The article this thread is discussing is related to the "Patriot Act" and how it tends to set aside basic rights and freedoms. You are defending the Act; therefore, you are in agreement with Constitutional infractions. Also, you have made numerous comments about the lack of pertinence of a 1700s document to the present times. You have been quite clear that you imagine the Constitution to be outdated. I have asked that you illuminate the portions of the Constitution you find irrelevant, and you respond by attacking my character.
...Bro grow up...
I'm 54. I expect I am older than you. Being commissioned as an officer in the Army in 1972, I took an oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You appear to fall in the latter category.
It seems to me that I handle threat much better than you. You might be the one who needs to gain a maturity enhancement.
-----------
I notice that I answer your questions directly; whereas, you merely engage in diatribe and obliqness. Now, kindly explain how the Constitution, that document from the 1700s, interferes with your safety. Please elaborate on how you believe the Patriot Acts not to infringe on the rights of citizens. Don't forget to address things like "right to a speedy and public trial ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him", "peaceably to assemble", "redress of grievances", "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and so on.
All of those old-fashioned 1700s ideas seem to be seriously impacted by the Patriot Acts. Please explain how this is not so. Halt with the diatribe. Discuss your stance.
Explain to me how a government that fails to close the Mexican border and curtail immigration from terrorist regions of the world and frisks retired Army Generals at airports is even attempting to increase your security within Constitutional guidelines. Then, explain how the government, negligent within its Constitutional authority, is going to improve your security by restricting the rights they are prohibited from reducing. Explain how reducing the rights of Citizens reduces the threats posed by foreigners. Explain how granting tyrannical powers to a government that already shows blatant disregard for its own citizens would enhance your personal security. I'm really interested in your honest responses.