Posted on 01/20/2004 9:42:10 PM PST by Destro
He's comparing her 'it only affects others' attitude toward the Patriot Act to the mentality of gun owners who aren't concerned about the Assault Weapons Ban because they don't own an assault weapon. Hope this helps.
So do I. But I think I am. Not worried.
First, I am male, but understand why you thought otherwise. You missed my point. True,it doesn't affect me, so I'm not worried. But it does not stop there. My further point was that neither should it trouble anyone else who, like me, has nothing to hide; and that includes child porn, marijuana plants, et al, which would be discovered in a random search. Unless you truly believe we are becoming an evil police state in which all dissent is to be squelched, which I don't happen to believe.
Did you have anyone in mind? Not George Bush, I trust.Of course one can not be sure that a demagogue will not arise some time in the future. If the past is prologue one can say that we have not had a pure demagogue seize control of our government in allour history, unless you had Clinton in mind. And checks and balances remained in place. And, of course, I am assuming that they will remain in place. But I will not oppose the Patriot Act today, which I consider a justifiable response to a tangible threat, just because a despot might seize control in some yet-to-be defined manner under an unprecedented set of circumstances.
Like those that want to ban assualt guns (example outside of the Patriot act-seems you thought I was talking about assualt rifles in conjunction with the Patriot act) who want too ban one form of firearm today to set the groundwork for bans of all guns later. Capice?
Amazing.
I guess some people just don't need freedom. I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I want the government poking around in my business whenever they want...in the name of 'Patriotism'. It's a freedom thing...maybe you just don't understand.
The Clintons swiped 900 FBI file without an excuse, AND with total impunity!
I can see temporary security measures utilized through the Patriot Act, but it certainly is dangerously close to playing Russian Roulette with our freedoms -- especially if and when the Rats rule the roost.
You call it how you see it, but any President with these powers will be a very powerful one indeed, don't you think? I like Bush, but I don't trust anyone running the gummint, period.
Of course one can not be sure that a demagogue will not arise some time in the future. If the past is prologue one can say that we have not had a pure demagogue seize control of our government in allour history, unless you had Clinton in mind.
Unlike some who would like to pretend that the government is now and is always going to be run by the best of men, I prefer to think otherwise and assume the worst now and then. That means, of course, that even the best are not going to get my support for powers that might help them in their various battles, but better the best are fighting the good fight with one hand than the worst roll into an easy win in the bad one.
And checks and balances remained in place. And, of course, I am assuming that they will remain in place. But I will not oppose the Patriot Act today, which I consider a justifiable response to a tangible threat, just because a despot might seize control in some yet-to-be defined manner under an unprecedented set of circumstances.
Better you're right and pissed at me and other libertarians, than wrong and pissed at yourself and the government.
If you have any trust in the Bush Administration (and this is key), and let's limit it to that instead of some nefarious hypothetical regime of the future, they would not be poking around in the name of patriotism (perhaps the act should have another name), they would be poking around in the name of national security. I don't really think the Department of Homeland Security has the time and manpower to waste on random searches of good citizens like you. Still, as I said in a previous post, we have to make some concessions in this age of the terrorist unless we want to make the path to destroying us easier for them.
A sensible point so long as the "good fight" of the "best," or perhaps more properly, the "better," with one hand is sufficient to prevent our destruction. Agree with another poster that I would be much less at ease with Rats weilding the powers of the act. So we must keep them outside looking in for as long as possible
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.