Phillyburb hunters shoots down activist spy drone

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I provided you the highest law of the land.
Now, stop being lazy and use your google search abilities for "Case Law" + "PA" + "reasonable right to privacy" and you shall be given more then I could post.


Or, bury your head in the sand deeper and claim victory.

Your choice, you have the tools at hand. Stop being lazy.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Someone said it was immoral for a drone to fly there. What about the morality of shooting birds for fun.


edit on 11/20/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)


I never said immoral. Don't apply what someone else said to me.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Montana
 


You do realise that the airspace above private property (50-100ft.) is public space? Now what was that you were saying?


Again, this is something that the gov is saying to support their sick need to monitor what citizens are doing. That still doesn't make it correct.The need to regulate the use of airspace does not invalidate the right to personal privacy. You can use airspace to get from one place to another, not to take away another's privacy. The two acts are separate.

You need to understand that government is all about increasing it's own power. It takes power away from individuals and keeps it for itself. In this country the individuals have the right (indeed the duty) to take that power back. And we will.

You keep spouting gov talking points, not truth.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You made the claim. You source that claim. I'm not claiming anything untill you do.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
They are not breaking any laws yet are harassed by moronic people that cry when they get a reaction from those they are harassing.


I guess you are unfamiliar with the concept "activism." I will elucidate (that means to make it clear).

Things that are legal are not necessarily right, and things that are right are not necessarily legal.

For example insider trading is legal if you are a Congressman, but it's obviously not right. Similarly it is illegal to leak classified documents, even if it is the right thing to do.

Thus people try to change the law to be in tune with what is right. This is called activism.

These activists think that these animals are being mistreated, which is currently legal, but they obviously think it is not right.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Explaining a post isn't saying it is your view.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by macman
 


You made the claim. You source that claim. I'm not claiming anything untill you do.


The view must be nice where you are



I provided the means for any and all sources you would ever need.

You refused, you failed.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent


Thus people try to change the law to be in tune with what is right. This is called activism.

These activists think that these animals are being mistreated, which is currently legal, but they obviously think it is not right.


No one is trying to take away their right to be involved in activism. They can do that all day long and twice on the 4th of July- on the sidewalk. Being involved in activism does not give them the right to take another person's right to privacy away or to violate the right of a person to be secure in his or her private property.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Montana
 


You do realise that the airspace above private property (50-100ft.) is public space? Now what was that you were saying?


You do realize that bullets travel far higher than 50-100 feet right?


And how does that change anything?


Well, the chopper that was flying in "non-private" airspace happened to fly very close to where "retards" were shooting lead projectiles into the air at a very high velocity. The lead is not intelligent (and in your eyes, neither was the shooters) so the only people left to blame for this whole incident, would be the ones that flew the chopper directly into the path of a lead projectile.




You can try to play devils advocate all day long, but in the end, the SHARK group was looking for trouble. Plain and simple. And kids, tell the nice camera man what we have learned......

"If you go looking for trouble, you will probably find it" (chanted by the whole class)


They were looking to do their documentaries on animal cruelty. If you consider that as "looking for trouble" then fine. They broke no laws anyway.
Your chanting changes nothing btw.


I disagree, when it's the whole class, it carries a lot more weight. (they can be loud)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wagnificent
 


Yes, I get that part. And I really don't care what they think.
Maybe, instead of harassing people, which is the norm for groups like this, they should work to change laws or get laws on the ballots.
Oh wait, they already know that the truly legal way to do so won't pan out for them, so they just fall back on harassment crap and cry when their toy is shot.
edit on 20-11-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


All you had to do is post one little link to a verifiable source. Yet you deflect and deflect and post offtopic content. Must be a nice view there too?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=reasonable+right+to+privacy+private+land&oq=reasonable+right+to+privacy+private+land&gs_l=hp.3...4044.190 61.0.20227.66.45.12.6.7.2.236.6304.2j38j5.45.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.R8N_ce7bWmo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6d23a3423b8d9e2f&bpcl=38897761 &biw=1366&bih=638


Have fun
edit on 20-11-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Google.com is not a law site. Deflect more?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


The search function, if copied and pasted, will provide you with what you seek.

Is it not in a format that is up to his holiness?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Nope, His Holiness (note the caps) demands an actual source. You just say "it's on the interwebs". Well fine, where exactly?
edit on 20/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


linky

I believe it's called the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Not my cat box, but the litter was sooo soft.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Never thought I would have to hold someone's hand here as much as you demand.

It is simple, very simple. Copy what I provide and paste it in the URL bar and you will get an abundance of results to what you want.

Not very difficult, but seeing as that everyone here in the states can do it, I assumed that someone like you, that comes across as if on high, should be able to do it as well.

I guess that if you can't do that simple thing, all is lost for you and Finland.

So sad, as there were high hopes for you.


But, ah well.


Now, where is that pigeon, I found my beating stick.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

Yes we've done the whole 4th amendment already. Shark is not a law enforcement agency thought.
edit on 20/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


No, that's not a verifiable law either. That's just you posting some random stuff.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You failed to answer directly, my question.

If under your train of thought, the Govt can't remove freedom of speech, but one person can do so lawfully to another. Is that correct???





top topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant