









Comments     Threshold


Thank God.
By 16nm on 9/6/2007 5:40:42 PM , Rating: 5
Let's see, that's one more point for the Constitution column. Thank god for that. I wonder why it took the court so long to rule on this and I wonder how many times someone's rights have been violated in the meantime. Seems as though something like this should get priority one.


RE: Thank God.
By Christopher1 on 9/6/2007 5:54:10 PM , Rating: 4
You are right. That is exactly letting the terrorists win if we allow them to cut back on our civil rights out of trying to prevent terrorist attacks (which are pretty much unpreventable!).

RE: Thank God.
By Dactyl on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
I don't think people read the post I was replying to.


I pointed out a few things:

1 - liberties are always at stake when we investigate crimes


RE: Thank God.
But did you read the post you responded to?

RE: Thank God.



RE: Thank God.






Satire time...



RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.


RE: Thank God.
By exdeath on 9/6/2007 5:56:07 PM , Rating: 3
I'm waiting for a Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd amendment myself.

If they rule against they people and restrict power of arms to the state, they know they will never get away with enforcing it and face possible violent resistance and backlash. If they rule that it's indeed an individual right to bear any implement of the soldier as it's written, government will lose in terms of power over the people and unconstitutional bans all the way back to 1934 being
revoked and overturned.

In typical political style, they don't want to touch it either way.

RE: Thank God.
By Etsp on 9/6/2007 6:25:36 PM , Rating: 5
Regardless of what the constitution says, I feel there are just some firearms that normal citizens do not need to have.

I fully feel that guns can reduce violent crime greatly, and are a great asset in personal protection, but there is no reason for someone to own a fully automatic weapon for any reason. I understand there are many gun enthusiasts that would like to own these weapons for personal pleasure, but the only legitimate function of these kinds of weapons is to enable one person to inflict as much harm as possible.

Handguns are one thing, but machine guns, like the tommy gun that was commonly used by gangsters during that era, should not be placed into civilian hands.

Hunting rifles and shotguns(as long as they aren't in the hands of the Vice President =P) should be allowed as well, as they also serve a direct purpose that does not involve the injury or death of innocent civilians.(unless the exception I mentioned earlier isn't followed)

RE: Thank God.
By whalenapp81 on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
What happened in the UK was:

- Many people had guns
- Guns were banned
- Along time many people didn't have any more guns
- (small) Criminals still had those guns
- Criminals felt having more power because of that
- Crime has risen

Big criminals will allways have guns even if they are banned.


RE: Thank God.
By chick0n on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.


So my point is,
yep yep, look at what happen to VA tech ?


RE: Thank God.
Regardless of what the constitution says, I feel


RE: Thank God.

Do I even own a gun right now?




RE: Thank God.




RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

"A well regulated Militia"

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

How about knives?


RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
By Pythias on 9/7/2007 5:22:25 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree. If the army can use full-auto, so can I. One of the reasons we have the right to bear arms is to insure that in the invent that the government too pushy, we can push back.

Sadly, the ultimate resolution is always force. Fear the government that fears your guns, as they say.

RE: Thank God.
By hockyis1 on 9/7/2007 8:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
"If the Army can use full-auto, so can I"...

Are you kidding me. Where does that argument end? Rocket launchers? Landmines? Hand grenades? Bombs?

You say you need this so that you can "push back the government" if they come after you. Do YOU really think any weapon you have will hold back the Army or Marines IF, and I say IF in theory they really came after you? When was the last time you got into a gun fight with a guy that has bigger, better, more powerful and accurate weapons.

Just because the government has use of highly sophisticated and powerful weapons, DOES NOT mean joe-shmoe should use the same.

I can't stand the use of the quote "A man who gives up his freedom for security, doesn't deserve either" (I'm paraphrasing). People give up freedoms just by being citizens of the US. What's freedom if you live in fear?

I'm no philosopher, but the guy who said that is an idiot, and didn't live in today's world....

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
By mindless1 on 9/7/2007 8:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
OK, and then you won't mind giving up the things you want because someone else feels you "dont need to have", too.

Sorry but that's the opposite of freedom.

RE: Thank God.
By Ringold on 9/6/2007 7:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
No, what I can't wait for is some guy who cares a little too much to use it in the way the founding fathers would be proud of.

By that I mean some man, who owns his own property and is no direct burden to any other man, who is told he must yield his property to the federal or local government on the terms set by the federal or local government due expressly to the desires of the federal or local government.

At which point he then fortifies as best as he can his property and goes out in a blaze of glory. Imminent domain abuse might actually then get a little media attenion..

RE: Thank God.
By Treckin on 9/6/2007 7:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, there were to many inaccuracies in your post concerning both US history and general political science to bother correcting...
Simply because John Locke wrote it does not make it true.

IT EMINENT DOMAIN! Not "imminent domain", although that usage is arguably laughable for the simple pun.

This is the natural course for any liberal democratic society.. a give and take between liberty and governmental power, eventually and necessarily leading towards the democratic ideal - ie. two steps forward, one step back.

And to those complaining of the convoluted bureaucratic process we call our government, realize that the government is DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY to run slowly. Hasty actions make for rash decisions. When you speak of national or international policy, it is inarguably always true to favor inaction over wrongful action, no matter the cost.

Please just attempt to view government through some lens of humility if you can, otherwise just keep the kiddie school Polisci off the message boards...

RE: Thank God.
By mAdMaLuDaWg on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.
By xeltor on 9/7/2007 1:47:37 AM , Rating: 1
The word liberal comes from the word liberty (freedom). Liberal government means balanced or in the middle of the political spectrum. socialism is on the far left so liberal democratic society (moderate democratic society) makes a fuck load more sense than liberal socialistic society (moderate left wing society) does.

RE: Thank God.
By Martin Blank on 9/6/2007 10:33:49 PM , Rating: 2

The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." A public benefit must be stated, and in many areas (perhaps most, after the most recent major Supreme Court ruling over it) the benefit must be narrowly defined within terms of schools, hospitals, roadways, etc.

One of the major reasons that public works projects are so expensive is the cost of eminent domain. In Southern California, building a new freeway costs approximately $1 billion per mile because eminent domain costs require compensating the land and building owners according to fair market value. Many other areas see costs of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars added to projects because of this requirement.

There are occasional cases where people get the short end of the stick, but the courts usually err on the side of caution and award more liberal amounts.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
By weskurtz0081 on 9/6/2007 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Government doesn't do anything at a fast pace. So much red tape that it takes forever to get things done. One thing Congress is pretty quick about is voting themselves a raise. That is one thing that most of them seem to agree on.

RE: Thank God.

RE: Thank God.
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/7/2007 9:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you why its taken this long for Judges to openly oppose it. Politics...Judges get scared of influential powers of the President. Since opposing anything related to the Patriot Act is basically opposing Bush, they fear for repercussions. However, since Bush is on his way out the door, no one is scared of anything happening to them.

...Thats my opinion anyways.

RE: Thank God.




RE: Thank God.








