Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

#52 Feb 21 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
You can't seriously be suggesting it was just benign journalism.
You can't seriously suggest it was journalism at all, can you? I wouldn't even go as far as call it that. I'd call it capitalizing on an event to buff sales numbers. People have been using emotions to get attention since cave drawings. It works especially well on stupid people, as you've so graciously proven. It's really scary if you can't think for yourself and just follow whatever the media tells you to follow. Really, your assertion that people with guns will be intimidated for ownership is about as likely as the government sending out cake to everyone with five or more rifles. Cupcakes for pistols, of course. Smaller for smaller. Realistically however, we know neither will happen (though I'd love to get cake). It'd simply cost too much in lives, PR, and most importantly money. Of course, that assessment requires that we apply logic and reason rather than emotion and rhetoric.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Feb 21 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Unless you had every local phone book in the nation, it would be quite difficult to get a person's number without using the Internet. With the increased usage of cell phones, people tend not to change their numbers as they move. So, the Internet makes it a lot easier to track someone today than it would using the phone books in the past.


Only if they've published that information on the net though. Back in the days before cell phones, your phone was hooked up by the phone company in your home. The phone company published a list of all those who owned phones and their associated home addresses in their phone book. Meaning a phone number was directly tied to a home address. They could not be moved. A cell phone has no innate connection to any physical location (or even to a name). You can easily keep your cell phone number off any sort of publicly accessible list if you want. And if you're really concerned, you can always buy a cheap phone for cash over the counter about anywhere and use prepaid cards to use it. No way to connect that phone to the user at all, much less to an address.

The only equivalent back in the day was to use a pay phone. But you can't carry a pay phone around with you. It's much harder to find someone's address and phone number today than it was back then. And yes, I'm aware that such books were local. But presumably you're most likely looking people up in your own city, not some random person somewhere else in the country.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 21 2013 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
If anything, us non-gun owners should be the ones worried about it. If our names don't pop up on the list, 6 armed men will break in to kill my wife and rape my dog since I won't be able to stop them.
#55 Feb 21 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
What kinda dog you got? Smiley: sly
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Feb 21 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Oops, missed your other post. I'll respond to that later

Gbaji wrote:
Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.


Do you feel the same way about a list of people who have rottweilers, pit bulls,etc. in neighborhoods?

Edited, Feb 22nd 2013 3:57am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#57 Feb 21 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can't seriously be suggesting it was just benign journalism.
You can't seriously suggest it was journalism at all, can you? I wouldn't even go as far as call it that. I'd call it capitalizing on an event to buff sales numbers.


That's pretty naive. I'd go so far as to say that the thought process went something like this: "OMG! That shooting was a tragedy. People who own guns are bad! I know! Let's publish a list of all the people who own guns so everyone will know who the bad people are who, via their stubborn insistence on this silly 'right to keep and bear arms' are responsible for all those kids dying". We've had what? Three different threads about gun control since the Newtown shooting, with the subject of volume of ownership being a relatively central point of contention, and you're honestly going to claim that the publishing of the map was just bad journalism intended to boost sales? It's just a coincidence that such a thing directly ties into the "more guns equals more gun deaths" argument I guess.

Quote:
People have been using emotions to get attention since cave drawings. It works especially well on stupid people, as you've so graciously proven.


So "OMG! Look at all these people who own guns. We need to do something about that pronto!" isn't the stupid person reaction they were going for. Strange.

Quote:
It's really scary if you can't think for yourself and just follow whatever the media tells you to follow.


Which is really funny given that the scary thing is on the other side of the issue. The primary point of the map was to scare people who are easily scared by guns into being more scared about guns, so they'll join in supporting more restrictive gun control measures. The secondary point of the map was to tell people who own guns the modern of equivalent of "we know where you live" so you'd better keep your head down and stay silent while all those folks we've riled up push for more gun control. But you thought it was about sales? Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Feb 21 2013 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
xantav wrote:
If anything, us non-gun owners should be the ones worried about it. If our names don't pop up on the list, 6 armed men will break in to kill my wife and rape my dog since I won't be able to stop them.


Yes. That's also part of the reason why publishing this information is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting it's stupidity is limited to just those things I've mentioned before.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Feb 21 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.


Do you feel the same way about a list of people who have rottweilers, pit bulls,etc. in neighborhoods?


Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Feb 21 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
Three different threads about gun control since the Newtown shooting, with the subject of volume of ownership being a relatively central point of contention, and you're honestly going to claim that the publishing of the map was just bad journalism intended to boost sales?
Really? There's suddenly more news about a topic and you're going to pretend that a newspaper isn't going to capitalize on it to bolster sagging sales figures? Really? And you were going on endlessly about how a businessman was great for the country and you don't even understand that? And you say I'm the naive one? That is so beyond hilarious that I don't even need the next comment. No no no, you're probably right. They were just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts and really really felt strongly about it. You've got much more faith in journalism than I have, that's for certain. Smiley: laugh
gbaji wrote:
Which is really funny given that the scary thing is on the other side of the issue.
Nah, the real funny thing is that you're going to argue that there is a scary side at all. But that's to be expected of a person who has never held a gun in their hands and just press on. But, you know. I guess if you don't think about it, it totally could maybe conceivably possibly not impossibly peradventure perchance happen. Or, you know. The cake slash cupcake thing. That's equally possible.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Feb 21 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Fear is what drives the gun control agenda. Fear of the guns. Fear of the people who own them. Fear that they or their children will be shot in school, or in a mall, or wherever else. Fear. Fear. Fear. The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear. That's why they need a shooting like Newtown to push the agenda forward. If it was rational, they'd be passing gun control all the time.

You fail to grasp this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Feb 21 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear.
Coincidentally, your argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon irrational fear. The difference is that you're the only one falling for either of 'em.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Feb 21 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear.
Coincidentally, your argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon irrational fear.


No. My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein. Among a list of rational points I've made, my argument *also* includes pointing out how irrational fear of guns and gun owners is being used by those pushing for gun control, with the publishing of said map being one example.

Which is why it's ironic that when I point this out, your response is to basically project the fear of the anti-gun position onto me. I'm not afraid, I'm pointing out how knee-jerk reactions can result in an infringement of rights and saying "don't do this cause it's dumb".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Feb 21 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Only if they've published that information on the net though. Back in the days before cell phones, your phone was hooked up by the phone company in your home. The phone company published a list of all those who owned phones and their associated home addresses in their phone book. Meaning a phone number was directly tied to a home address. They could not be moved. A cell phone has no innate connection to any physical location (or even to a name). You can easily keep your cell phone number off any sort of publicly accessible list if you want. And if you're really concerned, you can always buy a cheap phone for cash over the counter about anywhere and use prepaid cards to use it. No way to connect that phone to the user at all, much less to an address.

The only equivalent back in the day was to use a pay phone. But you can't carry a pay phone around with you. It's much harder to find someone's address and phone number today than it was back then. And yes, I'm aware that such books were local. But presumably you're most likely looking people up in your own city, not some random person somewhere else in the country.


The fact that a cellphone is not directly tied to a location supports the fact that it was HARDER to track someone down using a phone book vs the Internet. A person with an L.A. phone number could be visiting or living in N.Y. That person wouldn't appear in the local phone book. Even in that case, the person doesn't have to be "some random person somewhere else in the country", but someone living 30 mins away. Your local phone books is just that, local.

The overall privacy concern isn't with your close friends and family, but indeed that "stranger", acquaintance or someone you abominate. Unless you live in Pleasantville, people grow up and move out of the nest, whether for school, work or personal reasons. Today's Internet allows a person to track you down much more conveniently and accurately than a phone book decades ago.


Gbaji wrote:
Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.


I didn't think you would. People have "beware of dog" signs and it's so common now that if it were made into law, I'm sure the out lash wouldn't be on the same scale. Yet, the concept is the same.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#65 Feb 21 2013 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein.
See, if it were based on the second amendment you'd know that you really don't have the right to privacy in your gun ownership. Go ahead, in the thirty words of that amendment show me where it says anything about privacy. Can't do it, can you? It's not there. In fact, the whole right to total privacy thing is kind of an urban myth. My knowing my neighbor has a gun doesn't infringe on his life, liberty, property, speech, religion, and it isn't illegal search and seizure. But you go back to whatever channel you're watching and let it tell you what you should believe. That's your right.
gbaji wrote:
I'm pointing out how knee-jerk reactions can result in an infringement of rights and saying "don't do this cause it's dumb".
You're using a knee-jerk hypothetical on a possible (and I use that term as loosely as possible) scenario to induce fear in hopes to sway people to your political stance. "Oh my gawd they gonna be scurry to gun ownahs, mercy mercy!"

I called it disappointing in my first post because it's so transparent that it's ... well, it's just sad. I'm sad for you. Keep telling us how "Gubment gonna take yer guns!" is a rational assessment and not one based entirely on emotional manipulation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Feb 21 2013 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I see "enumerated" was on Gbaji's word of the day calendar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Feb 21 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fear is what drives the gun control agenda. Fear of the guns. Fear of the people who own them. Fear that they or their children will be shot in school, or in a mall, or wherever else. Fear. Fear. Fear. The anti-gun argument is completely derived from and builds itself upon, irrational fear. That's why they need a shooting like Newtown to push the agenda forward. If it was rational, they'd be passing gun control all the time.

You fail to grasp this?

Fear is also what drives the pro-gun agenda. Own a gun or you will be robbed. Own a gun or the government is going to get you. The terrorists will win if you don't own at least one gun to put in every room of your house. Both sides use fear mongering to push an agenda and it feels like a majority of america falls for it.
#68 Feb 21 2013 at 9:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I see "enumerated" was on Gbaji's word of the day calendar.
Mine had peradventure. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Feb 22 2013 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Mine had peradventure. Smiley: frown

That does not mean at all what I thought it would.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#70 Feb 22 2013 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,257 posts

Fear is also what drives the pro-gun agenda. Own a gun or you will be robbed. Own a gun or the government is going to get you. The terrorists will win if you don't own at least one gun to put in every room of your house. Both sides use fear mongering to push an agenda and it feels like a majority of america falls for it.


Sort of. There are hundreds of studies in Political Science, Neurology, Psychology, etc, that shot that being easily frightened STRONGLY correlates with GOP party identification. So, it may be that the "two sides" are both using fear, but it's pretty clear that it's BY FAR the most effective technique for one particular side. The same holds true for egalitarian appeals to fairness (even when transparently false) being BY FAR the most effective technique to move Democratic Party ID opinion.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Feb 22 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
LolGaxe wrote:
You're using a knee-jerk hypothetical on a possible (and I use that term as loosely as possible) scenario to induce fear in hopes to sway people to your political stance. "Oh my gawd they gonna be scurry to gun ownahs, mercy mercy!"


Which goes along with my "Beware of Dog" scenario. Knowing who has a firearm can just as equally protect citizens from thefts, assaults, etc. as it would "demonize" them. Don't get me wrong, I think the "happy medium" that I presented earlier is a much better solution than publishing gun owners, but the reasoning used against the publication is flawed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#72 Feb 25 2013 at 4:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The fact that a cellphone is not directly tied to a location supports the fact that it was HARDER to track someone down using a phone book vs the Internet.


Unless "tracking someone down" involves locating them physically, of course. Let's not forget that this whole sub thread evolved out of a question about publishing people's addresses.

Quote:
A person with an L.A. phone number could be visiting or living in N.Y. That person wouldn't appear in the local phone book.


And? How does this at all relate to the subject at hand? If I'm visiting NY, and have my cell phone on me, barring some police agency triangulating my position via cell towers, there's no way to know that I'm calling from NY and not somewhere else. You see how this makes it harder to track people down, not easier? In both cases, I could travel somewhere else and leave my phone behind. But in the case of a cell phone, I could be calling you from my number on my phone, but you have no freaking clue where I am. If I call you from my land line, you know I'm in my home.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course. Why would you assume otherwise? As long as what someone is doing is legal, there's no reason to single out what they're doing, except as a means of making people think that what they're doing is somehow wrong because what they're doing is being singled out. Circular? Yes. But that's how people think.


I didn't think you would. People have "beware of dog" signs and it's so common now that if it were made into law, I'm sure the out lash wouldn't be on the same scale. Yet, the concept is the same.


There would be a huge outlash if dog owners were required to put a "beware of dog" sign in front of their homes. There's a massive difference between being free to do something if you want, and being required to do so by the government. It's kinda the cornerstone of a free society.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Feb 25 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My argument is based on the 2nd amendment and the rational application of the right enumerated therein.
See, if it were based on the second amendment you'd know that you really don't have the right to privacy in your gun ownership.


You have exactly as much privacy with regard to gun ownership as you do with regard to any other form of ownership. I've made this point several times now, but you've chosen to ignore it.

Quote:
Go ahead, in the thirty words of that amendment show me where it says anything about privacy. Can't do it, can you? It's not there.


Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you? Broad principles of privacy as they apply to our lives exist primarily in the fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments, but apply to other rights. The reason for those other amendments is because of a recognition that the inability to engage in otherwise lawful behavior in private will tend to infringe on the right of the individual to engage in such behavior.

Quote:
In fact, the whole right to total privacy thing is kind of an urban myth. My knowing my neighbor has a gun doesn't infringe on his life, liberty, property, speech, religion, and it isn't illegal search and seizure.


If the government habitually tracks certain types of behavior and publishes it, the very selection of what behaviors are tracked will act as a deterrent to the behavior and thus an infringement of the right to engage in it. This is a fairly well established aspect of our rights, backed up by numerous court cases. Making an exception for gun ownership would be extremely odd, to say the least, given that it's an enumerated right, while other firmly protected rights in landmark cases (like sexual activity, contraceptive use, medical procedures, etc) are not. You have no more "right" to have your government tell you whether your neighbor owns guns than you do for you government to tell you whether they are gay, have a subscription to Playboy, have had breast implants, or own a copy of the Catcher in the Rye.


If you think otherwise, then why?

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Feb 25 2013 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me. Just because you have a weak argument doesn't mean I'm going to strengthen it for you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75 Feb 25 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me.


So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information? It can publish your medical records? It can publish subscription lists? If you're ok with this then your argument is at least consistent (and you're arguing that there's no right to privacy), but I think that most people will disagree with you.

Quote:
Just because you have a weak argument doesn't mean I'm going to strengthen it for you.


Well over a century of supreme court rulings say my argument isn't weak at all.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Feb 25 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Go ahead and do the same with the 1st amendment. Can't do it, can you?
Why would I? You're the one pretending there's a right to privacy, not me.


So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information? It can publish your medical records? It can publish subscription lists? If you're ok with this then your argument is at least consistent, but I think that most people will disagree with you.

Just tell the little people it protects them from the terrorists and it'll be fine. Smiley: tinfoilhat


Edited, Feb 25th 2013 2:54pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#77 Feb 25 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not to mention the obvious, but the reason we have laws such as HIPAA is because there isn't any such innate privacy spelled out in the First Amendment. Likewise, police wiretapping is afoul of the Fourth Amendment but laws prohibiting me from wiretapping your phone are separately created creatures. [Edit to add: Of course, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to me anyway since I'm not the government]

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 5:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Feb 25 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information?
If it can be taken away at all, it isn't a right. It's a privilege. It's really something that naive high school kids fall for.

But let's get to the brass tacks to what really is going on here. You're trying to broaden your argument from "IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!" to the entirety of the constitution, and not only that but you're trying to change it from the constitution itself to someone else's interpretation of the constitution hundreds of years later. Which, you know, can change at any point and isn't written in stone so your crying about it is highly amusing.

So is this the point where you shotgun other vaguely similar arguments instead of answering the original point and hope no one notices?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Feb 25 2013 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,929 posts
Quote:
There would be a huge outlash if dog owners were required to put a "beware of dog" sign in front of their homes. There's a massive difference between being free to do something if you want, and being required to do so by the government. It's kinda the cornerstone of a free society.


How about we make this apples to apples like changing the sign requirement to requiring dogs to be licensed with the Gov't.

And hey, look there is such a requirement, at least out here.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#80 Feb 25 2013 at 5:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not to mention the obvious, but the reason we have laws such as HIPAA is because there isn't any such innate privacy spelled out in the First Amendment. Likewise, police wiretapping is afoul of the Fourth Amendment but laws prohibiting me from wiretapping your phone are separately created creatures.


Yes. But I'm sure you'd agree that the government could not get around the fourth amendment by engaging in wiretapping, but then handing that information to private parties so that *they* could then use it in some way, right? Let's not forget that we're not talking about a private party sending out a survey and asking people about their gun ownership and then publishing the results. That would, as you say, be covered under a different section of our law. But in this case we're talking about a government registration which is a requirement to own a firearm (which we have a right to do), which is then handed to private parties without the consent of those who were forced to hand over that information in order to exercise their right in the first place.


As I've said a couple times already, the courts have consistently ruled that this sort of use of information absolutely does constitute an infringement of whatever rights are involved. If you argue that it doesn't in the case of firearms, you either need to argue that the court is wrong in that it also doesn't infringe applicable rights in the case of medical information, sexual activity, subscriptions to periodicals, associations, etc *or* that firearms somehow represent a special case which makes such infringement necessary. I think the latter is a difficult argument given the enumerated right aspect of firearm ownership, but you're free to try to make that case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Feb 25 2013 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But I'm sure you'd agree that the government could not get around the fourth amendment by engaging in wiretapping, but then handing that information to private parties so that *they* could then use it in some way, right?

Right. Because the wiretapping itself is an illegal search per the courts. But even that is fairly recent. For much of the 20th century, wiretapping by the police didn't require a warrant.

Look, you picked a really poor example. Dust yourself off, admit you were wrong and try something else.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 6:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Feb 25 2013 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,740 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
There would be a huge outlash if dog owners were required to put a "beware of dog" sign in front of their homes. There's a massive difference between being free to do something if you want, and being required to do so by the government. It's kinda the cornerstone of a free society.


How about we make this apples to apples like changing the sign requirement to requiring dogs to be licensed with the Gov't.

And hey, look there is such a requirement, at least out here.


Here as well. And they patrol looking for houses with dogs outside that aren't licensed.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#83 Feb 25 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're arguing there isn't a right to privacy when it comes to speech (or any other action)? So the government can wiretap your phone without a warrant and then publish that information?
If it can be taken away at all, it isn't a right. It's a privilege.


Wrong. If you were correct, then we have no rights at all (since all rights can be infringed to some degree and under some circumstances). The word has no meaning if used that way.

Quote:
It's really something that naive high school kids fall for.


No. You're expressing a viewpoint that is based on a false understanding of rights deliberately fostered in order to encourage the acceptance of a "rights are what we want them to be" philosophy. By claiming that rights are absolute you can simultaneously declare anything we do infringe as not really being a right at all (just as you're doing here) and insisting that those things we think should be rights can't be infringed even a tiny bit. Which leads us to ridiculous results like insisting that parents can't know (much less have any say in) whether their minor child is seeking an abortion but gun owners names and addresses should be freely available to the general public.

You can only adopt both of those via a completely arbitrary use of the term "right".

Quote:
But let's get to the brass tacks to what really is going on here. You're trying to broaden your argument from "IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!" to the entirety of the constitution, and not only that but you're trying to change it from the constitution itself to someone else's interpretation of the constitution hundreds of years later. Which, you know, can change at any point and isn't written in stone so your crying about it is highly amusing.


Huh? I'm simply suggesting that if we already accept that certain privacy rules apply to rights that are not enumerated in the constitution itself, we really ought to apply them doubly so to those that are. If we accept that having the government track and publish the names of people who have subscriptions to Playboy represents an infringement of the rights of Playboy to speech and the rights of the owners to association/action, then we must accept that the same is true with regards to gun ownership. Claiming that "no one should be afraid of having the fact that they're a gun owner made public" applies no more in this case than saying that "no one should be afraid of having the fact that they subscribe to Playboy made public" does.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Feb 25 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
The word has no meaning if used that way.
Oh, it has plenty of meaning. It's simply political semantics. It's what people of slightly above average intelligence use to get people of vastly below intelligence to do their bidding. It works wonders in religion as well. It is funny though. If it were rights, then everyone would have them but they're so easy to lose. Funny that.

But that's neither here nor there in your shotgunning. Or should we call it running from the original point at this point? Still got nothing tying right to privacy and the second amendment other than the broadest of broad semantic brush strokes?

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 7:36pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Feb 25 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. But I'm sure you'd agree that the government could not get around the fourth amendment by engaging in wiretapping, but then handing that information to private parties so that *they* could then use it in some way, right?

Right. Because the wiretapping itself is an illegal search per the courts. But even that is fairly recent. For much of the 20th century, wiretapping by the police didn't require a warrant.


So is searching someone's house to see what weapons they have (without a warrant). I'm assuming you would oppose a law that required everyone to "register" their speech by installing a camera and recording everything they do in their home and sending that information to the government, right? That would not be wiretapping in the same way that requiring registration of firearms isn't searching a home to look for them without a warrant. If the government simply collects all data about everything people do all the time as a requirement, then you've essentially made an end run around the fourth amendment. Which was the point I was making, which apparently soared right over your head.

Quote:
Look, you picked a really poor example. Dust yourself off, admit you were wrong and try something else.


I've used several examples in several different context. You've just chosen to zero in on one aspect of one of them Joph. And done so in a pretty silly way to boot.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 4:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Feb 25 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The word has no meaning if used that way.
Oh, it has plenty of meaning. It's simply political semantics. It's what people of slightly above average intelligence use to get people of vastly below intelligence to do their bidding.


Which is funny given that you believe that because you've been taught it by those taking advantage of those with below average intelligence to effectively get you to accept whatever agenda they put in front of you. What does that make you? A sucker.

Intelligent people understand what rights are, understand that they aren't immutable, and therefor understand under which conditions we should or should not allow them to be infringed. They also understand the desire by some to convince the unintelligent that rights are absolute and therefor if they're infringed they aren't really rights, but if we call them rights then they must not be infringed. We understand that they do this to people like you so that you'll buy an absolute right to have an abortion, or receive health care, or food stamps, or whatever thing they decide you should support, while also also getting you to downplay the importance of things they want you to oppose.

Quote:
If it were rights, then everyone would have them but they're so easy to lose. Funny that.


The very fact that you worded it that way shows you have no clue what rights are or how they work within a societal framework. It's not about absolutes. It can't be,. The very act of forming a society requires that rights be infringed. The importance of rights isn't the assumption that they are absolute, but so that a free society may know what things to infringe the least and when/why to infringe them. When you lose sight of this, you're lost and will soon no longer have a free society because you no longer know what things make a society "free" in the first place.

Quote:
But that's neither here nor there in your shotgunning. Or should we call it running from the original point at this point? Still got nothing tying right to privacy and the second amendment other than the broadest of broad semantic brush strokes?


There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else. If you argue that it doesn't exist for gun ownership, then it also does not exist for medical records, subscriptions to magazines, association, and any other activity you engage in. Again, you're free to either argue for that, or to argue that firearm ownership is somehow special and should not deserve the same protection as those other things, but you've failed to do either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Feb 25 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
gbaji wrote:

Which is funny given that you believe that because you've been taught it by those taking advantage of those with below average intelligence to effectively get you to accept whatever agenda they put in front of you. What does that make you? A sucker.
Smiley: lol

Someone should sig that.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#88 Feb 25 2013 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not about absolutes.
Exactly, which is why they're really "privileges." Already mentioned that, keep up. "Rights" just sounds better, and idiots like you eat it up. Calling it such makes it sound like someone really really important, like a God or something, gave it to you. That's kind of the whole point. Seriously, it's like you don't understand how society or politics works at all or something, and have stopped trying at grade school.
gbaji wrote:
There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else.
A vague non-answer. Surprise, surprise.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 7:55pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Feb 25 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else. If you argue that it doesn't exist for gun ownership, then it also does not exist for medical records, subscriptions to magazines, association, and any other activity you engage in.
If you think that your medical records, subscriptions to magazines, association, and any other activity you engage in are all private, you're kind of stupid, gbaji. They're not.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#90 Feb 25 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Unless "tracking someone down" involves locating them physically, of course. Let's not forget that this whole sub thread evolved out of a question about publishing people's addresses.


The overall privacy concern isn't with your close friends and family, but indeed that "stranger", acquaintance or someone you abominate. Unless you live in Pleasantville, people grow up and move out of the nest, whether for school, work or personal reasons. Today's Internet allows a person to track you down much more conveniently and accurately than a phone book decades ago. If I know that you moved from L.A. to Nashville, I have a much better chance of getting your address than you would with a L.A. phone book.

Gbaji wrote:
And? How does this at all relate to the subject at hand?

Gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that this whole sub thread evolved out of a question about publishing people's addresses.


Gbaji wrote:
If I'm visiting NY, and have my cell phone on me, barring some police agency triangulating my position via cell towers, there's no way to know that I'm calling from NY and not somewhere else. You see how this makes it harder to track people down, not easier?

If I know that you moved from L.A. to Nashville, I have a much better chance of getting your address than you would with a L.A. phone book in L.A.

Gbaji wrote:
In both cases, I could travel somewhere else and leave my phone behind. But in the case of a cell phone, I could be calling you from my number on my phone, but you have no freaking clue where I am. If I call you from my land line, you know I'm in my home.


If you have caller ID, then the caller has *69. How can you differentiate a land line number from a cell phone number? They both have the same area code. Unless, someone is calling within a 10 mile radius, a land line phone can look just like a cellphone number. In any case, we're talking about the ability to find a person's address not a land line vs cell phone. Your only tool of argument is a phone book, as that was the tool in question decades ago.

Gbaji wrote:
There would be a huge outlash if dog owners were required to put a "beware of dog" sign in front of their homes. There's a massive difference between being free to do something if you want, and being required to do so by the government. It's kinda the cornerstone of a free society.


You're right that there is a difference between being free to do something if you want and being required to do so, but you're sadly in denial if you think that there would be a "huge outlash" for mandating a "beware of dog" sign. There are already policies for home visits, i.e. mail deliveries, with homes with dogs. So, if USPS (the government) already have policies on delivering mail to people with dogs, what makes you think that it would be a stretch to mandate a "Beware of Dog" sign?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#91 Feb 25 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,639 posts
In order to exercise my right to vote, I have to register with the government. I found out today that if I went down to the court and filed out a form, for $100 I can get a list of the names (maybe addresses too?) of every single individual registered to vote in my county. A quick Google search tells me that it would "make more sense" for me to go through a third party provider, as the county won't include phone numbers but the third party will.

I haven't looked I to this, but I'm willing to bet that I could visit the county, fill out a similar form, and find out who has an alarm registered to their property. There's most likely a form to find out what cars are registered in the county and to whom.

I'm not sure why this is any different from registering to own a firearm. I mean, these lists have not stopped people from registering to vote, buying big expensive cars, or putting in an alarm system.
#92 Feb 25 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about absolutes.
Exactly, which is why they're really "privileges." Already mentioned that, keep up.


I know you mentioned this before. And you were wrong then, just as you are this time around. Rights have a very specific meaning. They are those things you could do absent someone else denying you permission to do them (ie: no laws preventing it). Privileges are completely different. Those are things that are granted to you via some law or construct of law.

Free speech is a right because I'm free to speak unless someone passes a law that penalizes me for doing so. Similarly, owning guns is a right because I'm free to do that absent some law. Same thing with owning fuzzy bunny slippers. Unless someone passes a law infringing a right, that right exists, whether enumerated or not.

Privileges are legal constructs. Interestingly enough, while Smash used the term "enfranchised right" in the other thread, he really meant "privilege". Voting is actually not a right even though it's often called such. You don't normally get to vote and require everyone to comply with the results of the vote absent a law or rule saying that is the case. Complete freedom would entail us all doing whatever we wanted regardless of what other folks wanted us to do. Giving the government power to infringe our rights to some degree is necessary for a society to work at all. Using votes as a method to determine what laws should be passed by that government is one means of minimizing the degree of infringement. Um... Which is why we should treat it that way instead of thinking of it as a "majority gets what they want" tool.

Quote:
"Rights" just sounds better, and idiots like you eat it up.


You mean idiots who insist that universal health care is a right, and welfare assistance is a right, and education is a right. Those idiots? Cause those aren't me btw. I know exactly what rights are and what they aren't. It's usually the other side of the political spectrum that runs around labeling everything they want to do as a right (see "positive rights").

Quote:
Calling it such makes it sound like someone really really important, like a God or something, gave it to you. That's kind of the whole point. Seriously, it's like you don't understand how society or politics works at all or something, and have stopped trying at grade school.


This is precisely the methodology used by the modern left to get people to support their agenda. They call things rights in order to get people to place weight on them, even when the things being so labeled are not rights at all. I'm the one usually making that argument, so it's a bit bizarre for you to try to ascribe that to me.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else.
A vague non-answer. Surprise, surprise.


It's not vague at all. Do you believe that there is any right to privacy in any of the other things I've mentioned? If so, but you insist that it shouldn't with regard to firearms, then you need to make a case why. If you don't, then that's fine, but I'm sure most people disagree with you. This is like the third time I've pointed this out, yet you've refused to actually state if you think that those other areas have any degree of protection, so I can't really argue against your position, since I don't know what it is.

You could clarify that if you wanted to, but you seem to be the one who loves to live in the land of the vague. Where do you stand on privacy?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Feb 25 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So is searching someone's house to see what weapons they have (without a warrant). I'm assuming you would oppose a law that required everyone to "register" their speech by installing a camera and recording everything they do in their home and sending that information to the government, right?

Right. Because no one murders twenty children at a time by talking them to death, no matter how you remember Freshman Biology. I do, however, accept numerous restrictions upon our First Amendment rights. For instance, I'm against ritualistic sacrifice of children even if it's within someone's religious beliefs.
Quote:
Which was the point I was making, which apparently soared right over your head.

mmhmmm....

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Feb 25 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There is as much tying the idea of a right to privacy to the 2nd amendment as there is to anything else. If you argue that it doesn't exist for gun ownership, then it also does not exist for medical records, subscriptions to magazines, association, and any other activity you engage in.
If you think that your medical records, subscriptions to magazines, association, and any other activity you engage in are all private, you're kind of stupid, gbaji. They're not.


They are to the degree that anything is "private". The government cannot force a magazine to disclose its subscription list absent a warrant and sufficient cause. Same deal with club memberships, medical records, etc. And in many of those cases, even if the government does obtain information from such organizations, it's not allowed to disclose that to a third party. I already said that the degree to which private entities themselves may or may not keep client information private is a separate issue. We're talking here about the government disclosing information which it required citizens to provide it by the mere act of exercising an enumerated right.


That's a problem IMO. Would you be ok with the government passing a law that required you to inform it of any magazines you subscribed to? Probably not, right? Yet, subscribing to a magazine, while absolutely a right, is not an enumerated right. If we assume that we enumerated certain rights because those were the ones we were most concerned about being infringed, then isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we be much more outraged at the requirement when applied to gun ownership? Yes, we should.

And for the historically challenged, we have been all along. Gun registrations were accepted by the public on the grounds that they were necessary to aid in law enforcement with regard to the illegal use of firearms. So that if a gun were stolen, it could be returned to the proper owner, and if a gun were used in a crime, it could be more easily tracked to the owner. Such registration lists were not to be used for any purpose other than law enforcement. Yet, somewhere along the line, that changed and now apparently any newspaper can file a FOIA request and get a full list of all registered gun owners in a given area.

Which was not the intent of either law and is why so many people are upset about this and looking to pass legislation preventing that. The public would never have allowed gun registration in the first place if it had know that it would be used this way.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Feb 25 2013 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's safe to say that the intent of ANY data or information collection by the government isn't so someone can file an FOIA. Rather, we can file FOIA's to see what the government has in their files in the name of transparency. As I said back on page one, that you're opposed to this boggles my mind.
Quote:
why so many people are upset about this and looking to pass legislation preventing that

To actively **** on the First Amendment to prevent a pretend violation of the Second in the name of politics?

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 8:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Feb 25 2013 at 8:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So is searching someone's house to see what weapons they have (without a warrant). I'm assuming you would oppose a law that required everyone to "register" their speech by installing a camera and recording everything they do in their home and sending that information to the government, right?

Right. Because no one murders twenty children at a time by talking them to death, no matter how you remember Freshman Biology.


Irrelevant. The second amendment already assumes that firearms are deadly weapons and despite that provides significant protection for the ownership and carrying of them. Arguing that we should ignore or lessen the 2nd amendment's importance because guns are deadly and words aren't is not a good argument.

Quote:
I do, however, accept numerous restrictions upon our First Amendment rights. For instance, I'm against ritualistic sacrifice of children even if it's within someone's religious beliefs.


And yet, I assume you would not accept a government mandate that required everyone to install and maintain video surveillance of themselves continually fed to the government on the off chance that someone might plan to commit child sacrifice. I mean, think how much more easy it would be to prevent all acts of violence, child molestation, hate crimes, etc if only we required that everyone be watched every moment of every day. That would be a safer society, but it would be a vastly less free one.

And as a matter of degrees, while you could make the argument that we might be a safer society with gun registration and much more stringent controls and ownership rules, we would be a less free society as well. I'd rather live in a more free society instead of a more safe society. If for no other reason than there's no boundary to what freedoms can be infringed in the name of security given enough time and application of the argument in the other direction.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Feb 25 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's safe to say that the intent of ANY data or information collection by the government isn't so someone can file an FOIA. Rather, we can file FOIA's to see what the government has in their files in the name of transparency. As I said back on page one, that you're opposed to this boggles my mind.


And as I said back on page one, the FOIA was intended for the people to keep tabs on what the government is doing, not what information the government has collected about other people. How on earth does publishing a list of registered gun owners in an area constitute "transparency"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Feb 25 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
******
43,461 posts
gbaji wrote:
Those idiots?
Them too, yes.
gbaji wrote:
Cause those aren't me btw.
Didn't say it was. Feeling guilty? Or did you think I'd argue against my own point and had to throw a preemptive "NOT ME!" in there? Them being idiots doesn't mean you're not an idiot as well. Just because you're easily fooled doesn't mean everyone is. But hey, way to argue how bad "labeling" is while going out of your way to do so about me. Smiley: laugh It's like you're actively trying to dismantle your own arguments. You're such a simpleton that you believe that anyone that doesn't agree with you must be a Democrat, so you have fun with that*.
gbaji wrote:
This is precisely the methodology used by the modern left to get people to support their agenda. They call things rights in order to get people to place weight on them, even when the things being so labeled are not rights at all.
It's what you're doing. Crying about make believe "rights" to further your agenda. By your own argument that means you're a modern liberal. Congratulations, Obamalover.
gbaji wrote:
Where do you stand on privacy?
You know what the amazing thing about text is? It doesn't really go away. You asking the question is cute of you, since it's the point that got you into your newest weak argument in the first place. If you need help reading it, ask. Though, I guess it would explain why you're so easily fooled by political double talk in the first place. Smiley: smile

Anyway, privacy (and double for your right to it) is more make believe than your right to free speech.

* I know, I know. You're just being a contrarian, and the majority of this site do lean left and it's just simpler for you to label everyone as such. You lack the intellect to multitask. Hell, you seem to lack the intellect to singletask at times. As you've said yourself, if this were a more right leaning site you'd be arguing as the left. Paraphrased.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Feb 25 2013 at 8:53 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,740 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It's safe to say that the intent of ANY data or information collection by the government isn't so someone can file an FOIA. Rather, we can file FOIA's to see what the government has in their files in the name of transparency. As I said back on page one, that you're opposed to this boggles my mind.


And as I said back on page one, the FOIA was intended for the people to keep tabs on what the government is doing, not what information the government has collected about other people. How on earth does publishing a list of registered gun owners in an area constitute "transparency"?


Without publishing the list, you wouldn't know exactly what the government knows, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Seems pretty much the idea of "transparency" to me.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#100 Feb 25 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
LolGAXE wrote:
Exactly, which is why they're really "privileges." Already mentioned that, keep up. "Rights" just sounds better, and idiots like you eat it up. Calling it such makes it sound like someone really really important, like a God or something, gave it to you. That's kind of the whole point. Seriously, it's like you don't understand how society or politics works at all or something, and have stopped trying at grade school.


Oh, how I've been saying this for quite awhile...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#101 Feb 25 2013 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Irrelevant.

To who? You? You're the one trying to make me say "oh noes! Not the First Amendment!!". Sorry, but it doesn't wash because they're two separate things and you can't seriously compare the two or some hypothetical restrictions.

Quote:
And yet, I assume you would not accept a government mandate that required everyone to install and maintain video surveillance of themselves continually fed to the government on the off chance that someone might plan to commit child sacrifice.

I'd be okay with registering all the devout servants of Moloch who plan to sacrifice children though.

Quote:
And as a matter of degrees, while you could make the argument that we might be a safer society with gun registration and much more stringent controls and ownership rules, we would be a less free society as well. I'd rather live in a more free society instead of a more safe society.

That's fine. I'd rather live in one where children's corpses aren't cashed checks for your Second Amendment freedoms but, hey, you have your priorities and I have mine.

Edited, Feb 25th 2013 9:35pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Tasera, TirithRR, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (31)