Posted on 09/05/2019 5:56:22 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
“a panel of some sort” <> “a jury of your peers”
Another legend in his own mind thinking that that black robe makes him a terrorist hero. Next he will be asking for his place next to the so-called virgins.
“new law is made at the fringes”
True. Remember when the government only wanted power to kick down doors without serving a warrant and storm a home with a military style SWAT team when there was some imminent danger like a hostage situation?
Now it’s routine because “they might flush a joint down the toilet”.
“But what is the point of gathering intelligence on jihadies if we can’t use it.”
You can use it. You can use it to get a warrant to surveil them, or search their properties, to gather evidence to prosecute them for crimes they have committed. Or you can use it to prevent them from committing some crime they are planning by arresting them first.
You just can’t use it to do something unconstitutional against US citizens.
No, people voluntary submit to those searches.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Indeed it is. At least IMO as I understand the Constitution.
You’re right it is voluntary, I stand corrected.
Agreed. Sometimes good law is made on behalf of bad folk. Miranda was no choirboy.
That is the claim. However, if you don't "volunteer" you don't fly. Apparently, the only people with a right to travel are those who think it's OK to flush the Constitution any time the government feels it is convenient.
“only people with a right to travel”
Being able to enter the secured area of an airport to board a commercial flight isn’t quite the same as having a right to travel.
You can still board a train, bus, drive a car, take a boat, or charter a flight at a small airport without a TSA screening, so you have plenty of other means of travel that are unaffected by this.
Also, we have other cases where you must voluntarily submit to some kind of search in order to enter the premises that are similar, for example, entering a court building or a public school. Nobody argues that you are losing your right to participate in the judicial process or receive an education because they ask you to submit to a screening before you enter. In the case of the courts, there aren’t even any other alternative venues you could choose to patronize instead if you want to exercise your rights.
So do we have to let people stroll into court with firearms in order not to risk endangering their fourth amendment rights?
Sadly, you and too many others have bought into the idea that rights are granted by the government to be recinded at their will. I've come to the conclusion that some people are just plain averse to the concept of liberty.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams, quoted in "Citizen's Rule Book", Whitten Printers, Phoenix AZ
The meme I was hoping for...
Even Illinois Nazis have the same right to Free Speech as everyone else no matter how vile what they say is.
If they actually get violent, though, kill them all and don’t take prisoners. The same should go for Antifa.
“Sadly, you and too many others have bought into the idea that rights are granted by the government to be recinded at their will.”
Well, certain rights are granted by the government, those are called “legal rights”. Natural rights are those that are not granted by the government. However, there is no natural right to enter a secured commercial air terminal.
Right. You keep telling yourself that, so you won't be complaining when they do the same thing for busses and other conveyances.
We have a natural right to travel. I'm still amazed and saddened by how quickly most folk fell for the government's "We'll protect you" line.
“You keep telling yourself that, so you won’t be complaining when they do the same thing for busses and other conveyances.”
You already need to voluntarily submit to an exam, get a driver’s license from the government, and purchase insurance to drive a car. If you haven’t been running around moaning and groaning about how that those requirements are a trampling of your “natural right” then you’re just a hypocrite, so you’ll excuse me if your current argument isn’t very convincing.
“We have a natural right to travel.”
Sure, and you have been given two feet by God to exercise that natural right with. Nobody is stopping you.
I see. So you're one of those who believes the 2nd amendment only applies to flintlock muskets. Good to know.
Listen, hypocrite, if we follow your logic, then government can’t restrict the “natural right to travel” of Mexicans who want to cross our border at will.
Do you support that?
Strawman alert. Every nation has the power to defend its borders. Our rights do not extend to foreign nationals, just as their tyrannies do not extend to us until/unless we choose to make ourselves subject to them. You “argue” like a democrat. Are you sure you’re in the right place?
You’ve self-identified as a cuck for the police state. It’s always good for us to know where our friends are, and more importantly, are not.
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.