Big Brother - Page 5

Big Brother

This is a discussion on Big Brother within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense RealID is not meant to solve that problem. It is to prevent terrorists from using easily forged documents to travel throughout ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 100

Thread: Big Brother

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    RealID is not meant to solve that problem. It is to prevent terrorists from using easily forged documents to travel throughout the United States. The law was crafted to prevent the security hole used by the 9/11 hijackers. As an additional benefit, it will help employers follow the law as to the prohibition of hiring illegals.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the 9/11 hijackers came in legally, and legally obtained one ID. They then proceeded to get other IDs illegally. If this is true, how would RealID have stopped them from getting in the country and getting that first ID?



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Not anything you do, but anything you do that pertains to Federal law and national security. I have no problem with deporting every single illegal as soon as they are discovered whether they are robbing a US citizen or if they are at their local market. Illegals are criminals. It does not matter how they are caught.
    I agree 100%. My biggest beef with all of these issues we've been discussing such as RealID and searching electronic media, etc., is that all of these mean nothing when our borders are as open as they are. And amnesty for illegals? Why reward them for breaking the law?


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    If that is a reason then we might as well give up on every document because they, too, are easy to forge or bribe people. RealID is far more secure than any form of identification we currently use.
    My argument was against all the people that keep saying these things are super secure. I pointed out some of the flaws in the system. Like any other government document, these will be forged. So why the extra expense and aggravation with all of the opponents of RealID? In less than a year from these being introduced, criminals will have ways to get fakes and we're back where we started.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Actually, the fact is that the Founders assumed only landowners would have the privilege of voting. The original laws of the coloines mirrored that of England. It makes no sense to allow people without a stake in society to vote. It has nothing to do with class warfare. Everyone in America has an opportunity to succeed and contribute. And that is quite different than discriminating because of race, religion, or gender.
    Some people's opportunity to succeed is far easier and greater than others. In a plan like this, Paris Hilton would be able to vote, but someone whose parents weren't rich and had to work hard for everything they have but can't quite afford to own a house yet wouldn't be able to vote.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    The operative words are 'stake in society.' How that is determined should be determined by those with a stake in society. Having deadbeats, welfare queens, illegals and others that only vote for their own benefit will (and has been) causing the deterioration of society.
    Isn't that a catch 22 of some sort? Only those with a stake in society can determine who has a stake in society. What about people that work, but don't pay taxes because they don't have good paying jobs? It could easily be argued they don't have a stake in society. The "others that only vote for their own benefit" can be painted very broadly. I mean, doesn't everybody vote for their own benefit?



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    The privilege of voting is not a right. There is a right that all men are created equal. There is a right to equal opportunity. There is no right to equal outcome. The Constitution is not about rights, it is about the basic mechanics of our Federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to appease naysayers who were against the Constitution. It was the only way to get the Consitution passed. It certainly isn't what the Constitution is about.
    Voting is a right, not a privelege. I have pointed out several places in the Bill of Rights that refer to "the right to vote", I have yet to see you produce anything that says it is a privelege.

    Personally, I think the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution. It's the part of the Constitution that protects the rights of the citizens. It allows us to disagree legally and peacefully. It was created in a way that it would grow and mature the way we did as a nation. Without it, we wouldn't have the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to keep and bear arms.



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    A bunch of strawman arguments. Our society cannot survive when the have-nots can steal the money of the haves. Unless you subscribe to the doctrine: to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.
    How is it a strawman argument? If you can take this right away, you can take others away.

    But what about when the haves steal from the have-nots? I can give you many cases of CEO's getting millions while their employees get nothing while their pensions are robbed. What about big oil? Didn't they get $18.5M in incentives while they're making record profits in the billions? It happens both ways. This is a "me first" society on all levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    As an American, if the bar gets raised I strive to achieve the goal. Since the Constitution, and indeed our Republic, is ony for moral men, your question answers itself.
    Well, I hope you would achieve the new criteria. I hope it wouldn't be something really hard to get like a $50M net worth. My point is that when the bar is raised politically in these instances, it is very hard to say where it will stop. With our politicians the way they are, I wouldn't trust our government to make these decisions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Actually, the Amendments you quoted clearly demonstrate that the right to vote CAN be controlled except for those specifically enumerated. Again, there is a significant difference between discrimination due to race or gender, things we cannot control, and having a reasonable set of criteria that every American can obtain.
    So is it a right or a privelege?


  2. #62
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    SD wrote: "As an American, if the bar gets raised I strive to achieve the goal."

    And what if that goal is utterly unattainable? What if the guys who define that goal deliberately do it in a way that will forever exclude you and your posterity?
    As was obvious to the Founders, and very important in any discussion of the Constitution, is that the Constitution is only for moral men. Only a firm morality based on objective standards will allow us to pass our great nation to our posterity.

    That is the starting point for all totalitarian governments--define away voting rights and citizenship so that more and more of the political out-group can't participate.
    But we are witnessing exactly the opposite of what you describe. We are allowing the voting privilege extend to those who should not possess that right far beyond any rational beliefs of the Founders. They would be appalled at the fact we allow some people to vote themselves money to the detriment of society. It is the main reason we are heding towards socialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism, but rather preserving our Republic.

    Confusing natural rights with allowing people to destroy society is very difficult to reconcile. And make no mistake. The have-nots (I'm beginning to like that term) will continue to vote for entitlement programs and those who promise money for nothing.

    I wonder what the solution is for those who believe anyone who shows up at a polling place (even illegals if they have a drivers license) should be allowed to vote concerning the dire state of a welfare/entitlement state and the descending flush into the sewer of European socialism. Hillary health care, anyone? Too poor to have insurance? Let SelfDefense contribute...for the good of the children.

  3. #63
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I will be able to respond to ony part right no but when I return I will get to the second half.

    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the 9/11 hijackers came in legally, and legally obtained one ID. They then proceeded to get other IDs illegally. If this is true, how would RealID have stopped them from getting in the country and getting that first ID?
    They overstayed their visa. They did come in legally but when they boarded the planes they were not legal. RealID would have been programmed as to the extent of their visa. Easy to defeat if you know agead of time? Sure. Many laws are reactive. But it would have prevented that incident and certainly you agree that many others who came here legally are no illegal.


    I agree 100%. My biggest beef with all of these issues we've been discussing such as RealID and searching electronic media, etc., is that all of these mean nothing when our borders are as open as they are. And amnesty for illegals? Why reward them for breaking the law?
    We found something on which we are in complete agreement. We absolutely need to enforce current laws, close the borders and never offer amnesty. But this does not detract from he vaue of RealID.

    My argument was against all the people that keep saying these things are super secure. I pointed out some of the flaws in the system. Like any other government document, these will be forged. So why the extra expense and aggravation with all of the opponents of RealID? In less than a year from these being introduced, criminals will have ways to get fakes and we're back where we started.
    I think you are giving to much credit as to the ease of forging RealID. And, as I understand it, it will eventually be less expensive than the current paper documents and the personnel required to review your documents when necessary (such as at the airport.) Thos who tout super security, and I have not reas those claims) are probably only reflecting that it is more secure than current technology. Ever try breaking encrypion? Possible, but not likely. And there is no information contained in RealID that would cause anyone to spend the resources to intercept the data.


    Some people's opportunity to succeed is far easier and greater than others. In a plan like this, Paris Hilton would be able to vote, but someone whose parents weren't rich and had to work hard for everything they have but can't quite afford to own a house yet wouldn't be able to vote.
    I do not have the answer. (You're surprised, no? )
    I do not know how to determine whether one has a stake in society. It could be tax payments (though not a poll tax so don;t go there) it could be land ownership or even renting (if you use your own earned money.) Like pornography versus art, I know pornography when I see it. The guy begging on the street corner does not have a stake in society.
    Last edited by Captain Crunch; April 7th, 2008 at 02:03 AM. Reason: Fixed quote tags.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    I do not have the answer. (You're surprised, no? )
    I do not know how to determine whether one has a stake in society. It could be tax payments (though not a poll tax so don;t go there) it could be land ownership or even renting (if you use your own earned money.) Like pornography versus art, I know pornography when I see it. The guy begging on the street corner does not have a stake in society.
    heinlan had a solution. make an enlistment part of the requirement to vote or hold public office. if you won't put a stake in society why should you have a say in how its run?
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  5. #65
    Senior Member Array agentmel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    509
    Look, I agree that most of us on this site currently have nothing to hide. We will continue to have nothing to hide until some or all of our guns are illegal. Then, you either hide them or turn them in.

    As for the convenience thing, that's all good and well if some COMPANY wants to make it easier for me to use my credit or money. It is fundamentally a BAD THING any time government does ANYTHING the free market could do.

    Everyone on Earth should read Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty." There's a whole world beyond Left vs. Right, Repub vs. Dem. If you don't like to read you can get it on audio book from mises.org.

    Mel
    The Ethics of Liberty
    LewRockwell.com
    The Survival Podcast
    How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?

  6. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,093

    Enlistment?

    Quote Originally Posted by bobcat35 View Post
    heinlan had a solution. make an enlistment part of the requirement to vote or hold public office. if you won't put a stake in society why should you have a say in how its run?
    Uh, like VP Cheney?

    He wouldn't have a stake in society? All his millions wouldn't count?

    How does an enlistment give anyone a take in society? I would argue that a guy like Bill Gates with all his mega billions has a very great stake in society? Do you want to give him more votes? No vote, cause he didn't enlist?

    There is a Constitutional criteria to vote. Be a citizen. Nothing more and nothing less. And it has worked rather well for about 2 1/4 centuries. If we mess with this simplicity we will rue the day.

    How do you suppose the disenfranchised would react to their loss? Do you think they would sit quietly by?

    I reckon they'd consider using their 2 A rights? Would a civil war be a good outcome?

  7. #67
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    Isn't that a catch 22 of some sort? Only those with a stake in society can determine who has a stake in society. What about people that work, but don't pay taxes because they don't have good paying jobs? It could easily be argued they don't have a stake in society. The "others that only vote for their own benefit" can be painted very broadly. I mean, doesn't everybody vote for their own benefit?
    I don't vote for my own benefit but rather I vote for what I think is best for the country and my children. I would never vote to put more money in my pocket at the expense of my values and the nation's future. That is the reason voters should be required to have a stake in America. It is far easier to be objective when you are not dependent on the government.

    As to those who don't pay taxes because they "don't have good paying jobs" my answer is they should absolutely be required to pay taxes. It is an abomination that 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes yet everyone takes advantage of the security and services government provides. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. We need to implement a flat tax or the Fair tax and stop the freeloaders from living off the productive. Don't make enough money? Get a higher paying job. Aren't qualified? Get an education or vocational training. The opportunities for Americans are limited only by the initiative of the individual.

    Exactly what incentive is there for someone who pays no taxes to work a bit harder only to have their increases used for taxes? Very little. Socialism, regressive taxes, and redistribution of income incentivizes sloth.

    Voting is a right, not a privelege. I have pointed out several places in the Bill of Rights that refer to "the right to vote", I have yet to see you produce anything that says it is a privelege.
    Actually, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that addresses suffrage. The Amendments you quoted were ratified much later to prevent discrimination not to allow anyone to vote.

    Personally, I think the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution. It's the part of the Constitution that protects the rights of the citizens. It allows us to disagree legally and peacefully. It was created in a way that it would grow and mature the way we did as a nation. Without it, we wouldn't have the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to keep and bear arms.
    So you believe in a living and ever changing Constitution (at the whim of five appointed Americans.) I believe the Constitution is exactly as it was written. The Bill of Rights does not create any right whatsoever. We have the right to free speech, the right to assemble and the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of being alive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.


    How is it a strawman argument? If you can take this right away, you can take others away.
    OK, that is a slipery slope argument. Still, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    There is no right to vote. And even if there was, there is no wording in the Constituion that allows for protection of that right. Except for the specifically enumerated discrimination prohibitions, the Constitution is silent, which means that the power is reserved to the states and the people. And no state constitution protects that so called right, either. Why not have people in France vote for our leaders? Don't they have rights?

    But what about when the haves steal from the have-nots? I can give you many cases of CEO's getting millions while their employees get nothing while their pensions are robbed.
    You can provide examples of CEOs robbing pension plans and are not in prison? CEOs deserve the millions they earn It is called the free market. You, too, can be a CEO if you can find a company to hire you or you have the oportunity to start your own. As far as I know, employees agreed to their salaries. If they want more they can find another job.

    What about big oil? Didn't they get $18.5M in incentives while they're making record profits in the billions? It happens both ways. This is a "me first" society on all levels.
    I think that government subsidues to most businesses should be severely curtailed. But I have no problem at all with a company making record profits. That is exactly what we strive for in our capitalisic society. Punishing individuals or companies for being succesful is unAmerican. Further, the oil companies are public companies. If you want to take part in their success you can buy a part of the company.

    Well, I hope you would achieve the new criteria. I hope it wouldn't be something really hard to get like a $50M net worth. My point is that when the bar is raised politically in these instances, it is very hard to say where it will stop. With our politicians the way they are, I wouldn't trust our government to make these decisions.
    We have the opportunity to elect whoever we want. Why would you vote for someone you don't trust? I think it is very easy to determine who has a stake and who does not. And if you are deemed by society to not have a stake, then simply invest in your own stake in America and its future.

    So is it a right or a privelege?
    Privilege. No question.

  8. #68
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    There is a Constitutional criteria to vote. Be a citizen.
    Can you point me to the clause that describes this particular criterion?

    How do you suppose the disenfranchised would react to their loss? Do you think they would sit quietly by?
    They would whine and complain like a child whose toy was taken away because he turned into a selfish brat.

    I reckon they'd consider using their 2 A rights? Would a civil war be a good outcome?
    What do you mean by 'using their 2A rights?' Are you talking about armed insurrection being a right? There is quite a difference between the right to keep and bear arms and shooting elected officials whose decision don't go your way.

    Obviously, no one is trying to change voter laws. Any suggestion of fixing the problem would result in the have-nots voting against the nation's interests, which is, of couse, the point. Like socialism, once it takes hold the cancer cannot be excised.

    I am only commenting because I see the disasterous road unlimited suffrage causes. It is just one more instance of our nation diverging from the intent of the Founders to our detriment and our children's futures..

  9. #69
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I will be able to respond to ony part right no but when I return I will get to the second half.
    I figured I'd wait until you had it all and respond just once.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    What do you mean by 'using their 2A rights?' Are you talking about armed insurrection being a right? There is quite a difference between the right to keep and bear arms and shooting elected officials whose decision don't go your way.
    I had to steal this one from you and Hopyard. It is my opinion, and that of millions of Americans, that 2A is our protection from the government. It wasn't for self defense (in general, not you personally ) it was for defense from the government. Our founding fathers knew the value of a rebellion against the oppression of an unjust Government. Some people, quite a lot I would think, would view a denial of voting rights as oppression.

    Isn't that the whole point of the comment (and I'm paraphrasing here) "An armed populace are called citizens, an unarmed populace are called subjects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    They overstayed their visa. They did come in legally but when they boarded the planes they were not legal. RealID would have been programmed as to the extent of their visa. Easy to defeat if you know agead of time? Sure. Many laws are reactive. But it would have prevented that incident and certainly you agree that many others who came here legally are no illegal.
    My point is that RealID would not have prevented them from entering the country, which we agree on. Once they were here, yes they did overstay their visa, but if RealID was in place, who is to say they wouldn't have acted quicker while they were still legal? Or possibly defeat the programmed date in the chip on their RealID. RealID would not have prevented 9-11, it just probably would have ended up happening on a different day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    We found something on which we are in complete agreement. We absolutely need to enforce current laws, close the borders and never offer amnesty. But this does not detract from he vaue of RealID.
    I agree on enforcing current laws and not offering amnesty, but I'd go one step further. Don't allow education and healthcare, or any other service for illegals. Cruel, yes. But necessary IMO. These services are provided to them from our taxes. It's bad enough we have to support millions of Americans, and now we have to support illegals too. There is no disadvantage to being here illegally. On the off chance that you get busted and deported, you can just come back next week.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I think you are giving to much credit as to the ease of forging RealID. And, as I understand it, it will eventually be less expensive than the current paper documents and the personnel required to review your documents when necessary (such as at the airport.) Thos who tout super security, and I have not reas those claims) are probably only reflecting that it is more secure than current technology. Ever try breaking encrypion? Possible, but not likely. And there is no information contained in RealID that would cause anyone to spend the resources to intercept the data.
    I'm not saying it would be easy, just not as hard as some people make it out to be. If someone really wanted to do it, and had the resources, it could be done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I do not have the answer. (You're surprised, no? )
    I do not know how to determine whether one has a stake in society. It could be tax payments (though not a poll tax so don;t go there) it could be land ownership or even renting (if you use your own earned money.) Like pornography versus art, I know pornography when I see it. The guy begging on the street corner does not have a stake in society.
    It couldn't be tax payments of any sort because the 24th ammendment addresses that. In regards to the guy begging on the street corner, what if he was previously a contributing member of society? Most homeless people had homes and jobs at one point, but lost them. So in this respect, could you lose your right to vote if you fall on hard times or retire?


    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't vote for my own benefit but rather I vote for what I think is best for the country and my children. I would never vote to put more money in my pocket at the expense of my values and the nation's future. That is the reason voters should be required to have a stake in America. It is far easier to be objective when you are not dependent on the government.
    But you are still voting for what is important to you, what complements your morals and beliefs, so you are voting for your benefit. Others vote for what they believe in, hence their benefit. No citizen votes to put money into their own pocket. They vote for a politician. I've never had the welfare vote put before me. I wish the system was that way, but it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    As to those who don't pay taxes because they "don't have good paying jobs" my answer is they should absolutely be required to pay taxes. It is an abomination that 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes yet everyone takes advantage of the security and services government provides. To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. We need to implement a flat tax or the Fair tax and stop the freeloaders from living off the productive. Don't make enough money? Get a higher paying job. Aren't qualified? Get an education or vocational training. The opportunities for Americans are limited only by the initiative of the individual.
    Exactly what incentive is there for someone who pays no taxes to work a bit harder only to have their increases used for taxes? Very little. Socialism, regressive taxes, and redistribution of income incentivizes sloth.
    It's easy to say "get a higher paying job." But then who is going to work at the restaurants, school cafeterias, retail stores of any kind, or any of the millions of low paying jobs that are out there? High school students? Then nothing opens until 3pm. Pay them more? Then everything costs MUCH more.

    Also, not everyone can afford a better education or vocational training. These things cost money, which we agree that these people don't have. It takes money to make money. Your comment should read "The opportunities for Americans are limited only by the initiative of the individual and their financial means."


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Actually, there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that addresses suffrage. The Amendments you quoted were ratified much later to prevent discrimination not to allow anyone to vote.
    But every one of those ammendments starts with "The right to vote", which strongly implies that there is a right to vote. Otherwise, what is the purpose of those ammendments? If voting is a privelege, why reinforce the "right" to vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    So you believe in a living and ever changing Constitution (at the whim of five appointed Americans.) I believe the Constitution is exactly as it was written. The Bill of Rights does not create any right whatsoever. We have the right to free speech, the right to assemble and the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of being alive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.
    Yes, I do believe in a living and ever changing document. But it is not at the whim of 5 appointed individuals. If I recall correctly, the constitution can only be changed by the legislature and ratified by 3/4 of the states. The courts are only supposed to interpret the constitution, not change it. If the constitution was unchangeable, we would still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.

    And yes, we have these rights, and others, as a matter of being alive. The Bill of Rights just protects them from the goverment or an overzealous majority. Without these protections, our society could/would be as draconian as say the Chinese. They should have the same rights as we do, they are alive. But I still remember Tianamen square.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    OK, that is a slipery slope argument. Still, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
    Yes it is intended to be a slippery slope argument, but it has everything to do with the issue at hand. If you can take away one right, then it can be argued that they can all be removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    There is no right to vote. And even if there was, there is no wording in the Constituion that allows for protection of that right. Except for the specifically enumerated discrimination prohibitions, the Constitution is silent, which means that the power is reserved to the states and the people. And no state constitution protects that so called right, either. Why not have people in France vote for our leaders? Don't they have rights?
    Then because of the specific protections in the Bill of Rights, if your idea ends up happening, women and minorities will still be allowed to vote, but non-contributing white men can't. Their protections are there and can't be taken away, ours aren't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    You can provide examples of CEOs robbing pension plans and are not in prison? CEOs deserve the millions they earn It is called the free market. You, too, can be a CEO if you can find a company to hire you or you have the oportunity to start your own. As far as I know, employees agreed to their salaries. If they want more they can find another job.
    CEOs do not deserve the millions that they get. And I said "get" not "earn" because they do not earn that. With the stock options, base pay, incentive pay, and other "perks", some of these guys make over $100M a year. Meanwhile they are laying off employees, outsourcing to other countries, cutting healthcare, etc. for their employees. There should be a cap for CEO pay that is based on either the company stocks, employee pay, or some other determination. How do these executives get multi million dollar bonuses when their company goes under? It happens all the time and most recently it happened in the mortgage industry. If their salary was so fair, then why do they get investigated by the SEC and congress over their compensation? I don't know the answer to this, and socialism is NOT it, but our current system sucks.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I think that government subsidues to most businesses should be severely curtailed. But I have no problem at all with a company making record profits. That is exactly what we strive for in our capitalisic society. Punishing individuals or companies for being succesful is unAmerican. Further, the oil companies are public companies. If you want to take part in their success you can buy a part of the company.
    We agree on another thing. Corporate welfare should stop. That is what these subsidies are, the same thing we are against for individuals. I also agree that we shouldn't punish individuals or companies for being successful, but it can be regulated. The record profits I mentioned has come on the backs of Americans who are paying record prices at the pump. I know there is a lot that contributes to that price, the economics are complicated, but it is naive to think the profits and the price at the pump are completely unrelated.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    We have the opportunity to elect whoever we want. Why would you vote for someone you don't trust? I think it is very easy to determine who has a stake and who does not. And if you are deemed by society to not have a stake, then simply invest in your own stake in America and its future.
    I don't really trust any of the politicians, Republican or Democrat. They have had a deserved slimy reputation for over a hundred years for a very good reason. The majority of them do what suits their own best interests. They say what they need to get elected, and do what they want afterwards. Lobbyists and special interests seem to have much more say in the forming of legislation than the average citizen.

    I also think it's a lot harder to determine who has a stake and who doesn't. My previous examples/questions illustrate that. You even said you don't know how to determine who has a stake in society, right in this post that I have quoted. (hit "pageup" about 10 times )

    Besides, this is really a non-issue. Americans don't vote anyways. If you ran the statistics, you would see that the poor vote at a much lower rate than those "with a stake in society". More people vote for the American Idol than the American President.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Privilege. No question.
    No, it's a right. No question.

    Maybe you had a Freudian slip in that post then?

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,331
    Right To Vote "if Us Citizen/not Fellon You Have All Rights To Vote"

    Driving Is A Privallige

  11. #71
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    I had to steal this one from you and Hopyard. It is my opinion, and that of millions of Americans, that 2A is our protection from the government. It wasn't for self defense (in general, not you personally ) it was for defense from the government. Our founding fathers knew the value of a rebellion against the oppression of an unjust Government. Some people, quite a lot I would think, would view a denial of voting rights as oppression.
    The Second is quite clear. Protection of the right to keep and bear arms is based on the need to call up the militia. While civil war is indeed a possibility (and a reality in the 1860s) that was not the original intent of keeping people armed. Yes, the have-nots would feel oppressed. So what? They are as capable as anyone to invest in America rather than living off the haves.


    My point is that RealID would not have prevented them from entering the country, which we agree on. Once they were here, yes they did overstay their visa, but if RealID was in place, who is to say they wouldn't have acted quicker while they were still legal? Or possibly defeat the programmed date in the chip on their RealID. RealID would not have prevented 9-11, it just probably would have ended up happening on a different day.
    They would not have been able to change the date but I was thinking they could commit the deed prior to theur expiration date, which was the qualification in my comment. Still, the fact is that RealID will prevent anyone here illegally from unfettered travel. That is a good thing.


    I agree on enforcing current laws and not offering amnesty, but I'd go one step further. Don't allow education and healthcare, or any other service for illegals. Cruel, yes. But necessary IMO. These services are provided to them from our taxes. It's bad enough we have to support millions of Americans, and now we have to support illegals too. There is no disadvantage to being here illegally. On the off chance that you get busted and deported, you can just come back next week.
    We are in complete agreement. Although I would allow for lifesaving measures...and then immediately deported.

    It couldn't be tax payments of any sort because the 24th ammendment addresses that. In regards to the guy begging on the street corner, what if he was previously a contributing member of society? Most homeless people had homes and jobs at one point, but lost them. So in this respect, could you lose your right to vote if you fall on hard times or retire?
    The 24th specifies a poll tax. That is not the same as being a taxpayer. A poll tax is a separate tax that was used to disenfranchise blacks (who may very well have not had a stake in America.)

    But you are still voting for what is important to you, what complements your morals and beliefs, so you are voting for your benefit. Others vote for what they believe in, hence their benefit. No citizen votes to put money into their own pocket. They vote for a politician. I've never had the welfare vote put before me. I wish the system was that way, but it's not.
    I was referring to politicians that promise and deliver money in the form of entitlements and those that vote for them for the only reason they will get money from the government. The have-nots do not contribute. Why should I be forced to give them money?

    It's easy to say "get a higher paying job." But then who is going to work at the restaurants, school cafeterias, retail stores of any kind, or any of the millions of low paying jobs that are out there? High school students? Then nothing opens until 3pm. Pay them more? Then everything costs MUCH more.
    Most people begin their careers at low paying jobs and progress to higher paying jobs. Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this subject. He is brilliant and I highly recommend reading his books and columns.

    Also, not everyone can afford a better education or vocational training. These things cost money, which we agree that these people don't have. It takes money to make money. Your comment should read "The opportunities for Americans are limited only by the initiative of the individual and their financial means."
    I gave seen people work two jobs to put themselves through college. These people are not satidfied being have-nots and better themselves with self sacrifice. These are true Americans and they earn their stake in America.

    But every one of those ammendments starts with "The right to vote", which strongly implies that there is a right to vote. Otherwise, what is the purpose of those ammendments? If voting is a privelege, why reinforce the "right" to vote?
    It is a right of those deemed qualified by the states. The Amendments, such as the 26th, end with prohibiting states from infringing based on specific criterion. If it was a right, as you suggest, then those Amendments would not ave been necessary because they would have been covered by Equal Protection. embodied in the Fourteenth.

    Yes, I do believe in a living and ever changing document. But it is not at the whim of 5 appointed individuals. If I recall correctly, the constitution can only be changed by the legislature and ratified by 3/4 of the states.
    Well, not the only was to amend the Cnstitution, but that is enough for this discussion. I thoght you were referring to the judicial activism see in many Court oinions. I have no problem with the Amendment process. So far, thankfully, we have not that. Not that I have any hope we can restrict the have-nots and ignorant people from voting. In fact, some have lobbied for an Amendment that would protect this [mythical] right to vote.

    The courts are only supposed to interpret the constitution, not change it.
    The Court is not supposed to do any such thing. They voted themselves the power of judical review in Marbury v Madison, the absolute worst opinion in United States history. That the Legislature and Executive have allowed that nonsense to stand is a travesty of our Republic.

    And yes, we have these rights, and others, as a matter of being alive. The Bill of Rights just protects them from the goverment or an overzealous majority. Without these protections, our society could/would be as draconian as say the Chinese. They should have the same rights as we do, they are alive. But I still remember Tianamen square.
    We are not China. The Constitution, and indeed our Republic, is for moral men. It will fail otherwise, Constitution or not.

    Yes it is intended to be a slippery slope argument, but it has everything to do with the issue at hand. If you can take away one right, then it can be argued that they can all be removed.
    You previously stated that the Constitution can be amended. We repealed the 18th. By exactly the Constitutional mandated method for amendment, we could repeal One through Eight, too. So, yes, they all could be removed.

    Then because of the specific protections in the Bill of Rights, if your idea ends up happening, women and minorities will still be allowed to vote, but non-contributing white men can't. Their protections are there and can't be taken away, ours aren't.
    It's not my idea. It was the way elections were held for centuries throughout the world, including the US. I simply support an idea that should return before it's too late.

    Women and minorities and majorities and anyone else could vote if they have a stake in America.


    CEOs do not deserve the millions that they get. And I said "get" not "earn" because they do not earn that. With the stock options, base pay, incentive pay, and other "perks", some of these guys make over $100M a year. Meanwhile they are laying off employees, outsourcing to other countries, cutting healthcare, etc. for their employees. There should be a cap for CEO pay that is based on either the company stocks, employee pay, or some other determination. How do these executives get multi million dollar bonuses when their company goes under? It happens all the time and most recently it happened in the mortgage industry. If their salary was so fair, then why do they get investigated by the SEC and congress over their compensation? I don't know the answer to this, and socialism is NOT it, but our current system sucks.
    Different discussion, different day.

    We agree on another thing. Corporate welfare should stop. That is what these subsidies are, the same thing we are against for individuals. I also agree that we shouldn't punish individuals or companies for being successful, but it can be regulated. The record profits I mentioned has come on the backs of Americans who are paying record prices at the pump. I know there is a lot that contributes to that price, the economics are complicated, but it is naive to think the profits and the price at the pump are completely unrelated.
    Different discussion, different day.

    I don't really trust any of the politicians, Republican or Democrat. They have had a deserved slimy reputation for over a hundred years for a very good reason. The majority of them do what suits their own best interests. They say what they need to get elected, and do what they want afterwards. Lobbyists and special interests seem to have much more say in the forming of legislation than the average citizen.
    I don't disagree that many politicians are liars and they are slimy. But I sure wouldn't vote for one I thought was slimy or a liar. The average citizens (the haves) ultimately have more power than the lobbyists, But lobbyists are an imortant component as they give a voice to specific groups, like the NRA is a powerful looby that represents us gun owners.

    I also think it's a lot harder to determine who has a stake and who doesn't. My previous examples/questions illustrate that. You even said you don't know how to determine who has a stake in society, right in this post that I have quoted. (hit "pageup" about 10 times )

    Besides, this is really a non-issue. Americans don't vote anyways. If you ran the statistics, you would see that the poor vote at a much lower rate than those "with a stake in society". More people vote for the American Idol than the American President.
    I guess we'll disagree whether it is hard to determine whether someone is a have not. I know this person who has no job, collects welfare, food stamps, uses a public defender, has state insurance. She lives in subsidized housing and spends a lot of time 'beating the system.' She is a have-not. Surely you agree with that?



    No, it's a right. No question.
    It is not only my opinion, but that of the Court and lower courts.

    Let's simplify a bit and talk just about the Presidential election. Here is how the President is chosen:

    Article 2 Section 1:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


    In a 2000 DC voting case, Alexander v Mineta, a lower court wrote the following opinion that the Constitution

    'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'


    In 2004 the Supreme Court declared in Bush v Gore that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote in presidential elections." Rather, "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself"

    Voting is a privilege, not a right.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; April 7th, 2008 at 10:27 PM. Reason: Unbelieveably, I left stuff out

  12. #72
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The Second is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms is based on the need to call up the militia. While the civil war is indeed a possibility (and a reality in the 1860s) that was not the original intent of keeping people armed. Yes, the have-nots would feel oppressed. So what? They are as capable as anyone to invest in America rather than living off the haves.
    If the Second was clear, we wouldn't be waiting for the DC vs Heller decision. There was a clear sentiment from the Federalists regarding tyranny and the ability to repel it by the citizens. Many have argued that this is the basis for the Second.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    They would not have been able to change the date but I was thinking they could commit the deed prior to theur expiration date, which was the qualification in my comment. Still, the fact is that RealID will prevent anyone here illegally from unfettered travel. That is a good thing.
    Agreed, preventing someone here illegally from travelling is a good thing. But RealID wouldn't have stopped the hijackers from getting in.

    Here I would like to point something out. I have never said I am against RealID, and I am not accusing you of putting words in my mouth here, I just want to clarify my position. I am not against RealID, I am just pointing out the flaws because I have heard several people think they are perfect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    We are in complete agreement. Although I would allow for lifesaving measures...and then immediately deported.
    Yeah, save their life and ship them out.



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    The 24th specifies a poll tax. That is not the same as being a taxpayer. A poll tax is a separate tax that was used to disenfranchise blacks (who may very well have not had a stake in America.)
    Quote Originally Posted by 24th Amendment
    24th. Amendment
    to the U.S. Constitution

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
    The "or other tax" would preclude the use of any "other tax" as a basis to allow or disallow voting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I was referring to politicians that promise and deliver money in the form of entitlements and those that vote for them for the only reason they will get money from the government. The have-nots do not contribute. Why should I be forced to give them money?
    My point was that they are voting their interests in the same way you vote yours. You just have different interests and morals than they do. Also many haves vote for these people, as I pointed out before, most of the have-nots don't vote anyways so the politicians can't count on them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Most people begin their careers at low paying jobs and progress to higher paying jobs. Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this subject. He is brilliant and I highly recommend reading his books and columns.

    I gave seen people work two jobs to put themselves through college. These people are not satidfied being have-nots and better themselves with self sacrifice. These are true Americans and they earn their stake in America.
    I worked full time with OT, had a wife and two kids and went to college. I know it can be done. It was hard, the hardest part for me was having to call my kids to wish them a good night after not seeing them for 2 or 3 days in a row. I know all about self sacrifice and trying to better yourself.

    But why should it be so disproportionately hard for some and so easy for others? Paris Hilton just had to be born, but others have to bust their hump and may never be able to contribute.

    But it still doesn't answer the question, who will work all of those low paying jobs? Who would want to if they wouldn't be able to vote or have a say in society? The problem would get worse once we finally deport all of the illegals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Well, not the only was to amend the Cnstitution, but that is enough for this discussion. I thoght you were referring to the judicial activism see in many Court oinions. I have no problem with the Amendment process. So far, thankfully, we have not that. Not that I have any hope we can restrict the have-nots and ignorant people from voting. In fact, some have lobbied for an Amendment that would protect this [mythical] right to vote.

    The Court is not supposed to do any such thing. They voted themselves the power of judical review in Marbury v Madison, the absolute worst opinion in United States history. That the Legislature and Executive have allowed that nonsense to stand is a travesty of our Republic.
    What I meant was the courts are supposed to enforce the laws that the legislature writes. But in order to enforce the laws they need to be interpretted. If they were written in plain English it wouldn't be necessary, but the way they are written, they need interpretation.



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    We are not China. The Constitution, and indeed our Republic, is for moral men. It will fail otherwise, Constitution or not.
    No we are not China. But don't the Chinese people have the same inalienable human rights that should be universal? Our Bill of Rights serves to protect those rights for us from the immoral and from an unjust Government. That is what I was trying to point out.



    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    You previously stated that the Constitution can be amended. We repealed the 18th. By exactly the Constitutional mandated method for amendment, we could repeal One through Eight, too. So, yes, they all could be removed.
    Thank you for conceding this point. I have a concession for you too that I'm saving for the end.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Different discussion, different day.
    Yeah, this is getting tiring with all of the tangents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I don't disagree that many politicians are liars and they are slimy. But I sure wouldn't vote for one I thought was slimy or a liar. The average citizens (the haves) ultimately have more power than the lobbyists, But lobbyists are an imortant component as they give a voice to specific groups, like the NRA is a powerful looby that represents us gun owners.
    The problem with the politicians is that the good ones are the ones that might keep half of their campaign promises. I would have to disagree on the lobbyist haveing less power than the average citizen. Lobbyists have actually drafted legislation that has passed. I can't recall any average citizen having that power. Yes, lobbyist are important, but I believe they have gained too much power in the political process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I guess we'll disagree whether it is hard to determine whether someone is a have not. I know this person who has no job, collects welfare, food stamps, uses a public defender, has state insurance. She lives in subsidized housing and spends a lot of time 'beating the system.' She is a have-not. Surely you agree with that?
    But I have you quoted saying you didn't know.

    Yes, I would agree the person you know is a have-not. I am saying that not everything is black and white. I have previously asked about several examples of what I consider the "gray area". I think that is where you said you didn't know how to determine the have-nots.

    I know some have-nots myself, and several that started as have-nots and started working to contribute.

    It does tick me off too. Last year I paid more in income taxes to Federal, NY and VT than most people make. If you add in SS and Medicare then I paid more than the median household income for the country. I know where this money goes. Well, some of it, anyways. Entitlements are through the roof, but it goes way beyond that. Entitlements to businesses and pork barrel projects rank up there with welfare in my book. And it's the haves that vote for that stuff.

    But as much as it ticks me off, I still believe people should have the right to vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    It's not my idea. It was the way elections were held for centuries throughout the world, including the US. I simply support an idea that should return before it's too late.

    Women and minorities and majorities and anyone else could vote if they have a stake in America.

    It is a right of those deemed qualified by the states. The Amendments, such as the 26th, end with prohibiting states from infringing based on specific criterion. If it was a right, as you suggest, then those Amendments would not ave been necessary because they would have been covered by Equal Protection. embodied in the Fourteenth.

    It is not only my opinion, but that of the Court and lower courts.

    Let's simplify a bit and talk just about the Presidential election. Here is how the President is chosen:

    Article 2 Section 1:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


    In a 2000 DC voting case, Alexander v Mineta, a lower court wrote the following opinion that the Constitution

    'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'


    In 2004 the Supreme Court declared in Bush v Gore that "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote in presidential elections." Rather, "the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself"

    Voting is a privilege, not a right.
    I will concede that nowhere in the constitution is it written that there a right to vote.

    But, as we both agree, our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not grant rights, these right exist without those documents. The founding fathers stated that there are other rights that exist that were not listed. I believe, and millions of others to as well, that voting is one of these rights.

  13. #73
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    If the Second was clear, we wouldn't be waiting for the DC vs Heller decision.
    I don't think the Heller opinion is all that significant. Most here are aware of my disdain of the Court because of the power they have usurped from the other branches and their extra Constitutional opinions that transform our society.

    Heller is a specific case regarding an unconstitutional ban on Federal land. No matter the decision (and I expect an opinion in favor of Heller) it does not create or strike down any state law. The Court does not have that power and this case is not a state case.

    The "or other tax" would preclude the use of any "other tax" as a basis to allow or disallow voting.
    But it could be used to determine of someone was qualified to vote. The Amendment focuses with failure to pay a tax, not whether paying a tax is a determining criterion. For example, you are more than welcome to send money to the Federal government even if you are not required by law to pay a tax.
    I worked full time with OT, had a wife and two kids and went to college. I know it can be done. It was hard, the hardest part for me was having to call my kids to wish them a good night after not seeing them for 2 or 3 days in a row. I know all about self sacrifice and trying to better yourself.
    I respect and appreciate your sacrifice and ultimate success.

    But why should it be so disproportionately hard for some and so easy for others? Paris Hilton just had to be born, but others have to bust their hump and may never be able to contribute.
    Life isn't fair. All we can do is try to level the playing field and provde equal opportunity to everyone.

    But it still doesn't answer the question, who will work all of those low paying jobs? Who would want to if they wouldn't be able to vote or have a say in society? The problem would get worse once we finally deport all of the illegals.
    People work to make money, not to have a voice in society. I have said I do not know how to determine the haves from the have-nots. I also said I think everyone should pay taxes. I am not saying that someone with a low paying job should not be able to vote. People who do not make much money are still contributing to society.


    Yes, I would agree the person you know is a have-not. I am saying that not everything is black and white. I have previously asked about several examples of what I consider the "gray area". I think that is where you said you didn't know how to determine the have-nots.
    Exactly. I only know that if we let the have-nots vote themselves money from the haves our society will eventually fail. Not an immediate failure but a slow descent to a place where entitlements will outweigh national security concerns and eventually an inability to defend the Republic. Socialism begets sloth. Have-nots voting begets socialism. We are not there yet but there are two full fledged socialists that are accepted by almost 50% of the population. (But probably less than 30% of the haves.)

    I appreciate the thoughtful discourse. It is much better than the last time we debated.

  14. #74
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't think the Heller opinion is all that significant. Most here are aware of my disdain of the Court because of the power they have usurped from the other branches and their extra Constitutional opinions that transform our society.

    Heller is a specific case regarding an unconstitutional ban on Federal land. No matter the decision (and I expect an opinion in favor of Heller) it does not create or strike down any state law. The Court does not have that power and this case is not a state case.
    You're right, the Heller case won't answer all of our questions, but my point was that the Second Amendment isn't as clear as you had said it was or we would like it to be. There are at least two different interpretations that can both be considered correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    But it could be used to determine of someone was qualified to vote. The Amendment focuses with failure to pay a tax, not whether paying a tax is a determining criterion. For example, you are more than welcome to send money to the Federal government even if you are not required by law to pay a tax.
    Ok, so if we say that everyone must pay taxes to vote, and some people can't/don't pay those taxes, where does that leave us with the 24th?

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    Life isn't fair. All we can do is try to level the playing field and provde equal opportunity to everyone.
    But we don't even try to level the playing field and provide an equal opportunity to succeed to everyone. Trust fund babies are the extreme of this example.


    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    People work to make money, not to have a voice in society. I have said I do not know how to determine the haves from the have-nots. I also said I think everyone should pay taxes. I am not saying that someone with a low paying job should not be able to vote. People who do not make much money are still contributing to society.
    I would be hard pressed to say that someone making $10K-$15K a year should give 10% in taxes. I do think there needs to be a cutoff point. At some point, the individual needs the money much more than the goverment does. But these people do still contribute IMO. They work the jobs that we don't want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Self Defense
    I appreciate the thoughtful discourse. It is much better than the last time we debated.
    Last time wasn't really a debate. I don't want to rehash that, but I just took offense to what you had said. I didn't realize my previous generalization had hit such a chord with you, my apologies.

    This is the way I like to debate. It has been a pleasure, sir.

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    I would be hard pressed to say that someone making $10K-$15K a year should give 10% in taxes. I do think there needs to be a cutoff point. At some point, the individual needs the money much more than the goverment does. But these people do still contribute IMO. They work the jobs that we don't want to.
    The people making 10K-15K are already getting much more in gov't benefits then the 1000-1500 that a 10% tax rate would take from them. Between Medicare, Medicaid, free lunch at school, welfare, and food stamps, they get well over $1000 dollars in benefits.

    Yes, it would be better if the money stayed where it was supposed to; in the hands of those that needed it. But to do that, you have to get rid of the entitlements in the first place. Otherwise, our country will fall further and further in dept.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. ... My Brother's Keeper
    By Lewis128 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 12:43 PM
  2. Gun complaint from brother-in-law
    By dldeuce in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: July 19th, 2009, 03:55 PM
  3. Big Brother for G26 Thanks to the Forum
    By SaddleSC in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 01:40 PM
  4. Big Brother
    By dukalmighty in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 4th, 2008, 10:48 AM
  5. My brother wants a gun
    By Euclidean in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 16th, 2005, 08:33 PM

Search tags for this page

dhs form i-872 and inac 2010

,

how did 9/11 affect big brother government security

,

tennessee ddfivers licenmse 46389

,

the patriot microchip is intended to be implanted in terrorists

Click on a term to search for related topics.