Harley Davidson Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Mississippi Cajun
Joined
·
24,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Got this from NRA today. Reading it makes me wonder how much longer we might have before this sort of thinking finally overwhelms this country and finishes us off. This is scary stuff:
_______________________________________________________
According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect citizens.

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.

"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.

"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."

Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,005 Posts
Michael Bloomberg said:
Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.
Benjamin Franklin said:
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I'm sticking with Ben
 

·
Mississippi Cajun
Joined
·
24,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Kainam, I'm with you and Ben, too. But Mark points out that a growing number of people are agreeing with numbnuts Bloomberg on this one after getting that little shocker in Boston. And that scares me to think so many would depend on government to stop that insanity when government so miserably failed on that same issue in the first place. That they would so willingly give up their rights now for that protection that probably wouldn't be any bette than it is today, and then when they realize what they have given up to get that almost non-existent additional protection, it would be too late to go back and get what was so willingly sacrificed.
 

·
Mississippi Cajun
Joined
·
24,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
You would think that such a thing as happened in Boston would prove the government can't stop violence. But no, the government wants more control and less freedom for the individual.


Sent from Motorcycle.com App
Shhhh, don't confuse all them unseeing fools with facts.
 

·
STAND AND FIGHT!
Joined
·
12,808 Posts
Hard as it is to admit it, if I thought Bloomberg's statement had some limitations, I'd be inclined to agree.

Specifically talking about security surveillance here, it's obvious everywhere you go there are cameras watching

but it's not the cops or security people watching the cameras, until after the fact. I might not be against that,

if we went back to the week before the marathon and a news crew had a tethered weather-balloon mounted camera

at the finish line, an eye in the sky, and security personnel also had a camera on the platform for keeping a watch

for any threat to the crowd, some people would point and snivel about invasion of privacy,

but do you really expect privacy at such an event? Privacy to do what, pick your nose or scratch your nads?

Something like that would be a lot more affordable and maybe more efficient, and less intrusive

than security people in the crowd. It's a cinch there will be something new come of this, and there should be.

We keep saying that the sheeple need to wake up, there really is evil in the world, and we/they are not going

to erase evil with regulations on the citizenry, you will have to confront evil directly. Well then, don't bitch

if they decide to be more watchful. A trained security professional might have seen those guys

moving in the crown, I'd bet they'd stick out as acting suspicious to a trained eye.


..
 

·
Mississippi Cajun
Joined
·
24,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Nathan, as a matter of fact, at least one of them did stick out. Seems there was a spectator who saw the now dead bomber #1 and commented to the news that he didn't seem to fit in, like he was not enjoying himself like everyone else. It stood out to this guy, and if there had been surveilance, probably a trained observer would have picked up on it.
I believe that this "Right to Privacy" has already been addressed by the coursts as being situations where you have a "reasonable expectation" to privacy. Being out and about on a public street at an event such as the Boston Marathon would put you out of that category and subject to scrutiny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,005 Posts
but do you really expect privacy at such an event? Privacy to do what, pick your nose or scratch your nads?

..
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public. When you are in a public place — whether walking down the sidewalk, shopping in a store, sitting in a restaurant or in the park — your actions, movements, and conversations are knowingly exposed to the public. That means the police can follow you around in public and observe your activities, see what you are carrying or to whom you are talking, sit next to you or behind you and listen to your conversations — all without a warrant. You cannot necessarily expect Fourth Amendment protection when you’re in a public place, even if you think you are alone. Fourth Amendment challenges have been unsuccessfully brought against police officers using monitoring beepers to track a suspect’s location in a public place.

The pertinent court case is Katz v. United States

Requirements for expectation of privacy under the 4th Ammendment:
First that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the “plain view” of outsiders are not “protected” because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.
http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/05_Winn_Master1MLR40.pdf
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
612 Posts
I'm more concerned with immigration on this Boston issue and someone in authority ( FBI , ICE ) not doing their job after being warned , by no less than Russia about the dead ' terrorist ' , that he had extremist leanings...well DUH ! Not hearing much on that avenue...:bluduh
 

·
Mississippi Cajun
Joined
·
24,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
OT, you'll just love the latest stuff out of Russia that Mommy was involved and is a Jihdist, too. They have her on tape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
If Bloomberg was so sure that this "security measure" would work, why does he need armed guards with him? Terrorist by the word alone describes what their idea is, to terrorize. there is no true way to stop these a$$holes as they want to kill, whether using guns, bombs, knifes whatever! we would have to give up every right there is and we would have to live like robots. that still doesnt guarantee anything except the goverment has us by the short hairs. the fbi had this guy on a watch list and look at what happened, so much for security, huh! 2 words for you bloomberg,[email protected]#$ [email protected]#!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
870 Posts
They should have had drones in the sky.

One to identify them and one to take them out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,414 Posts
I personally have no expectation of privacy in public places and would welcome more cameras in public places. I like having cops around and there aren't enough of them so I welcome more cameras. And put more cameras on the highways to catch some of the really dangerous and/or impaired drivers. In my normal course of a normal day's events I am not doing anything illegal and would welcome the added security of additional monitoring cameras. And who knows, the added security may deter some bad guy and save me from having to justify why I emptied a mag into him.

Beware though as there are places I do expect privacy--namely my home and property and phone and other communications.
 

·
Fla Cajun
Joined
·
25,353 Posts
The way things are goin, i'm just gonna find me a hole an crawl in it an pull the hole in behind me.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,005 Posts
I think there's enough spy cameras already out there watching stuff everybody does. Don't need more. Someone wants to watch what I do, they can use their damm eyeballs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I have no problem with cameras in public. It's the government pushing the 2nd, 4th and others out to make their job easy, that gets me going.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top