Freedom

[PlannerGirl]

Ok all, this has been rolling around in my head several days now. Im still all in a tizy about it so forgive me if i digress. and note i heard this news report at 5:30 in the AM on so i did not get the name of the reporter etc.

Anyway-i hear this report that something like 40% of Americans think the Constitution needs to be changed, that we have TOO MUCH freedom!!!!

Ok at this point boyfriend atty and i are looking at each other and the radio in utter amazement, we turn it up and pay rapt attention.

The report was saying Americans felt the 1st amendment (one of my personal favs) is too open and that we should have less freedom of press and religon.

EXCUSE ME DID I MISS SOMETHING? are not those 2 MAJOR tenants of the formation of our contry. At this point ill admit i take a more Jeffersonian view of the Consitution.

Has the radical religous right finaly got THAT much influance? Are people THAT willing to turn off their brains and let someone tell them to buy into all "we are good they are bad" ideas?

*gets visions of "1984"*

Anyone else hear this report or care to comment?

Pissed off free thinking PG

 

[Downtown]

PG, I can't really believe those stats are right! Obviously there weren't any New Hampshirians in their sample.

 

[Chet]

Didn't hear the report, but I guess those are the 40% we'll find and put their backs to the wall when the revolution comes. Sounds like the damned mullet heads don't understand the first amendment. Now, I can understand not understanding Womens Sufferage, but the first amendment? C'mon people...

 

[Downtown]

Now, I can understand not understanding Womens Sufferage, but the first amendment? C'mon people...

Oh christ brian.... you and Prudence are making me laugh too hard today. what is going on in your office - gas leak?

 

[prudence]

At this point ill admit i take a more Jeffersonian view of the Consitution.[/B]

Does this mean you want to procreate with a black slave??

 

[PlannerGirl]

hey the man was a slime and so is his thug narrow minded modern day family but he was a brilliant writer and thinker when he kept his pants button'd

PG

 

[prudence]

hey the man was a slime and so is his thug narrow minded modern day family but he was a brilliant writer and thinker when he kept his pants button'd

PG

Fair enough.

 

[PlannerGirl]

Ok my god a *gulp* republican and democrat agree on something?

stop the press

Thanks Prudence

 

[prudence]

Ok my god a *gulp* republican and democrat agree on something?

stop the press

Thanks Prudence

Sorry, thought we were talking about Clinton...j/k.

It was a much simpler time then...Everybody didn't have a Camcroder, the paper was owned by your friends, and only you and your poker buddies could vote...

I guess I am oldschool...

 

[Joe Iliff]

Words and Actions

I think (and I hope) that this is one of those things people say but don't do, that sounds good but if it ever really came up for action, wouldn't get very far.

Thinking two-dimensionally, it can certainly be appealling to limit the rights (or privledges) of the extreme elements of society, since they seem to be used for destructive purposes rather than constructive ones. After all, we are all taught that the majority rules, so they get to do what they want.

It's not until we look at things three-dimensionally that we really see how those rules would effect everyone in society. The freedoms we enjoy are not so much secured by the rule of the majority but the rights of the minority. Part of the social contract that holds free societies together is that majorities rule, but some rights, privledges, whatever belonging to the minority are sacroscant, and even a majority can not infringe upon them. That's why the charter of our society, the Constitution, requires the approval of a supermajority to be changed.

Polls like this make me wonder if people are answering "Should whoever not do this or that" instead of the actual question "Should whoever have the right to do this or that." That is an important, yet subtle difference, too easily overlooked in a quick opinion poll.

I hope that if we fleshed out someone's opinion more, and began to really discuss the consequences of such a proposal, the "pro" opinion number would begin to fall.

 

[statler]

I think I remember reading somewhere that that survey consisted of a grand total of 1000 people. I'll look it up to see if I can find the source.

 

[Cardinal]

Thanks, Joe. I heard it on the news and asked the same question, "what were the actual questions in the survey?" Of course, the press loves to misinterpret facts, and surveys are far too often written with a bias.

Do you think that the press should report classified information that would lead to the death of thousands of Americans? No? You don't support free speech!

 

[Repo Man]

Look at what the current administration is doing with the constitution...I guess they are part of that 40 percent.

The first step was Ari Fleischer telling Bill Mahr (and all Americans) "they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is" Whether you agree with what Mahr said or not, it is not the governments position to tell us what we can say or what opinions we can hold. The USA Patriot Act and the handling of the Jose Padilla case are just a few other examples of how our current administratiob views the constitution.

I guess I would like to see how the questions were phrased. That may have had some effect on the outcome.

 

[Chet]

Whether you agree with what Mahr said or not, it is not the governments position to tell us what we can say or what opinions we can hold.

Damn straight, jtfortin! The gov'ments job is just to gimme my free surplus cheese and pay for momma's hernia op'rashun.
WORD.

 

[Habanero]

I'm on the line.. there are a few species I've met that I think shouldn't be allowed to speak. My idea: issue shoes to "intelligent" people only, that way, when someone walks up to you without shoes on, you'll be able to size them up right away. Perhaps enforce a "No Shoes, No Service" rule.. like a 7Eleven-
I'd have to say that on the most part, the first amendment should always stand as it was written, but there are always going to be those 90%ers out there-

 

[troy]

I'd like to see "Freedom of Religion" clarified a bit.

I want to be able to express my religious beliefs publicly, instead of being forbidden to do so on the off-chance that they don't mesh with someone elses...and vice versa.

I don't want the prohibition against a government establishment of religion to mean that officials in public office cannot publicly pray to whoever they want to before their meetings or have bits of religious paraphenalia in their offices or workplaces. (I find it handy to know if someone has a similar world-view to my own, or if I am going to need to totally change my approach in dealing with an individual).

The right to bear arms as a member of a well-regulated militia also needs to be clarified.

Do people who aren't members of well regulated militias (army and national guard) have the constitutional right to bear arms too? Or is this a state by state kind of issue? (I don't care one way or another, but I cannot stand the concealed weapon laws here in Texas...the leg says you can carry a concealed weapon, with a permit, into most of the places I've worked, but not into their offices... Either they should be legal or illegal, and I'd prefer weapons be carried openly than be hidden)

I don't want to surrender my rights, and I don't want others to surrender their's. But some bits of the Constitution that made perfect sense in the language of the 1780's appears to be totally misunderstood in the 2000's.

Constitiutional amendments and clarifications may not be needed, but the guidance of the Supreme Court would really be helpful in clarifying some things...

Too much blood has been spilt to secure our freedoms to simply let them be taken away in reaction to the aggression of a foriegn power or in blind subservience to our political leaders and corporate marketing ploys.

 

[Jeff]

I for one would like to see some "Cliff's Notes" for the Constitution developed by the Supreme Court. A definite legal interpretation of what it all means. Some guidelines to follow.

As a life member of the NRA and self propsed "gun nut" I would especially like a definitive ruling on the 2nd. With the 2nd it seems that this interpretation has been given to the states. In PA I can carry a gun (concealed) anywhere I want except for a courtroom or school for the next 5 years (just renewed permit). But if I cross the bridge into Jersey I will be thrown in jail for the next 5 years and labeled a felon for the rest of my life.

Hell, in PA you can carry a gun unconcealed without a permit anywhere except Philadelphia or Pittsburgh.

As for the press, I think at times they get out of hand. They are so pressured to get the story out first, that often times they are dead wrong with their preliminary reports. I know this for a fact as on of my hobbies is reporting fire and police info to the local new stations (I'm a volunteer fireman, I always know what's burning down). They always take a story without all the info and run with it, making details up as they go along if necessary.

OK, the next cube over just asked me if I was typing a thesis, I'm done for now.

 

[el Guapo]

Mike I disagree.

The 2nd Ammendment is to ensure that a tyranical government can be overthrown by the people. Simple enough? I for one will not be bound by what the Supreme Court has to say about the 2nd ammendment. I could give you a long and yes, well-reasoned argument. But I will just say "Natural Rights" and let the subject rest.

It is my duty to my fellow citizens to remain armed. I know that scares the shit out of some of you, sorry.

 

[Jeff]

I know what the reasoning is behind the 2nd and I am in full support of it. I was just trying to illustrate the fact the "constitutional" rights are not equal across the 50 states.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

And yes it is your duty to remain armed. Anyone who disagrees with the fact should read the controversial book "The Turner Diaries." It gives a very good picture of what a world without an armed public could become.

DISCLAIMER: I in no way agree with the views and opinions expressed in the book "The Turner Diaries."

 

[Chet]

Is it just me, or is anyone else having a difficult time taking Mike DeVuono seriously while he uses the fururama-hooker avatar?

 

[PlannerGirl]

yup

looks silly as hell

 

[el Guapo]

Concur

"The Turner Diaries." It gives a very good picture of what a world without an armed public could become.

DISCLAIMER: I in no way agree with the views and opinions expressed in the book "The Turner Diaries."

Simply studing the histories of disarmed peoples should do it.

You are right the Turner Diaries is racist crap surrounding a valuable lesson. If the big day comes I want Jews, Women, Democrats, Lesbians and so on and members all races along side me. They were there in Desert Storm with me and you and they will be there in future conflicts. It ain't about race. Its about freedom.

PS I find Metal-clad spandex atired blonde whores from the future somewhat distracting also. Then again not everyone likes Banditios either.

 

[Downtown]

we need to do a poll on mike's avatar. i cast my lot against the futuristic hoochie.

 

[el Guapo]

On second thought

I never said distracting was "bad"

 

[Chet]

The poll is ready

Vote on Mike's avatar at:

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1904

 

[troy]

Re: Mike I disagree.

[It is my duty to my fellow citizens to remain armed. I know that scares the shit out of some of you, sorry. [/B]

I appreciate that

With my supreme physical health and extensive military training, I'd be about as useful as a Volksgrenadier in combat... I'll leave it to you to defend my rights should things hit the fan.

My asthma would kill me faster than any rebel, terrorist, or tyrant's enforcers...

Maybe you should just teach me how to salvage spent brass, mix powder and explosives, scavenge for food, tend the wounded, etc...

Weapons are nearly useless in untrained hands...

 

[Journeymouse]

Re: Re: Mike I disagree.

Weapons are nearly useless in untrained hands...

The problems tend to occur when people don't realise it. I don't own any weapons myself but just cause I don't want them doesn't make them harmful. It's the person on the trigger (or holding for non-firearms) end that worry me.

...You been for a psych. test anytime recently, EG

 

[PlannerGirl]

Yes its who's on the trigger end of the gun that scares me-

ex husband was a marine sniper, big mean killing machine

totally out of this world crazy-as in he STILL liked to hunt people. he still referred to folks he did not like as targets (that's what I ended up being when I left him-never mind the death threats, I figured id die quick anyway)

now he's a cop that gets off on beating people

the man is a walking lethal weapon and he can carry a gun legally

oh yes and dont tell anyone-hes bi polar