "Odd to see three men driving so far away from home without women." He took all of our IDs, which we gave willingly, and then told us to pop the trunk. I was in the passenger seat at the time and I denied. He then asked the driver to get out of the car, took him away and talked to him. The LEO walked up and pulled the trunk release and the proceeded to go back to search our baggage. He found a bag of protein powder and asked us if it was coc aine. We had to explain to him, though it was quite obvious, that my one friend was a body builder. All in all, after about 40 mins, the cop told us to carry on, got in his car and pulled away immediately. He returned 5 minutes later as he had taken my friend's license with him.

I consulted a lawyer about the situation when I got home and looked through previous cases and found that it was worthless to pursue legal action because nothing was ever done about it in all the cases I've seen.






Back to the subject of "Action" and people taking it. Action is being taken. Action as BEEN taken. It served no purpose, no matter how educated the people are. You can't change a system of rules by following the same rules you are trying to change.

How to fix it? All of it?

RE-VO-LU-TION.

Swift and violent. Constitutional in base, removing all laws / entities created by the government they had no right to create.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



Ok you are all over the place.. Now your saing that people should follow the consitution when it comes to tresspassing etc, yet you argued no personw ill tell you how to act.

The gun issue in New York is a state issue, not FEderal. As I stated the US Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment applies to the individual, and the manner in which guns are sold is regualted by the respective states. States that allow conceal carry are either shall issue or may issue. Last I checked New York is a may issue, which means a permit for a concelaed carry can be denied. Its doesnt violate the 2nd because you can still own / purchase a gun.

people need to stop chewrry picking the court cases to arrive at their conclusions on whther the government was right or wrong on an issue.

Armed revolution is the last resort, and I dont think we are anywhere near it. Especially since, and contrreary to your claim, that people have tried to amke changes and failed. To prove that point check the federal state and local polling turnouts for elections.

When only a small percentage respond and vote, it means the larger group is being apathetic or lazy about it and staying home. So no, its not the time for armed revolution.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
The Patriot Act expanded the definition of "terrorism" so now pretty much anyone who engages in civil disobedience can be labeled a terrorist.

What right have you lost?


Well I've lost the right to not be labeled a terrorist for one thing. Once a person in the United States is labeled a terrorist, they are viewed as an enemy combatant by law. IE: I am no longer a normal civilian in the eyes of the Federal Government.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
The government can now arrest and prosecute people who keep information on you, if they reveal that the government requested this information. IE: Let's say the FBI wants to investigate you, and asks your ISP for records. If your ISP then goes and tells you this, they are now breaking the law. Why? They are just trying to protect your right to privacy.

What right have you lost?


The right to privacy? The right to face ones accuser?


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Government agents may now monitor the First Amendment protected activities of religious and political institutions, and then infiltrate those organizations at will. Meaning they need no suspicion of criminal activity or wrong doing.

Which has been around since before we told the Brits to go away. The other term is called voluntary contact.
What rights have you lost?


Probably cause, or suspicion of criminal activity was needed previously for a Federal Agent to go "undercover" and infiltrate an "organization". Now they can do this without cause.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
You may now be subject to a government investigation simply because of your political or religious views.

What right have you lost?


The right to privacy? Although it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, in 1890 Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th and 5th amendments of the Bill of Rights also provides protection for privacy. The NOLO Plain English Law dictionary states the LEGAL definition of privacy as such: "Privacy: The right to be free of unnecessary public scrutiny, or to be let alone."


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Law Enforcement agencies may now conduct searches and wiretaps of your home or office without showing probable cause.


This is not even close to being truthful or accurate in any sense of the imagination. Proivide your source that says this.


Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.

FISA, passed in 1978 created an exception to the 4th amendment. The Patriot Act expanded on this once "narrow" exception to cover wiretaps and searches that collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. The Patriot Act also broadened the "Pen Act". We now have a Nationwide Pen Registry. This provision authorizes the equivalent of basically a blank warrant. A court issues the order (blank mind you), and the law enforcement agency fills in the blanks. This is a direct circumvention of the 4th amendment. Pen registers also apply to the internet.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Law Enforcement may now demand personal records held by any source, including your doctor, employer, accountant or library.

What right was violated / taken form you?

The right to privacy. The Government would have to follow the proper procedures. Get warrants. Now.. they don't.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Americans can now be jailed without a formal charge and without the right to confront a witness or view evidence against them.


again not even close to being accurate. Source


Jose Padilla. Look up the case.
edit on 15-10-2011 by DerekJR321 because: Ran out of characters on my response. Sorry....



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Cherry picking is what you ,business men, corporations, lawyers and polititions do to use the foundation of what America was founded on to gain the upper hand over the masses.
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are very plain and simple and it all comes down to interpitaion which seems to get lost by those who seek control of the masses for the benefit of the few.

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.

The american government was established as the highest form of power in america and you and those who seek to take advantage over the people think because certain words and terms are not mentioned in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights that they are exempt from following these fundamental principles and established precedents. B.S.!



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Individual rights are my rights to do WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT if you want to get technical. You sound like you believe rights are given to us by government, but that is wrong. Rights are inherent in us from birth, not because someone says they are, but because they simply are. When an entity seeks to regulate, control, or take away those birth given "rights" then they are "taking them away" and we are "losing" them.


This is exactly what he and other "what rights have you lost?" people believe.

The only rights that exist are granted by government. Should government repeal, regulate and re-frame these "rights" they still exist so you havent lost them. "Right" come with caveats, limitations, and applicable fees yet they are still "rights."

It's the fundamental divide between liberty and tyranny. This way tyrants can still defend "rights" as defined by their tyranny.


Yes, I pretty much agree with you on this. Well spoken.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What's amazing is, I started reading this post, getting upset at you - but I kept reading and kept reading and you started making more and more sense. This is definitely an eye opening post. I remember earlier you and another were going on about the rights to protest or get on a soapbox anywhere and I was so tempted when you asked, 'what rights are taken'? to reply something in kind of, "The right to protest or soapbox anywhere. If you're going to be arrested for utilizing your rights, then it's a right being taken" - but then I kept reading. And kept reading.

I've learned that sometimes the 'cover' doesn't say everything; neither do the first few pages. It's why I personally try to stay in the middle on the fence, one leg on either side, neutral. Even if something prompts a 'need to reply', I'll hold that as much as I can. It's a lesson in being thorough and not reading something initially and replying with feeling of opinion - only to see how off said reply was.

Hope that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

The citizens of this country have stated time and time again what the problems are. They are not rasping the concept though that they are also the experts on how it needs to be fixed, since the power and legitimacy of the government is derived from them.

One would think the people who know the problems would educate themselves on how to fix the problem?


Ah, this is where I think we may differ in thinking a bit. I agree that the power of legitimacy of the government used to be derived from the people. I'm honestly not sure it is anymore. I'm thinking the government has (or at least has attempted) to switch that to the government deriving its power and legitimacy from itself. At least I feel that is the aim.

Consider Obama and Bush were and are as different as can be on paper. But, have any of the things people in this thread are complaining about gotten better due to a party change? No. In most cases they've gotten worse.

In other words, it may have gotten to where it doesn't matter who is voted in, out, or what is voted for or against as government may just do what it wants anyway.

Just as a "for instance" I think you being able to look through my camera if you see me taking pictures in a spot you don't like is unreasonable search. I feel it is a violation of my rights. Now, to get that changed I could go to your superior, hire an attorney, etc. I may or may not win. In any event, it may have stopped you from looking through my camera - or gotten me a few bucks, or gotten you a day off, or even a "Geeeze - why did you pick on that mouthy amphibian?? Next time make up something and charge the !@#$ with it!!" from your sarge.

But at the end of the day it hasn't stopped it from happening to anyone else. That takes a much broader action. It would take voting out those in favor of such things and voting in those in favor of making it against the law for any real change to happen. Ya seen anyone wanting to get in office that would actually lessen the power government? On any level, federal, state or local?

We disagree a bit because you feel the system can be changed if citizens play the game correctly. I disagree as I feel the system has figured out the rules and rigged the game.

Kinda like in Vegas - the house always wins in the end.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Frogs because: hit reply way to soon



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Actually your rights dont give you the ability to do whatever the hell you want. You give yourself that ability.


I m not the one who has no clue on what an individual right is and how it works - that would be you based on your reponses so far. Secondly I deal with this crap on a daily basis, and it gets annoying that people want to protest something they know absolutely nothing about.

As far as the 4th amendment goes let me help you out. If the government wants to search your house, car etc, they need a warrant to do so which means they need PC. Do you need PC to search your neighbors house? Do you need a warrant to search your neighbors car?

Dont get upset with me because you arent understanding the question.


Oh... My... God.

See this type of attitude is exactly why I quit "THE FORCE" six years ago. Too much "FORCE" involved in that line of work for me, not enough rationale or mutual respect. Do you happen to belong to "THE FORCE"? Should I pretend to be surprised if/when you say yes? You're proud of saying that certain things aren't "independent rights", seemingly because it seems to be the only thing that you've been pseudo-educated on at all.

Unfortunately reality comes knocking: your rights are not granted to you by the government, they are in you since birth and you deserve to exercise them -- provided they aren't directly and knowingly affecting somebody else negatively. Although 100% of your human rights weren't conveniently put on a piece of paper before taking them away, that certainly doesn't mean that they never existed; you must have a very bleak life if you think that the only things reality has to harbor are written in legalese and sitting in some archive.

Shake off that government-sanctioned "I AM THE LAW" attitude and start SERVING and PROTECTING already.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So you believe being able to grow organic food isn't a right, being able to repair ones home isn't a right, and being able to trade freely shouldn't be individual rights?

And here's another one for you. It's illegal in many places to feed homeless people. It's literally illegal to share food with people who need it the most. They must depend on Government sanctioned food houses which aren't open very often and are typically in a bad part of the neighborhood. I will give my food to any damn Human on the Earth and I don't need the big brothers approval.
edit on 15-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


expanding on that,

you can neither exchange nor consume self-grown foodstuffs, which may be justified by food safety, but is really just a part of the Interstate Commerce Clause... they're also known to ban substances (edit: i'm not talking about narcotics, just search for 'Tryptophan ban') and crops and will mercilessly persecute anyone who dares to shun established medicine while looking for any alternative.

Then there's always the police raids, frequently targetting random people ('wrong home'), resulting in a fair share of casualties, but the authorities are never at fault it seems. if your rights can be violated at will without tangible repercussions, what are they even worth? if you consider children, does CPS running roughshod over peoples' lives count as a violation ? there are plenty of threads on these subjects on ATS.
edit on 2011.10.15 by Long Lance because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well as of late I think I still have my individual rights, But they are knocking on the door of some.
#1 freedom of speech is being hindered by hate crime laws
#2 bear arms I still have my guns but laws like the brady bill lets the government tell me what I can have
#4 right of search and seizure, um probable cause ring a bell
and my favorite all thou not a individual right
#10 states rights, why is it when a state passes a bill to protect its own sovereign soil from criminals from another country why is it prudent for the government to file suit to derail that law or have its constituents do it for them.

I still can speek my mind for now
I can still holster a side arm as long as its approved by some one other than me.
I dont break the law so I shouldnt fear this but you never know what a LEO has on his mind.
If the government would stop blackmailing states with grants and stop telling the state what to do with said grants or said grants not accepted then your own your own

But they are bills like Rex84 that circumvent the bill of rights and the Constitution all together and the patriot act that is knocking on the doors of most of the basic individual rights that i have.

I still have my individual rights for now but you never know what tomorrow has in store.
edit on 15-10-2011 by ga-`tv-gi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
what "right" have I lost, well for one, the right to vote, those that vote without a receipt of said vote, have lost the right. It's not apathy that most folks feel and don't vote, it's the FACT that your vote means nothing. Prove me wrong.

I have stacks of form letters from my state and federal reps, However because I have never donated to ANY political party, I'm ignored (giving monies to rich folk is just foolish IMO). I NEVER conceal the weapons I carry, yet I am infringed upon often, I have been barred entry UNLESS I disarm myself. (this includes federal parks and lands)

If I want to get my news from alJazzra, I am tracked and spied upon online. (right to privacy).

If I pay for a private plane, I am not subject to the TSA search, but if I pay less for first class I am subject to them.

If I want to privately converse with a someone overseas, I am subject to questioning from homeland security. ( he is my brother and was in China at the time, nor is he on any watch list)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hey there, Brother! Somehow I missed this thread, and to be honest, I only read your opening post. I have just one example for you, out of many, where an attempt to criminalize a right is underway:

Joel v. City of Orlando


Homeless persons are not a suspect class, nor is sleeping out-of-doors a fundamental right. See D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (homeless not a suspect class); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269 n. 36 (3rd Cir.1992) (same); Davison v. City of Tucson, 924 F.Supp. 989, 993 (D.Ariz.1996) (same); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 355 (N.D.Tex.1994) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 859 (N.D.Ca.1994) (declining to be the first court to recognize fundamental right to sleep), dismissed, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.1996); State of Hawaii v. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170, 1176 (App.1996) (noting that there is "no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place" unless it is expressive conduct within the ambit of the First Amendment or is protected by other fundamental rights). But see Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578 (S.D.Fla.1992) (indicating in dicta that homeless might constitute a suspect class), remanded for limited purposes, 40 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.1994), and directed to undertake settlement discussions, 76 F.3d 1154 (1996). Consequently, rational basis review is appropriate.


No fundamental right to sleep outdoors? Huh? Never mind the fact that people were sleeping out doors before governments were even established, now that they are established, at least according the 11th Circuit Kangaroo Court of Appeals, what was once a necessity is now a crime! Screw the homeless, right? Why should those smelly people get any rights, right?

The 11th Circuit Kangaroo Court of Appeals has to have some sort of legal reasoning for declaring that there "is no fundamental right to sleep out doors". What is that legal reasoning? Why, they claim there is "no specific authority supporting a specific Constitutional right to sleep out doors."

This is not only erroneous, and a mistake of fact and gross misinterpretation of law by the 11th Circuit Kangaroo Court of Appeals, it is criminal. The 11th Circuit had to necessarily ignore the Ninth Amendment of the federal Constitution, and since they were using as an authority a Hawaii case, they had to ignore the Hawaii State Constitution that virtually echoes the Ninth Amendment, in order to reach their determination.

The 11th Circuit Kangaroo Court of Appeals has been expressly prohibited from using enumerated rights as an excuse to deny and disparage rights not enumerated, but hey brother, good question, just what rights are being lost in the U.S.?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Read our country's Constitution and you will see that we have the right to avoid unreasonable search and seizure. They don't need to grab your momma's breasts or crotch to see if she has a bomb.

I've got more on this but I want to see what your response is to this.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Actually there are no rightts violations contained in that.

Congress is the body that can decalre a war, so says the Constitution. Please point out in the Constitution where it states Congress must use the term declare war?

The TSA is not a law enforcement agency, and is governed under a different set of requirements in that regard.
There is no 4th amendment violation because the 4th amendment only applies to the government.
There is no 4th amendment violation because the security procedures are voluntary and not forced.
A person is guaranteed the right to travel within a state and across state lines. The manner of that transportation is not a guaranteed individual right. You can fly, walk, drive, crawl, roll, take a cab, have a friend drive etc etc etc.

That is not an individual right.

The remaining bulk are not guaranteed individual rights. They fall under the operation of the FEderal Government.

edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
the right to privacy via the patriot act. we also in a way have lost the right to protect ourselves from any boogeymen since the government has taken it upon themselves to do all of the "protecting".

rather than encourage citizens to arm themselves, they encourage us to "see something and say something".
emphasizing their role as guardian protector.

in the days of the wild west, there was no department of homeland security. there was just the department of winchester, smith, and wesson.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I'd like to humbly suggest that rather than folks challenging the OP to make lists that perhaps you should first undertake the OPs challenge and make a list of your own?





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join